Pic related Mike Israetel (PhD) is 5'6", 260lbs, and takes enough drugs to kill a thoroughbred, yet rambles on about:
>stimulus to fatigue
and other scencey-souding crap as if that's what really matters.
Meanwhile there are bodybuilders who know fuck all about that and have just as good physiques.
It's hard to take any of these people seriously, knowing that they rely on exogenous hormones, dangerous fat burning chemicals, and other supplements, all of which were probably synthesized in a bathtub in China.
Should you just ignore all frauders? Even PhDs like Israetel?
Pic related Mike Israetel (PhD) is 5'6", 260lbs, and takes enough drugs to kill a thoroughbred, yet rambles on about:
Pic related was the pic he chose for Insta to show him as a natty.
Easily north of 20% bf.
You can tell Israetel would probably be obese if it weren't for steroids and lifting.
why does he look so fat
>why does he look so fat
It's funny, even when he's relatively lean, he still does look kind of fat, as if his true nature shines through the false aura created by his massive drug usage.
He's just not very lean. Having tons of LBM can be deceptive because you can be 10% BF and still have a chubby face due to total bodyfat
Start at 150lbs 10% bf, add 95lbs of LBM and 5lbs of fat > end up 9.2%
But your face will look slightly fatter because that fat has to go somewhere and unlike the rest of your body, there's no added muscle mass to make the area look leaner with striations and vascularity
lbm is a cope for obese powersharter that underestimate their bf% by 15%, you can find lots of them in /plg/ bragging about 35 FFMI while being obese with 19" fatceps (15" after cut)
I agree with you. I used to always believe some posters actually had these huge arms, now I’m benching 300 and my arms are just barely above 15 inches (15.22). So either these guys claiming 18+ inch arms are all benching in the 500s or they are all delusional with fatceps. I already know what’s more likely.
benching is a chest exercise dyel and will not be alone antiquate to build bigger arms. benching a heavy weight like that is simply your muscle becoming more use to lifting heavy weight which it doesnt really need size to do especially within the range you are lifting little guy. Thats why you train for hypertrophy a lot but mix some strength in if you want. thats why people shit on 5x5 because you end up benching a shit load but have twig arms. learn to train
edit: meant to say starting strength but 5x5 works as well.
Are you retarded? You probably bench literal half what I do. You are “training” for hypertrophy when you get stapled by anything over 200 pounds.
My point was simply that most fatso vastly overestimate their real arm measurements, as you can see by their bench press. Triceps are 2/3s of the arm, and no matter how many curls you do with the pink weights you still are going to be a bitch with skinny arms.
You are also show just how ducking dyel you are by talking about starting strength when talking about 3 plate benches. Literally how long have you been lifting weights, less than a month?
dyel its clear you have no idea how to train as you said yourself your arms are barely 15 inches you have no idea how any of this works child. thats why you are benching 300lbs with twig arms. its a chest exercise and simply your big chest muscle becoming use to pushing a lot of weight over time and it doesnt need size. Also benching 300lb is really nothing especially with 15 inch noodle arms that you claim to have. its also even more useless and easy to achieve once on test.
Ok so we’ve established you don’t even Lift, but you talk out of your ass like the typical gay on IST who doesn’t even work out. If it is literally nothing, why do I see 90% of dudes bench less than me in my commercial gym? And guess what, the people stronger and bigger than me aren’t going around talking about “starting strength” when we’ve all been lifting for years. Way to embarrass yourself. Post arms and bench if you are so confident then.
well since you are clearly delusional enjoy your 14 inch arms dyel (which is the true definition of a dyel by the way ) (do you even lift) which is what i and many others would ask when they see you walking around on the street. btw your bench wouldnt do anything in a fight your noodle arms would succumb my sexy arms woman love to hang on lol
Dyel cope. You're a skinny bitch guaranteed
so are you seeing how you admitted your arms are 14 inchs though so you are insulting yourself now?
go search on tbh type in tiny tim or something maybe if you will find when i posted arms dont care now since you are delusional as shit.
How am I delusional I’m not going to go on a goose chase with some gay who literally doesn’t even fucking lift. You’ve been on fit to much where you think arguing with me who’s telling the truth by lying to me you can “win” some internet argument.
Here are some facts: Most people don’t have 18 inch arms unless they are fat or they are competitive bodybuilders or powerlifters, and they all have impressive bench numbers. People who actually Loft also don’t go on rants about 5x5 or starting strength. One of the stronger guys at my gym actually got a 380 lb bench simply by doing 5x5, but you never actually talk to people at the gym because you’d rather argue retarded shit on the internet instead of lift.
no one is going to read this dyel spazz post bro ive grown tired and not having fun anymore. enjoy your 14 inch arms that you yourself claim to have which shows you dont know how to train or what you are doing.
post body or kill your self. Remember, YOU made a fool out of yourself by getting confused in your larp story because you don’t lift. So either post proof or die.
You are only embarrassing yourself dyel
This is the guy who’s calling me dyel btw. “Tiny Tim” is literally just some obese gay with 0 (zero) muscle. You probably get stapled by 1 plate.
You look even worse than I thought,
I'm obese too but at least I look better than that from lifting
That’s because you actually Lift weights.
This “300 is nothing” guy is literally completely untrained.
Get mogged squirt
when are you posting your skelly body mate?
Who are you even arguing with? Your literally just an average sedentary obese person with his shirt off.
time doesnt equate to experience or how good you are at something as you can see your arms are still 14 inchs because you know fuck all about training. Many people train to compete for sports for ages and still cant get into a professional league whereas someone who trained for 2 years can. why? because one of them isnt delusional and knows how to actually train
>benching 300lb is nothing
Bro lmfao post your body I gotta see this shit. You can't fucking claim this without some kind of evidence to back this up, you're so fuckin silly dude
well as you said you have 14 inch arms but bench 300lb so as you stated i would have to bench 600lbs or something to have big arms or something? 225 can easily be hit by most dyels that consistently train bench that are on fucking starting strength so 300lbs really isnt anything and then if you add basic tiny amount of trt on that ? lol you really dont know anything which explains why you yourself have 14 inch arms.
I never said shit itc bro, I just gotta see the guy who claims a 300lb bench "isn't shit". I'm sure I'm way smaller than you and I admit that.
most people are going to be bigger than you since you think benching 300lbs is going to help your arms or it will magically make you grow buff?
Post the body my friend what do you have to lose
His whole larp lmao, hes just a fucking dyel like most people here.
Not him but yeah you're gonna need to post body.
>would probably be obese if it weren't for lifting
but he does lift retard
wow, Dr. garden gnome looks great in this pic!!
is he REALLY natty in it?? Im not saying its unachievable, im just doubting he wasnt already blasting when he took that pic.
because had he achieved it naturally he'd know to treasure that physique and slowly cut fat from there.
As his curse he's lost his hair.
Fuck you Dr. garden gnome
His neuroticism and piercing voice is so annoying.
You're gonna have a really hard time synthesizing anything in a bathtub bro. Guarantee they use normal glassware.
The most important question is why westreners think periodization is some sort of "scencey-souding crap". It's easy and usefull concept which you can use from the start. Read like 5 pages from Tudor Bompa's book "Serious strength training"
He has death tier genetics
>getting on stage when you're that bloated and disgusting looking
what a disgrace
this is completely embarrassing, especially for a guy supposedly as autistic about everything related to bodybuilding as he is
he's not even 10% bodyfat, why would he ever compete like this?
WTF Jason Genova looks better than this.
He's never been able to get remotely lean naturally, and even when running a massive drug stack, that pic related is apparently as lean as he can get.
Meanwhile he makes videos about how to lose bodyfat, as if he's an authority on the subject, despite looking like an unconditioned, obese powershitter most of the time.
Seems like you have no idea what the difference between body fat and body water is. He just looks bloated as fuck.
he has bottom tier genetics for muscle separation. like his muscles are all one contiguous blob. it's not just a water or bodyfat issue.
That might very well be true but that is truly 100% genetic. The guy I was replying to was saying that Mike was stepping on stage with >10% bf which is beyond retarded. Steroids make some people hold water like crazy.
I do like bodybuilding but imagine ruining your health to look like that
kek, he's so short, what is he 5'10"?
Advice on that channel seems to be good, and he's not dogmatic at all.
Lifting is just trying out shit for yourself. Learn the basic methodology and science, and tweak everything for your own means.
I am breaking the holy "never hit the same muscle directly or indirectly two days in a row", because I am doing upper/lower with back on lower day and a fifth upper day.
Will it fuck me up or hamper me? Don't know, will find out.
it depends, if they're talking about recovery then yeah pretty much. THEIR recovery is different, THEY can train effectively with less diminshing returns because they're on 750mg test and 250mg tren. unfortunately there's not much you can do as a natty. the answer has stayed the same for ages: just lift 3-4 times a week, try to progress in bench/dl/OHP/squat (either weight or reps), eat enough calories+protein and the rest is just your genetics. actually regarding aesthetics, I'd say your genetics matter A LOT than most people cope. no amount of lifting will make your chest symmetrical, no amount of lifting with make your hip bones narrower, or change your muscle insertions. it always seems surreal to me that people shit on people's routines on IST. some guy posts his body with a "weak" chest (he has a strong bench, it's just that he has a chest gap and vertically short insertion points where the pecs connect to the upper ribs). and everyone starts telling him he's benching wrong, when it's fucking obvious to a non-retard that he just got dealt shitty cards (regarding insertions). are people that stupid or are they usually trolling? I'll never know.
they just talk shit because they aint shit, or jealous
>Should you just ignore all frauders?
I love Dr. Mike y'all can eat a bag of dicks his advice is great
He's not a fucking real doctor. He's got some meme PhD and call himself Dr Mike
Dr. Mike sounds like a good guy
>he thinks the title of doctor is for bros who work in a hospital
kekking at your low status
lol this guy looks like absolute shit
I really wish I could seperate people into the category of " just eats real food and lifts weights" so their natty advice and physiques would be something I could learn from
these days every retard is on something and all the advice is questionable, you have no idea if you are doing good or bad for a natty.
gymcels and gays trying to overcomplicate shit so they can keep making content and a living off of it.
consistantly exercise doing something you find enjoyable, look to progressively overload to make progress, eat high quality nutricious food, eat less calories if your fat, there ya go. Along with Drugs(which come with their own drawbacks) and genetics(out of your hand) thats 99%. maybe 1% is all this other bullshit that geeks obsess over.
also chest muscle is pretty big so again the size you do gain from benching is added to your chest for the most part and again its just your big chest muscle becoming use to lifting heavy weight and doesnt need to grow huge to bench 300 lbs
Why would I listen to advice from a cheater
All of his training advice is placebo and his PhD was diet related and his thesis was on protein utilization. He's worth listening to about diet but he's not some unfallible authority on training.
>All of his training advice is placebo and his PhD was diet related and his thesis was on protein utilization.
I, too, make up stuff on the internet sometimes.
I don't think he's a fraud, since he is open about his steroid use.
>I don't think he's a fraud, since he is open about his steroid use.
>At least he admits to frauding unlike Greg ("I was full natty whoops haha failed a drug test it must've been a mistake with the test haha but I'm only on TRT so all my records count")
Let's be real here.
He admits to using gear only because he's 5'6", 260+ lbs. To deny it would insult the intelligence of even his dumbest viewer.
So he admits to using gear, but is deliberately coy about how much and which gear he uses, probably b/c he's afraid if people knew just how much gear he's running (and has run), they would have less confidence in the information he presents, and assume his gains were just due to gear (which they basically were).
He’s literally posted his cycles in his YouTube videos. He’s not coy about it at all.
>Let's be real here. If he would be a different person, he would act differently.
he completely overcomplicates growing muscle and the complexities of training
lifting weights is not that fucking complicated, especially on gear. do a lot of sets close to failure for the muscles you want to grow. 90% of getting ifbb pro fuck huge is the diet and roids
At least he admits to frauding unlike Greg ("I was full natty whoops haha failed a drug test it must've been a mistake with the test haha but I'm only on TRT so all my records count")
Is it genuinely over for manlets? Nobody respects me even though I lift and look buff because I’m short (5’7), if I cut people will say I’m way too small, if I bulk I’ll be fat and even then only like 180lbs without being obese.
Manlets always look comical with sizeable arms it just doesn't look aesthetic at all no matter how good they look
>Meanwhile there are bodybuilders who know fuck all about that and have just as good physiques.
There is this little thing called genetics which determine 100% of your results..
He's a completely autistic fag. I saw his video on how "going to failure is broscience"
It's 5 minutes of rambling about "if you're 1 or 2 rep from failure, the results will be virtually the same"
He doesn't understand colloquials, the whole "harder than last time" and "going to failure" is just saying "you need to push yourself" because people are really bad at judging their abilities, and most of them stop 3 to 5 reps before failure thinking they're at failure.
And he looks like shit and take winstrol in his asshole.
For the OGs here, he's just 2020's Harsh
hypertrophy isn't that stringent, which is why there are tons of ways to induce it. You don't need to go to failure, volume is more correlated with hypertrophy than going to failure is. Failure can actually be detrimental to hypertrophy because you may put yourself into a situation where you aren't recovering enough from it. It's far better to have 2 less strenuous workouts than to have 1 really strenuous workout.
Go to bed Mike
>volume is more correlated with hypertrophy than going to failure is
Okay, so let's say I do a routine A with 16*8 40lbs biceps curls per week, that means 5120 lbs total biceps curl volume per week
Now lets do a routine B with 6*8 100 lbs biceps curls per week, that's 4800 lbs total biceps curl volume per week
Which one will produce more gains ? Routine B, because despite being less volume, it's not pussy weight, pussy weight means junk volume.
high volume doesn't mean shit if you're not close to 1 or 2 RIR
By the way, your graph is about frequency, a topic nobody brought up, retard.
>Which one will produce more gains ? Routine B, because despite being less volume, it's not pussy weight, pussy weight means junk volume
Routine B will acutely cause more fatigue, and will not be able to be consistently followed over a long period of time. Routine B will also focus more on strength gains, which will not specifically grow muscle.
>By the way, your graph is about frequency, a topic nobody brought up, retard.
And this shows you have no idea what you're talking about. Clearly the same concept can be applied to individual training days where fatigue was taken to such an extent that the amount of recovery you've set aside to do the training day again is inadequate. It's not a graph that only shows frequency, it's a graph that underlies the physiology of gains. The fact that you can't understand this shows you've done zero research into exercise science and hypertrophy which makes you a poor source for information.
>high volume doesn't mean shit if you're not close to 1 or 2 RIR
citation needed, no study shows this, you're just talking out of your ass.
Everything you said is wrong, amazing.
>Routine B will acutely cause more fatigue, and will not be able to be consistently followed over a long period of time.
3*8 biceps curls on monday and 3*8 biceps curls on thursday create too much fatigue ? do you even lift ? serious question
>Routine B will also focus more on strength gains, which will not specifically grow muscle.
we're entering borderline retard territory here mate
>It's not a graph that only shows frequency, it's a graph that underlies the physiology of gains
Its a graph that shows frequency, and how you should rest, We're talking about total volume over a week, not how many workouts per week, you could have the same volume per week by training everyday or twice a week, don't be retarded it's not the subject, of course you need rest days for hypertrophy.
>no study shows this
actually they do, just look up the dr mike video I was talking about in my first post, dickhead
also pic related, same hypertrophy results if you use 80 % of your 1RM or 30% of your 1RM if you train to failure,
but almost no hypertrophy if you use 30% of your 1RM and keep reps in reserve.
Keep in mind that you can have the same weekly volume by using 80% or 30% 1RM, but the results will vary a shitload if you don't go to failure, which you seems to advocate.
Pretty sure you're a retarded landwhale that finds himself excuses to workout soft, good luck with that
>3*8 biceps curls on monday and 3*8 biceps curls on thursday create too much fatigue ? do you even lift ? serious question
volume is too low, you won't see maximal hypertrophy gains with this lifting protocol. This is why I said the fatigue is too much, requiring too much recovery. You don't seem to understand even basic principles here. 6 sets a week is very low volume.
3 sets of 8 reps done twice a week is not a hypertrophy focused regimen.
>Its a graph that shows frequency, and how you should rest, We're talking about total volume over a week, not how many workouts per week
Volume and frequency are intimately related. Again, you're just showing how little you know. It's a graph that shows the underlying physiology of muscle gain. Your example of 6 sets a week of biceps clearly elucidates my point here that you don't know what you're talking about.
Your graph is disingenuous. At very low loads, it does require that you go closer to failure, but this is not the case for higher loads at 50-60% 1 rm. I was expecting a low quality answer such as this and you didn't disappoint.
>Pretty sure you're a retarded landwhale that finds himself excuses to workout soft, good luck with that
It is FAR FAR easier to work with heavier loads than to work with lighter loads, as you fight off the effects of metabolite buildup and accumulated eccentric damage. Lighter load training focuses entirely on the muscle and activating it, which induces much more hypertrophy than strength training, which focuses on lifting the weight.
Higher reps also cause much more caloric burn per workout. Again, you show you have no idea what you're talking about.
>Lighter load training focuses entirely on the muscle and activating it, which induces much more hypertrophy than strength training, which focuses on lifting the weight.
Not in the argument but this has been my experience with higher rep work. Used to do FAHVES and all I got was strength+joint pain.
Luckly I enjoy BB style training more so I do that now and my muscle has grown.
what a mess lmao
>Higher reps also cause much more caloric burn per workout
we talking cardio now ? lol
>3 sets of 8 reps done twice a week is not a hypertrophy focused regimen.
did I ever said ONLY do this exercise ? it was a quantifiable example to prove my point about volume, load and failure. of course 3*8 biceps curl is not a whole workout, jesus christ.
Also nice dodging, you went from "this creates too much fatigue" to "this is not enough to create hypertrophy" you're just babbling nonsense with a lot of words but you're not fooling anyone.
>Volume and frequency are intimately related
no, you can do high frequency but low volume, and a lot of volume but low frequency.
By the way, the word your chimp brain is looking for is INTENSITY.
>Your graph is disingenuous
"me not like science when science shows i'm retarded" >:(
>training light is HARD dude
go jog or something, lardass
This study shows that resistance training to muscle failure or non-failure is similarly effective in promoting increases in muscle hypertrophy, strength, pennation angle and fascicle length, while also resulting in similar muscle activation in trained individuals.
You're retarded. Stop talking.
I didn't contradicted you on that, I contradicted you on : "volume is more correlated with hypertrophy than going to failure is"
your study shows that participants trained at 75% 1RM load and the non failure group stopped 2 reps before failures, pic related, failure group 12 reps, non failure 10 reps.
no wonder 2 reps didn't have any statistically significant changes.
Going close to failure is WAY more correlated with hypertrophy than volume.
A little thing called "junk volume" exists, and that's most likely how you train, you know, that's when you lift a thousand time a light weight and thing "ooooh i can feel the brun, i'm so tough with my 2 lbs dumbells"
No, volume is better than failure. This is even elucidated by the study. The participants that went to failure gained similar muscle than those that didn't, which means that failure isn't that important for muscle growth.
"The average results showed that both training protocols were similarly effective in inducing increases in strength and muscle hypertrophy gains. However, individual analysis data suggest that NMF protocol with equal volume may promote similar or even greater muscle hypertrophy (vastus lateralis) and muscular endurance performance when compared with MF protocol"
>close to failure
You can get optimal muscle gains 3-4 reps before failure, this is from the leading experts in muscle hypertrophy, Andy Galpin and Brad Schoenfeld.
I also like how you changed your position from training to failure to training close to failure, nice goalpost shifting.
I didn't change anything, you can't read either, or remember things.
in my original post I was saying that Mike making a 5 minutes video for 2 reps over a colloquial like "go to failure" is autistic as fuck.
no goalpost shifting here, read again
"high volume doesn't mean shit if you're not close to 1 or 2 RIR"
Never said "failure or nothing" but you're strawmanning hard here.
Just said that you must be around failure to elicit hypertrophy, and that it's a better metric than volume, which doesn't mean anything since you can lift a thousand times a 2lb weight, that's a lot of volume, but zero hypertrophy.
also you don't even read the study you posted
>No, volume is better than failure. This is even elucidated by the study.
At ZERO POINT this study says this. NOWHERE. The study just says failure or 2 RIR have no significant statistical differences.
hard sets does not mean training to failure or even close to failure, this is the point. You keep trying to argue in extremes, this is why you're retarded.
Doing more hard sets is more correlated with hypertrophy than doing less failure sets, the biggest reason why is you can't put in the volume for optimal muscle growth. This has been studied and objectively shown, you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about and the only way you can win is by misrepresenting the information.
In rereading your original post, doing 6 sets a week is not conducive to muscle growth, it is more conducive to strength training. You have no concept of muscle hypertrophy. In your example, the 16 set week would likely lead to more gains, especially over time, as 10-20 sets a week is what is optimal for muscle growth. 6 sets a week is too low for volume. There are metabolic changes that need to happen to muscle in order for it to grow.
The closer you are to failure, the more you need to recover and the less volume you can do. This is why bro splits are stupid.
okay i'll stop replying because I think i'm arguing with a literal down syndrome guy. you can't remember what i wrote from one post to another.
>In rereading your original post, doing 6 sets a week is not conducive to muscle growth
"did I ever said ONLY do this exercise ? of course 3*8 biceps curl is not a whole workout, jesus christ."
you're not getting the point of anything i'm saying and can't even remember what I said. You're either really mentally challenged or an alcoholic or on drugs or something.
Typing long sentences to muddy the waters won't hide that fact, sorry bro
>Doing more hard sets is more correlated with hypertrophy than doing less failure sets
moving a 10lbs dumbell a thousand times until it burns is not a hard set, mate, and it's not correlated with hypertrophy at all, you're just lying and you won't find any study to support this.
I don't think you understand what volume means.
also keep posting variants of the same studies. That won't help you, we already discussed that 10 minutes ago but you probably don't remember.
>moving a 10lbs dumbell a thousand times until it burns is not a hard set, mate, and it's not correlated with hypertrophy at all, you're just lying and you won't find any study to support this.
Many studies on this, in fact, it's a fucking law in exercise physiology. You honestly have no clue what you're talking about whatsoever.
>no results found
congratulations, you posted something that have nothing to do with the discussion, you're officially retarded !
What’s the point of defeating some shitty strawman example? Nobody is doing 16x8 of anything.
Compare 5 sets of 10 at 70% of your max with 10 sets of 5 with 80% of your max and as long as you are progressing weights regularly it’s not obviously clear which is better.
16x8 over a week you fucking mongrel
Your example still doesn’t make sense because nobody includes per set reps in weekly volume. The total rep set balancing is implied. Nobody compares more with less sets of the same reps in a week. No wonder I didn’t read it correctly, because nobody would compare volume this way.
And literally nobody is doing sets of 5 with weight they could do for more than double the weight.
Like every low iq subhuman, youre literally just doing the old spiel of false premise-> truth. Why don’t you come back when you’re actually trying to argue a real point.
I was talking about weekly volume, because weekly volume is what matters.
don't be mad at me, be mad at your cunt mother that didn't teach you how to read.
I literally explained to you how you being low iq and deliberately confusing made that misconception happen. Nobody writes 16x8 as “weekly volume” because this doesn’t even make sense. There’s a big difference between one workout of 16 sets or 4 workouts with 4 sets each.Yet 16x8 “weekly” doesn’t even tell you which it is. But you probably don’t even lift so you dont even know this. Just like how nobody is doing sets of 8 with 45 lbs when they can do 8 reps with 100.
You don’t lift, so why are you even trying to argue about training parameters?
you're just crying even more, mate
Great reply gay, have a nice day. You made a retarded claim, got called out by multiple people and now all you’re left with is responding with retarded shit like this.
no, it's quite funny to see you explain why you're a simpleton, and doubling down with another post saying why you couldn't read properly (because you're too retarded) please continue
Ok, so since you don’t have anything substantial to say I win by default. But I’m sure your big and strong so you don’t care about winning arguments on the internet anyway 🙂
“Never play chess with a pigeon.
The pigeon just knocks all the pieces over.
Then shits all over the board.
Then struts around like it won.”
Says the pigeon. You are seething instead of telling me why 16x8 of 30% of “weekly volume (Kek) is worth discussing.
You are weak and know nothing about training, and, being cognitively impaired, couldn’t even possibly make any coherent arguments anyway.
I’m going to listen to a guy who has a phd and is jacked rather than some gay who can’t even understand volume/intensity/frequency.
>still babbling about his reading comprehension
have a nice day gay. Subhumans like you need to be exterminated. You don’t know shit about hypertrophy or strength, so you All you do is post garbage.
Everyone knows you can get jacked doing high volume non failure training, you just don’t because you are retarded.
bait but anyway,
if this was at all the case then bros in gyms across the world would actually look like they lift. Why don't they? Because they don't go to failure, they assume well i just did some curls so my biceps must grow, and next month i might add two reps to that so i'm overloading no moron go to fucking failure and give your body a strong stress signal to adapt to
Hypertrophy programs are still difficult, like 10x10 supersets, but you aren't lifting at the limit of your strength. It's about time under and tension and tearing the muscle down.
it's not good to think about it as time under tension, there are three ways muscle grows
mechanical overload (adding more weight)
Metabolic overload (adding more reps, more sets, more frequency, less rest between sets)
muscle damage (stretching the muscle under load, funny enough there's a lot of evidence showing superior gains focusing entirely on eccentric lifting, and cadence in studies is usually 113, 1 second concentric 1 second hold at peak of lift, 3 second eccentric)
Time under tension can give a false sense of progression because you can keep a muscle under tension for a long period of time but still not get any gains because you're not challenging it enough metabolically.
If you fulfill any of these three, you are building muscle. Endurance and strength training require more attention to be paid to your program and aren't idiot proof. Hypertrophy is pretty idiot proof in that you will gain muscle if you succeed in fatiguing your muscle sufficiently. You may not gain significant strength or endurance even if you put in your best effort.
"Going to failure" isn't a colloquial, it's a piece of advice given out that makes people more injury prone. Dr. Mikes video is just pointing out the fact that you don't have to go to the edge to make gains.
it is for most normies though, not internet autists like here, most people underestimate their reps in reserve.
His content is good, and the shittier your genetics are the more effort you have to put in to find things that works.
I just take some of what he says, try it, and see if I like it or not.
Dont you jealous natties have better things to do than seethe here? Like lifting like an autist and making 1.5 lbs musclegains per year yet never dripping below 15% bf.
Would a natty's advice be any different than his?
>Non-public dissertation from East Tennessee State
I literally only do 4 compounds for too many sets and somehow virtually all of IST, all of the celebrity bodies they post, and the influencers they obsess over look worse than me.
Post body then
If you're roided to the gills, dole out super serious scientific research about lifting and STILL look like shit, then why are you living?
Name a single top tier goat athlete that is gnomish
They aren't build for physical tasks