Видео

Whom are they reffering to when speaking about muscle swelling? (As I understand, somebody must have made claims that a huge part of muscle growth in many/most/all of the studies are due to muscle swelling.)

I 100% guarantee that I am the fattest and most under-trained viewer that you have and I am keeping it that way daggummit

Yes

Can anybody share the reference from Latella and colleagues for the 1 single set to failure study at 59:13? Thanks

42 sets It is then

Damn the intro music 🔥

Scientist discovers training by feel after 10 years

No 😎

Exactly ZERO of it is worth a damn, especially the high volume stuff until we have data on the time course for swelling. People can cite the one paper using THREE sets of bench press but ASSuming that applies to moron level volumes is not good science. But the people pushing this high volume garbage are not good scientists. They are trend followers pushing fads to generate content and keep people endlessly confused. Because while they can keep pimping 50+ sets, the real people making progress in the real world aren't doing that. It's garbage data to produce garbage content for wannabes. Prediction: all of the high volume stuff will turn out to be water shifts and the entire data set will end up being crap. I might be wrong. And I'll happily admit I am. Do you think Schoenfeld, Brigatto, Milo, Eric, Krieger and the rest of the crew will admit it when I'm right. We know they won't. Because it's only good science when it agrees with them. And you all know I'm right.

This is going to be gold!

Is it true to call more than 12 sets per muscle group per session junk volume? Or is it just an educated guess people throw around?

Some muscles are recovering faster than others. We can't make general summaries

Criminally under-viewed

💪🎯🤜

Thank you so much for this! Really love the practical tip❤

Great thumbnail, guys: "I keep coming"

What I really, really, REALLY want to know is: can someone slowly get to their max potential with lower-tier volume, or will they be stuck below their max potential forever?

Great data and explanation, thank you! Do we have any idea (even if a very rough approximation) how much drop sets should be counted towards the fractional sets framework?

Dint your own meta analysis showed an average of 6 fractional sets were the limit for a session (ignoring variation) and more sets being better for hypertrophy?

My tiny brain can't understand why the regression line doesn't portray the efficiency tiers. Sick table though.

How does the strong relationship between volume and hypertrophy square with the very marginal benefits of frequency beyond 2 sets / week for hypertrophy? Basically, can I bang out 12 sets of chest twice a week and get decent results? I feel like the junk volume idea is somewhat overblown

I absolutely love Josh’s communication style, but I am begging you to strike “double-click” from your lexicon It gives me corporate meeting flashbacks, not to mention that gen z/alpha don’t know what a double-click is.

I listened to it on spotify in my car already, but I wasn't able to see the graphs. Now I'm watching what I missed there. Absolute fantastic work and I cannot understate how stoked I am to see this information being discussed without any paywall etc.. I tried running similar models on my own training data of 5 years. However, my statistics knowledge is not as good as yours and you're obviously working with different data. I'm really stoked to see this! 😃

This is probably the most useful piece on hypertrophy I've seen in the entire time I've been training.

the intro music always scares the living shit out of me lmao. am I getting chased by a killer?

I have a question this are fractional sets so when you say 6 additional weekly sets for direct training is it 3 sets ?

How does the efficiency of volume change based on set intensity and training status?

What a great way to start the day 👌. Thanks for reviewing the table , I’ve been a bit unclear on it when I first saw it. Could this be a way to quantify the difference in gains comparing sets per week? Could you essentially say that by doing 11-18 sets per week you get 2.05% more gains than 5-10 sets a week?

This was phenomenal, well done lads ;)

Once you know what you’re doing and have been lifting for years, frequency doesn’t matter. There is simply far too much evidence around the gym that puts all studies to shame. The jacked guy on a bro split wouldn’t have magically made more gains if he’d worked a muscle more frequently. I think it’s one of the dumbest debates in fitness. Possibly a good argument for it in your first 3 years or so to build skill, mind muscle connection etc.

Ditto. Awesome episode, but they all are really!

No idea about human physiology it seems.... muscle adapts to intensity, not to volume. Period. 1 set is enough. 2 sets are too much. Not train that muscle again until adaptation growth process is over. Typically 7-10 days.

Working my way through these, from ep. 1 back up to the 5hour podcast. Amazing work, quality conversations. DDS has restored my faith in evidence based training!

Soo, if i can train each body part once per week with high volume etc. 12-15s I would better results with this approach than training body part 2-3 times per week but with 10set per week Higher volume gives me more results than modereate volume (2-3times per week) even if i training once per week?

Good video but what if you are passed 50,should you train a muscle once a week or twice?

It depends.

2-3 sets per muscle @ 0 RIR done 2 x week has been a game changer for me.

Something I have been thinking about a lot lately is how double progression is just a fallacy when considered in the constraints of RPE. Your told with double progression to add reps until you reach the top of the rep range, then add weight, rinse and repeat. Yet, to me when considered in the context of RPE it makes no sense as there will be sessions where you cant even get close to the rep range or even lift the same weight you did the session prior and vis versa there woll be sessions where the weight is is as light as anything and you need to use s heavier load just to get into the rep range. So why even bother with double progression if RPE is what matters.

I recently figured that training legs several days in a row actually feels really good to me, for example if the first day I focus on deadlifts and the second day I go into quad focused squats, I can actually get a better connection because I am already sore in the hammies but my legs in general just feel it better after being activated the day before. I know it doesn't make sense and you should usually rest but as I don't have to train upper body a lot, I recover pretty well?

I can do any distribution of work with high effort, except if my lower back has built up too much fatigue. Just how my body is, there's a tipping point where I'm just not squatting again until lower back has more days off. So I could absolutely hammer my quads on leg extension or hamstrings on leg curl even when sore if I wanted to. But if my lower back is too tired, there's no way I can do any compound that loads it, even if variations, even if much lighter loads.

Ive noticed that when i work every muscle group around twice a week, i can physically recover from that, but strength and rep progression is kinda slow. But when i work out everything once per week, the next week im usually up by, sometimes, multiple reps per set. Do you think im recovering only from soreness at twice a week, but at once per week im also performance recovered? If this was your experience, what would you make of it?

Plz make the conversation more clearly set reps rest between sets frequency

Heavy compounds, at my age, aint happening 3x a week. There's zero point and not enough recovery.

You mentioned that someone wouldn't enjoy training hamstrings 4x per week, but I do and love it. I HATE having a leg day. I would much rather have a full body program and train legs a little bit every single day than have an their dedicated day to it

Excellent advice. The editing on this one is great. Loving the text at the bottom and next to the video.

Good points, thank you

Give us more on block periodization and progression strategies for powerbuilding

Dear Joshua, with 39 studies done with trained individuals, I would like to know why you included the 28 studies with untrained individuals. Wouldn't it be better to analyze the two scenarios individually, which is better for a trained and an untrained individual?

hey...why you also dont sell some programmes? I think that you are doing amazing jobs but to be honest...when someone want to apply your knowledge etc and its not scienctist...I think it could be nice if you just for example sell some programmes and people can see how you apply it in real training

Y