Why the FRICK does this guy have to over complicate everything?
>uhh you arent making gains because you have too much volume!
>uhh you arent making gains because you have uhhh too little volume!
>uhh you arent making gains because you are exerting yourself too much!
>uhh you arent making gains because you arent pushing yourself enough!
self conflicting advice is what powers the entire industry
Exactly. Lifting is a very, very simple thing that was solved long ago. 5 to 15 reps, 2 to 3 times a week, 10 to 20 total sets, compounds preferred, choose weights so the final reps are tough, adjust to taste.
That's it. That's the entire billion dollar fitness advice and "tips" industry. There's nothing else to it, food/supplements - I mean that's a different topic and in some ways just as bs.
The entire multi-billion dollar industry is literally just that. Frank Zane's book, Schwarzenegger's book, I don't give a shit - watch someone on youtube doing a tried and trusted movement and copy them.
He gives off autistic vibes. Like actual autistic vibes. Not what IST calls autistic
you're too stupid to understand
stick to mentzer, it'll be easier for you
It would make sense more if he didn't use dozens of acronyms no one else's uses or pointed to more abbreviated sources. I think he tries to be overly specific because most sources aren't and leave some interpretive space which works for a lot of people and if you're into science lifting you've probably failed other simpler lifting advice. Also probably to avoid the obvious plagerism.
he doesn't over complicate things, if anything he's breaking down factual information from white pages in a way that can be understood by an average person. You're really only demonstrating that you're intellectually less than average by making this post complaining about it
he wants to assert himself as an authority figure in the lifting community by confusing gym noobs and midwits
>frick, this guy's saying big words; i have no idea what he's saying
>this means that he is an expert with advanced knowledge, i need to listen to him
+1 customer
also, as other anons say, he doesn't actually overcomplicate the concepts and procedures he talks about, he just uses advanced terminology to describe relatively simple concepts
dude has a PhD in yapology, sheesh!
Hes a israelite
He is an insecure dude playing an alpha character
Watch his early stuff he is a completely different person
mike if you ever come to IST and see this stupid shit just ignore it like im sure you do anyway, you're legitimately the only fitness youtuber I give the time of day to, keep pumping out the badass content and disregard these frickwits.
1. He's moronic
2. He has decent enough genes and roids a lot so imagines he knows his shit
In reality. Fatigue-Stimulus ratio doesn't matter. Deloads are only necessary if you overtrain and need to recover from poor exercise technique (such as those Israetel practices), or if you're putting a lot of load on your CNS such as training for a power lifting competition.
There is no reason to change your exercises ever. In fact, you only need on exercise per major muscle group with only a few exceptions (i.e. delts require ate least two exercises to train all heads). Sometimes you don't even need a dedicated exercise from some groups such as obliques and glutes depending on your exercise selection.
It is correct that extreme volumes and RIR are detrimental. Any more than one set to failure cuts into your recovery and most people, especially those like ~~*Israetel*~~, have no clue as to where failure is so they have no clue as to how many RIR they have. Hence everyone who uses RIR has too many RIR. Either you go to failure, or you don't know how many RIR you have.
You don't need to focus on load and progression since it will be slow unless you're trying to spend a month putting on 50 lbs to your squat for a power lifting meet. Progression from muscle growth will be slow for most people in general outside of the beginner phase. Progression is just a way of tracking muscle growth through relative strength gains otherwise.
>He has decent enough genes
lol, he's 5'0 and is definitely not carried by his genes
>you only need on exercise per major muscle group with only a few exceptions
this is a terrible suggestion, there's definitely benefits (outside of purely hypertrophic) to having different exercises in your routine that hit the same muscle/muscle group
>Sometimes you don't even need a dedicated exercise from some groups such as obliques and glutes depending on your exercise selection.
you could apply this thinking to every muscle that contributes to a compound movement
chin ups could count as part bicep volume, but you're always going to benefit from having direct bicep work (if you want to grow them)
unless you want to argue semantics about opportunity cost for doing exercises
>Either you go to failure, or you don't know how many RIR you have
we know through so many studies that people can accurately predict their RIR within 1 rep, this isn't some hoodoo fricked broscience, people aren't entirely moronic
>You don't need to focus on load and progression since it will be slow
so if I do 3x10 3RIR with the same weight forever, I'll gain muscle?
>lol, he's 5'0 and is definitely not carried by his genes
When I say decent enough genes, I'm referring to his ability to build muscle.
>this is a terrible suggestion, there's definitely benefits (outside of purely hypertrophic) to having different exercises in your routine that hit the same muscle/muscle group
In reality there are only one or two good exercises per muscle group. Everything else is just a variation. If you are exercising correctly, that is you are training to failure in each exercise with good form and a relatively slow cadence as to eliminate all momentum, then you will be recruiting all of your muscle fibers in the muscle group for most muscle groups. Hence you do not need more than one exercise for that muscle group.
>you could apply this thinking to every muscle that contributes to a compound movement
No. You cannot apply this most of the time. The glutes and obliques are only a couple of the few exceptions to this, the other being the anterior deltoids which receive a large stimulus from an incline press (especially at 45 degrees). Squats, though obviously a quad dominate exercise, use the glutes almost as heavily if you are properly using hip drive. Similar is true for deadlift variations where glutes are just as significant movers as the hamstrings. So for a routine with standard backsquats and deadlifts, you do not need a separate glute exercise. If you were doing only leg extensions and
>chin ups could count as part bicep volume
Chinups are a lat/rhomboid exercise just the pronated/neutral grip versions of vertical pulls. Most of the movement with proper form is done by the muscles in the back with biceps assisting. The biceps, even with the additional use from the pronated grip, do not give sufficient stimulus to grow the biceps.
>mentzer poster
post discarded
post body
>In reality there are only one or two good exercises per muscle group.
>Hence you do not need more than one exercise for that muscle group
this is reductionism, there's no one/two supreme exercises that are goated for every muscle group
sure there are ones that fit strength curves better, however, training is heavily individualised with things to consider such as: injury history, overruse injury mitigation, individual SFRs, and enjoyment
ie. leaning lat raises blow up my side delts but do shit all for you, then is this the best exercise for you?
>No. You cannot apply this most of the time.
too bad, I just did
>So for a routine with standard backsquats and deadlifts, you do not need a separate glute exercise
>The biceps, even with the additional use from the pronated grip, do not give sufficient stimulus to grow the biceps.
saying that one compound provides sufficient volume while the other doesn't is contradictory and subjective
if glutes were a priority, then you'd want to do additional glute volume
>There is zero reason to do more than one set for a muscle group
There is zero reason to do more than one set if you are exercising correctly.
lol
>the "scientists" who run those studies often don't even know what failure is and have never reached it in their life.
lol x2
>It turns out much of the official positions of licensing boards and many exercise "scientists" are entirely bro science.
lol x3
>You are not going to muscular failure hence you are severely underestimating your RIR.
so if I do 3x10 0RIR with the same weight forever, I'll gain muscle?
because that's what your post implies
Not him but I think he's saying one of the sets to failure.
Not all of the sets to failure or none of the sets to failure. Just one in given lift.
>so if I do 3x10 0RIR with the same weight forever, I'll gain muscle?
well mentzer said to do 1 maximum intensity set to failure once a week in order to get huge, and i think that's dumb, so i'm going to do the complete polar opposite to prove him wrong
join me on my journey as i do 40 work sets per muscle group per week @RPE 1.5
i'm gonna get fricking jacked brah
enjoy your sick gains
>increased stenght
high volume training directly causes enhanced motor unit recruitment, resulting in more strength
>increased size
high volume training also increases glycogen uptake in the muscles, resulting in more size
both metrics they used are deceptive, as they confused the results of what is effectively peaking, with the results of hypertrophy
high volume does not build muscle at any appreciable rate, it only ensures maximal performance of the currently existing muscle mass
this is why volumebros always hit brutal plateaus, once they max out the glycogen and ATP reception of their muscle mass, and achieve near-maximum motor unit recruitment, they stop seeing progress
meanwhile HITbros never plateau, because they never stop building muscle
a volumebro who hits +1 rep on their working sets on a biweekly basis consistently for years is much harder to find than a HITbro who has the same long term rate of progression
this is also why powerlifters plateau so hard, because their routines are purely volume-oriented
HIT is maximum for hypertrophy, i don't care how you feel, nor do i care about any naive study that makes a gym noob run a peaking program and then assumes he built any amount of muscle mass simply because his glycogen uptake and motor unit recruitment were both temporarily enhanced
it is bullshit!
do what you like the most, but understand that blindly trusting bullshit studies will lead to you becoming a lifelong intermediate volume cultist
train hard enough to grow
simple as
>lifelong intermediate volume cultist
this is a really impressive level of cope
post body
>train hard enough to grow
5-30 reps
0-3 RIR
literally don't need more
>bicep volume
There is zero reason to do more than one set for a muscle group. However, chinups cannot be used a bicep exercise unless you either modify your form to remove the lats/back enough to focus on the biceps, or to use a isolation exercise before the chinups as part of a per-exhuast superset so that the biceps will be weak enough to reach failure during chinups. However, the latter will be overtraining for most people.
>unless you want to argue semantics about opportunity cost for doing exercises
There is an opportunity cost for everything. However, there is zero reason to spend more than a couple hours each week doing exercise if you are performing the exercise properly. There is zero reason to do more than one set if you are exercising correctly.
>we know through so many studies that people can accurately predict their RIR within 1 rep
The funny thing about studies is that not only do most people not know what failure is, the "scientists" who run those studies often don't even know what failure is and have never reached it in their life. In fact, most of them don't even know how to exercise correctly as they often jerk during the motion, do not use correct form, and don't even use full rom. Why should I care what their studies say or the opinions of the equally ignorant subjects?
>this isn't some hoodoo fricked broscience, people aren't entirely moronic
It turns out much of the official positions of licensing boards and many exercise "scientists" are entirely bro science.
>so if I do 3x10 3RIR with the same weight forever, I'll gain muscle?
1. You are not going to muscular failure hence you are severely underestimating your RIR.
2. Unless you have the genetics that let you gain muscle from simply looking at weights, you will not gain muscle in the long term from improperly performed exercise.
Holy frick Lyle posts here?
This is the dumbest post I've seen here all month.
He's not over complicating it at all. He's literally breaking it all down for the dumbest denominator. If you don't understand this then like everyone else says, stick to menzter and stay small morons.
>stick to menzter and stay small morons.
strawman
>why does this guy over complicate things
At the end start or middle of every video "BUY MY BRAZILLIAN ASIAN Black person WORKOUT AND DIET PLAN NOW"
It’s not complicated at all.
If you aren’t making progress, go closer to failure. If you keep injuring yourself or it takes forever to recover, get further away from failure.
If you are not doing enough to make progress, increase volume. If you are too sore or taking too long to recover, decrease volume.
BASED
we don't want answers though, brother
we are here solely to argue against concepts that disagree with our personal world views
if you do not view volume training as the ultimate method of building mass, everything is wrong with you