So you trust the guys who couldnt get the gains naturally? Nice ok. Im sure they know what they are talking about. That said I have no idea who this israelite is either but yeah.
This is a reasonable stance. Hippocrates advised all physicians to take care of their own health and appearance, lest their patients lose confidence. He also gave the most lit weight loss advice to date (CICO, basically). I took this advice on board; I couldn't reasonably expect someone to take advice from me if I were a fat fricking degenerate, regardless of my postnominals.
>swears up and down that frequency training is the key to gains >eventually finds out he was wrong and quietly admits it, showing brosplits were "the same" if not better
That was good of him but then he's still dogmatic about everything else he spouts to get famous with. Now he's still on his magical, arbitrary number of sets with absolutely no control on what a "set" is as shown here
Honestly, now I'm just a supporter of do what you want to do as long as it's hard and let your genetics drive your growth. Do drugs if you want to look like a tumor the end.
Maximizing frequency, intensity, and duration of stimulus to meet the needs of your particular sport is always going to be an individual thing.
A study that says jumping on one leg while clucking like a chicken being better for muscle growth than playing tennis will not make you better at tennis. 3% more hypertrophy in the vastis lateralis from doing boutique brolift of the week is not going to get you a contract as an NFL linebacker. It's all pointless.
No. This dyel can't into research. All studies doing the same thing show bo difference between medium and high volume, but he is the only one who's studies do show it. Besides, he has no idea what failure is and is a total dyel.
Even all youtubers, who jumped on high volume vagon 4 years ago, all decreased their recommendations in recent years.
You practically have to add more sets if you're training like Brad; sub-optimal effort, mediocre form, and fast negatives. None of those studies control for this and hence we can assume that they're all in the manner of Brad; low quality reps and low quality sets. Of course the lower quality your reps and sets are, the more sets you need to do. And if his methods work so well, why is Brad so DYEL?
which is also a reason why you should pay attention to studies that use trained individuals that already know how to lift, and those studies show that volume is better.
>trained individuals that already know how to lift
There is no guarantee that there is any difference between them and Brad in terms of the way they train. All "trained individuals" usually means is either they've been training for a long time or they satisfy some relatively arbitrary 1RM requirements. Unless they explicitly control for failure, slow negatives, etc. then it is safe to assume they do not use them and they train just like Brad.
Mike is sucking brad's dick and has no idea what failure is.
All those studies had a very few participants and the conclusions they make can't be made. It's not that results are statistically insignificant, it's that they don't show anything.
Both brad and mike can't into statistics and spit out bs conclusions.
According to that chart you don't get anything from doing 3 sets on triceps. That's including 3 sets of bench press.
Maybe because the whole study is a bs with made up results and no control for the training?
>https://mennohenselmans.com/optimal-training-volume/
It's kinda funny how the volume studies practically show very little difference for most of the participants.
Taking a look at this again. Most people tend to respond fairly similarly regardless of volume whereas the averages and regressions might just be skewed by outliers.
Te chart shows exactly that there is absolutely no difference between medium and high volume. You are moronic if you see any difference. If you look into averages and ignore a single outlier. Then low medium/medium volume groups have a higher growth than high volume groups. That fit isn't fit at all. Just study statistics at least for one week to understand charts and data.
I'm not arguing against you with any of my posts. I'm agreeing with you and posted those to point out the problem with the studies. The the claim that the data supports more volume or higher volume are mostly due to over-performing outliers that end up in the study. The data itself does not suggest any additional benefit from high volume for most people when those outliers are removed.
3 months ago
Anonymous
I see.
I think the main problem that there is no comparison of apples to apples. Genes vary by a lot and on training program can be the optimal for one person, while tye other will be optimal for the other individual. Add to that sarms and roids and the results will be all over the place.
So the only real way to know is to try it for a couple of months and see for yourself. Some starting points like 3 sets of 12 per muscle twice per week can be used and then moving from there to find the optimal program.
The issue with guys like brad, that they get results no one else gets. Considering the number of participants, it's possible just due to variation, but not on consistent basis. All other labs show just a slight/negligible increase with higher volume (considering the extra load on joints, the juice not worth the squeeze at all. You work twice as hard for 2% extra results and no guaranteed that those 2% will be shown later). He is a fraudster that bullshited peolle into believing his nonsense. Mike israetel and jeff nippard made it popular (they later moved back on volume and significantly reduced it in their recommendations, without aknowledging their mistakes and making any apologies). While the freak Brad still continues to bullshit people with his garbage tier studies.
Seriously, remove the data left to 10 sets and make a fit in any statistical software. The curve will go down showing that more volume results in lower results. There's no correlation tho and it's very little of data.
Only trust jacked people to tell you how to get jacked
Only trust sages to teach you how to meditate
Only trust geniuses to help you become more intelligent
>bald
no
I would rather trust the fake natties at my gym. They are big guys
So you trust the guys who couldnt get the gains naturally? Nice ok. Im sure they know what they are talking about. That said I have no idea who this israelite is either but yeah.
The chapter on protein was on point and comprehensive
my criteria for listening to brodude advices on the internet is that he gotta be more muscular than me so no, and im not even that muscular.
This is a reasonable stance. Hippocrates advised all physicians to take care of their own health and appearance, lest their patients lose confidence. He also gave the most lit weight loss advice to date (CICO, basically). I took this advice on board; I couldn't reasonably expect someone to take advice from me if I were a fat fricking degenerate, regardless of my postnominals.
no
>swears up and down that frequency training is the key to gains
>eventually finds out he was wrong and quietly admits it, showing brosplits were "the same" if not better
That was good of him but then he's still dogmatic about everything else he spouts to get famous with. Now he's still on his magical, arbitrary number of sets with absolutely no control on what a "set" is as shown here
Honestly, now I'm just a supporter of do what you want to do as long as it's hard and let your genetics drive your growth. Do drugs if you want to look like a tumor the end.
Maximizing frequency, intensity, and duration of stimulus to meet the needs of your particular sport is always going to be an individual thing.
A study that says jumping on one leg while clucking like a chicken being better for muscle growth than playing tennis will not make you better at tennis. 3% more hypertrophy in the vastis lateralis from doing boutique brolift of the week is not going to get you a contract as an NFL linebacker. It's all pointless.
No. This dyel can't into research. All studies doing the same thing show bo difference between medium and high volume, but he is the only one who's studies do show it. Besides, he has no idea what failure is and is a total dyel.
Even all youtubers, who jumped on high volume vagon 4 years ago, all decreased their recommendations in recent years.
https://mennohenselmans.com/optimal-training-volume/
You're likely the one who is moronic. You should try looking at study populations
You practically have to add more sets if you're training like Brad; sub-optimal effort, mediocre form, and fast negatives. None of those studies control for this and hence we can assume that they're all in the manner of Brad; low quality reps and low quality sets. Of course the lower quality your reps and sets are, the more sets you need to do. And if his methods work so well, why is Brad so DYEL?
>None of those studies control for this
which is also a reason why you should pay attention to studies that use trained individuals that already know how to lift, and those studies show that volume is better.
>trained individuals that already know how to lift
There is no guarantee that there is any difference between them and Brad in terms of the way they train. All "trained individuals" usually means is either they've been training for a long time or they satisfy some relatively arbitrary 1RM requirements. Unless they explicitly control for failure, slow negatives, etc. then it is safe to assume they do not use them and they train just like Brad.
Mike is sucking brad's dick and has no idea what failure is.
All those studies had a very few participants and the conclusions they make can't be made. It's not that results are statistically insignificant, it's that they don't show anything.
Both brad and mike can't into statistics and spit out bs conclusions.
According to that chart you don't get anything from doing 3 sets on triceps. That's including 3 sets of bench press.
Maybe because the whole study is a bs with made up results and no control for the training?
>https://mennohenselmans.com/optimal-training-volume/
It's kinda funny how the volume studies practically show very little difference for most of the participants.
Taking a look at this again. Most people tend to respond fairly similarly regardless of volume whereas the averages and regressions might just be skewed by outliers.
Te chart shows exactly that there is absolutely no difference between medium and high volume. You are moronic if you see any difference. If you look into averages and ignore a single outlier. Then low medium/medium volume groups have a higher growth than high volume groups. That fit isn't fit at all. Just study statistics at least for one week to understand charts and data.
I'm not arguing against you with any of my posts. I'm agreeing with you and posted those to point out the problem with the studies. The the claim that the data supports more volume or higher volume are mostly due to over-performing outliers that end up in the study. The data itself does not suggest any additional benefit from high volume for most people when those outliers are removed.
I see.
I think the main problem that there is no comparison of apples to apples. Genes vary by a lot and on training program can be the optimal for one person, while tye other will be optimal for the other individual. Add to that sarms and roids and the results will be all over the place.
So the only real way to know is to try it for a couple of months and see for yourself. Some starting points like 3 sets of 12 per muscle twice per week can be used and then moving from there to find the optimal program.
The issue with guys like brad, that they get results no one else gets. Considering the number of participants, it's possible just due to variation, but not on consistent basis. All other labs show just a slight/negligible increase with higher volume (considering the extra load on joints, the juice not worth the squeeze at all. You work twice as hard for 2% extra results and no guaranteed that those 2% will be shown later). He is a fraudster that bullshited peolle into believing his nonsense. Mike israetel and jeff nippard made it popular (they later moved back on volume and significantly reduced it in their recommendations, without aknowledging their mistakes and making any apologies). While the freak Brad still continues to bullshit people with his garbage tier studies.
Seriously, remove the data left to 10 sets and make a fit in any statistical software. The curve will go down showing that more volume results in lower results. There's no correlation tho and it's very little of data.
>bald
>pink
>oily
He's literally glowing in that picture
pretty good fundamentals, no moronic shit like starting strength
He looks like a mix of Trump and Putin
Only trust jacked people to tell you how to get jacked
Only trust sages to teach you how to meditate
Only trust geniuses to help you become more intelligent
~~*Schoenfeld*~~