Science being “wrong” is a good sign. Science isn’t about, “I am always right” it is about finding out what is right. Testing and documenting every variable. Performing repeat tests with slight variations and comparing results. Be wary of those who tell you to not be skeptical and to just trust.
@@terminator2348 Don’t think is is me being a smart ass. This is a genuine question. What is stopping you from devising a better test? I don’t have the knowledge to do that. You seem to though. The great thing about this too is you can access every research done and can critique how you think it could have been performed better. If you do, I look forward to the peer review.
Exercise science specifically is VERY limited so wouldn’t take this advice too serious until studies in trained adults adapted to the training style examined in the study
@@djb1634exercise science is seen as being rather “Mickey Mouse” in academia, and despite the passion of those who are involved in the undertakings of the best studies and meta-analyses that are to our avail, the funding just isn’t there to optimize the viability of these projects. It’s not a shortage of ideas; it’s a shortage of funding and interest.
@@youokaybuddyfitness i have made a lot of progress recently by swapping out lifting weights with dropping them. On my feet. My feet are getting bigger by the day and once they're not swollen anymore, they're so much flatter and wider that its not even worth comparing before/after. Amazing stability, feels like walking on painful sheets of paper
I'm on board with the large protein intake and prolonged anabolic response... but I'm gunna say there's an upper limit only because I've been to a rodizio and made the restaurant staff cry. 🤣 Protein hangover is a thing! 🤣
When will you restock the lemons on Amazon? I've been waiting a very long time to buy lemons but they are supposedly currently unavailable. I tried buying lemons from another seller, but there were no lemons inside the box I received, just a small man who kicked me and laughed at me but no lemons. Please, Mr. Dr. Pak, restock the lemons so I can finally have a lemon, life does not give me lemons and I am getting desperate out here for lemons.
I’ve been doing long length yielding isometrics for several months now. Even if they’re not superior for hypertrophy, the practical benefits are worth it for me. Though I would not be surprised if they resulted in better growth due to those practical reasons!
Full ROM does not really seem "outdated" to me. Switching from bro-reps to full ROM usually means going to a more stretch, which we already knew is better. And the next step also makes perfect sense - let's stay at a better part of the rep instead of going to a less good part. Though I doubt many non-professionals would train like that because it's really awkward
@@psycholars1 It is awkward in my opinion because it's harder to control and probably harder to do as well and overall feels different. Though I never tried to go full sets like that, only a couple last reps after failing full ones. Overall there can be reasons not to go full ScIeNcE if you are just a casual gym goer. But you might be right and I might be wrong in my estimation that most people won't do this. Also is it 10% though? Aren't you gonna to have more of those half-reps?
@@yefremjr The stretched position can be very different for different movements and feel more or less hard. As an example, the stretched position for a dumbbell benchpress is at the bottom position where you usually fail. To just do reps in that position before failure is really hard. The stretched position for the lat pulldown is in "the easiest part" where you never fail. You fail at the bottom position (contracted) and can then continue at the top position.
Doctor Pak could you make a few tier list videos for exercises that runners of all kinds should do (everything from explosive Sprints to ultra pro plus Max marathon running) because who better to give us a concise view on the sports science literature regarding athletics and maybe other Olympic events too
Not to put too fine a point on it, but science is not looking for the truth. Science is looking for the best model that explains everything we currently observe, and make predictions about things we have not yet discovered ("if model X is accurate, then we should expect to find Y at some point"). This makes it really easy to change ones mind in light of new evidence. Nothing is considered "true", just best current understanding.
AAAAAAAaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa, can we just please contain the metaphysical debateeee to philosophical discussions? Especially that your argument while well-intended is is double-edged. For example the geocentric theory was *more* accurate than the heliocentric one when it was first published and it took like 100 years between Copernicus and Newton to make heliocentric theory more plausible. Furthermore without concept of truth you have no reason to change your understanding since it cannot be false as well. So what you want to get rid of is a certain attitude connected with a belief in truth that actually betray the truth and not the concept of truth itself. The only reason to get rid of the concept of truth is that you find it too metaphysical but then all historical attempts at getting rid of metaphysics failed and ended up in paradoxes (check out the paradox of induction and try understanding it correctly, it is not about the fact that induction may be mistaken) on one hand and on another we have a solid formalism to explain what truth is (a semantic property of language). So what you should complain about is rather the belief in unified and absolute conception of the world but this conflict doesn't cause any issues to the concept of truth (since two sentences made true by two incommesurable concepts of the world [such as biological sentence explaining the movement of my hand and psychological sentence explaining it in as intention of grabbing the glass of water] can both be true and the issue is about the relationship of those two truths without invalidating any of those two). For a good literature try reading: 1. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions by Thomas Kuhn 2. Truth and Truthfulness by Bernard Williams 3. On Truth by Simon Blackburn 4. The Semantic Conception of Truth: and the Foundations of Semantics by Alfred Tarski 5. Truth and Meaning by Donald Davidson 6. What is this thing called Science? by A.F. Chalmers 7. Proofs and Refutations by Imre Lakatos 8. For and Against Method by Paul Feyerabend and Imre Lakatos 9. Laboratory Life: the Social Construction of Scientific Facts by Bruno Latour 10. Are Methodologies Theories of Scientific Rationality? by Curtis, R. C email me (yea the email is just wincentypukar on gmail) if you have troubles finding the pdfs
An observation I've made about the Ryan Humiston emg experiment where he examined how other muscles jumped in instead of the target muscle, is that no one has out right said that his recommendations for best exercises for each muscle group are wrong. I think it would be interesting for the science based approach team give his recommendations a go and see if they get results. (Have you seen how much bigger he's gotten over the past couple of years? He's doing something right)
For myself across two 10 week periods, I saw significant increases in size and strength when training closer to a “bro-split” weekly routine. Each muscle group was trained once per week at 14(+/-2) sets per week. My calories were kept the same at a surplus of 200 for both cycles. Exercise selection stayed the same as well. I’m glad I was able to experiment and find what worked well for me.
Regarding training frequency; while the conclusions seem clear, it would seem that certain muscle groups that have lower healing time would benefit from more frequent training while others that require longer healing time would not. The study doesn’t appear to directly address this.
I think the answer is always "when volume is equated" and most people will find they can do more volume across multiple sessions or they are at least more willing to do more volume. A little like the protein absorption study, you don't have to split the amount of protein you eat, but chugging a liter of protein pudding is less feasible. Let's you know if you are only able to do the work one day this week you aren't losing out as long as you can get the volume, kind of like you could add half a scoop to a shake if you had to snack on the go for lunch.
@@drizzt3117 again, as long as you can get in the volume. there are a host of reasons to train a body part more than once a week, but if you do three working sets tuesday/friday or six working sets just tuesday... should be the same for muscle growth. all of the reasons for being more frequent with training is about the realities of training, not the magic of frequency. Plus, I would expect there is a frequency/consistency which on average is best because of course if you're too infrequent then muscles atrophy, and there is no reason to think the seven day structure is of particular relevance to training volume. merely, if you can sustainably get more volume in, that is where the benefit is derived.
No high frequency is always better with adequate volume it always results in more effective reps theres literally a study showing that training 1 day a week but higher sets resulted in maintainance where as 1 set but multiple sessions resulted in gains@@drizzt3117
@@drizzt3117this is because muscle atrophy occurs after 48 hours so training more often stops this from happening and triggers a new growth process, this also means you are doing more effective reps as with every set you do you get diminishing returns meaning that higher frequency has a higher sfr
I would still argue that it would be better to spread a given amount of protein out through the day. The Trommelen study also showed that about 13% of the 100g injestion was incorporated in to muscle, while about 18% of the 25g ingestion was. This may not seem like very much difference, but that equates to a 38% increase is use efficiency. It would be very interesting to see a replication study to be done but add a third group which ingests 25g of protein at the start, and at the 3, 6, and 9 hour mark to compare the 25g, 100g, and 100g spread out to see how that impacts absorbrion efficiency.
25 g is a small amount that if you eat only 6 meals would mean only 150 grams per day. That is a small amount for a big man. You have to up the amount and if you do that the percentage absorbed will get smaller. In the end I think the total amount of protein rules. As long as you eat at least 3 meals per day it doesn't matter. In fact i has only been shown that at least 2 meals are better than 1.
@@Magnus_Loov 150 grams for 0.75g per pound is fine for a 200lb lean man... That's like body builder level of mass for a man. The other 99% of the population will be fine with less than that amount. 200lbs is about the average American male but the average is also an insultingly unhealthy body fat percentage. But that wasn't really the point. The point was to get the study to answer the question of which is better for overall hypertrophy. This original study put to rest the myth that you can't utilize more than 30g per meal. You could argue that 2 very large 60-100g protein ingestions, one in the morning and one at night would cover you just as well as 6 meals a day using the same amount of protein overall... But this study doesn't actually answer if that is true. It might be more cost efficient to spread out your protein intake due to higher efficiency of converting what was ingested to muscle tissue. As an example using the numbers from the study if the 100g was converted at 13% and the 25g at 18% then 13g of the 100g was used and 4.5g of the 25g was. If that was true through the day taking 25g at 0, 4, and 8 hours then 75g of protein would have 13.5g converted to muscle... More than the 100g all at once. Meaning your cost to grow would be cut by 25% for the same result.
@@soonahero Yes, that's what the study suggested. That obviously doesn't include how much turnover there was though. If you could save 25% on your protein cost for the same result, wouldn't you want to know how?
@@Snerdles the 25g metric was done on incredibly small, like 100 lbs, young men. Of course their efficiency is higher, they were undertrained and underweight. The efficiency rate is more of a BMI phenomenon than the frequency. The fastest way to put on 50 lbs of muscle is to first 50 lbs of muscle. The efficiency rate of going for 15 bmi to 18 bmi is a lot better than going from 39 bmi to 42 bmi for anyone at any training age ever
I like Dr Israetel a lot but he has tons of subscribers so Im gonna tune in to Dr Pak too because there are less 100 comments here which means a greater chance of my comments getting read and that feeds my ego af Thanks doc!
P.S.: i was technically wrong, i didnsome calculations and 17k subscribers with an average of 90kg is 1 530 000 kg which is 1530 tons so Dr Pak already has "tons" of subs, thousands of tons, in fact. Also, please do chapters in the videos!
I just control the concentric and eccentric. Just seems safer than going too quickly on either component. I just try to make sure that each set is at least 50 seconds.
6:30 acutally I heard it first from Eric Helms & Dr. Mike. There was a video form both of them where they talked about a study where participant where strapped intp torture devices stretching the calves and pec over a prolonged period of time which led to muscle growth. No lifting just stretched over an hour a day.
We’ve known that this would “work” for decades, but A) it certainly does dot work any better than conventional resistance training, B) no ethical review board would ever allow a study to test the tension and duration of strength on humans to even find the point where the stimulus would *match* that of conventional training, as it would no doubt be a form of literal torture, and C) there’s no practical way to implement this method that wouldn’t be physically and emotionally deleterious to the trainee. I know this is all rather obvious, but we wouldn’t want anyone to think they can build a torture rack at home to use as a bodybuilding bio hack lol
My new belief is to train every single function of the muscle real hard is optimal for growing that muscle. I think that's why in the past we used to believe that we need to do 30-40 sets per muscle group to maximize hypertrophy because everyone changes their tehnique without even knowing to emphasize a stronger less stimulated muscle in compound moves and so yeah, i think just focus on isolating the functions is the way to go, wich means yeah you gotta do quite a bit of volume on chest because it does so many things.
@@loganwolv3393 fxck hypertrophy, go for supertrophy Just dont forget your pacs are a lot like romantic partners: they will leave you once the relationship gets too toxic
With regards to no1 and protein absorption limit, the previous studies (showing that via protein shakes MPS maxes out with 20g of protein, and that via steaks it maxes at around 30g) were pretty straightforward. Do we now need to reject them that this new one claims something different? Why should we be skeptical towards those previous studies based on one new study, and not be skeptical of that new study based on two previous studies?
Do these studies have enough subjects in them to have statistically signficant findings? Does the metaanalysis compare studies that are truly similair, to have relevant findings or are we combining apples with oranges?
When I started my workout was like over 2 hours with rest times, volume, rep speed; could watch a whole movie. Now my work out tends to be about 30-40 minutes and my gains are way better.
Good vid. Incidentally, I discounted every one of those "truths" back in the early 2000's in when I was writing for the muscle mags and early websites , and was told I'm crazy with no scientific knowledge by the top "science" guys at the time. As for isometrics -- yeah, they work the muscle. We've known that for 100 years. (The Charles Atlas course came out in the 1920's! ) But no one ever developed outstanding muscle growth from isometrics alone. And yes, I like partials. They further stress the muscle at a time when a full rep can't be completed, so...they do something.
That first study on protein frequency is a bit misleading. It doesn’t just talk about building muscle but also protein turnover. 20-40 grams is still the soft cap for building muscle
I have days when I can manage only about 75 grams of protein but the next day I follow it up with 300 plus grams of protein... My weekly average is good but somedays I just can't eat so much chicken or egg... Am I doing it all wrong?
Is there data showing volume/frequency for lower set volumes across the week? For example 6 sets once a week v 3 sets twice a week v 2 sets done three times per week?
I've been training like this for a while now and it's been a game changer for me. I used to do 20 sets of legs in one day, that was unnecessarily brutal, now I hit em 2x a week for 10 sets each day. Much easier to maintain.
I think there is data on that, I saw it some video a few weeks ago. But even without the data, I am sure that splitting up your volume is the better option. Nobody can do product sets after a certain amount, I would say 6-10 is around the sweet spot and doing it two times instead of one time 20 seems better.
@@stephanraidl7576 Yeah, I'd interested to see whether sets split across the week achieve better results when you lower the total set volume and fatigue is completely out of the picture. I currently split upper body into 3 workouts and lower into 2, with 2-4 working sets per body part per session.
I think Mike Israetel discusses this in some of his videos, it sounds like there is clear evidence they aren’t as beneficial to hypertrophy as the concentric and eccentric part of the lift. I could be wrong on this, though, you should double check.
@@aperson6291 thing is he never mentions how much is the difference between the types. I think the difference is negligible for non elite athletes, and overcoming isometrics is different than yielding isometrics. Overcomings are gonna build your strength while yieldings are gonna be more suited for endurance (which is still a good tool in the beginning stages so you have the endurance to go through a workout)
All I can think of is the Monty Python's Flying Circus bit where the bodybuilder is doing arm vs arm isometrics until the hypertrophy inflates them so much he explodes like popped balloon.
I can't believe Dr. Pak would spike people's drinks with milk protein. What an evil man. Hugely appreciate the effort in production to make such B-rolls. Let's be fair, following current science never resulted in bad gains. It didn't result in the most optimal gains. But even knowing the science, most of us's programs don't optimise the gains but instead make it convenient and tolerable. Science doesn't tell you what to do, it tells what is. You apply the knowledge, or decide not to for other reasons. Like sports coaching often makes decisions that are very complicated for individuals, and an evidence based lifter might wonder if it makes any sense. But the science informs on averages and sports on individuals, and science informs mostly in isolation or certain context, whereas being an athlete has so many factors interfering with the training goals.
Absolutely. I think that people often imply/flat out say that science has and will significantly worsen your gains. That implication is basically just a random assumption, and a tenuous one at that. Many of the main tenets that have been established within the literature are accepted as ‘normal’ and ‘common sense’ and are not perceived as scientifically-based. Additionally, the fact that science doesn’t tell you what to do is levied as a critique/way of arguing against the value of science. It doesn’t seem like the aforementioned limitation of science actually discredits it? The ability to apply the results of a study 1:1 to your training is a misguided metric for judging science.
Isnt training 2 times per week generally noticeably superior then training 1 times per week for muscle group given that volume are the same? Not like night and day difference, but make meaningful difference.
Controlling the eccentric is primarily a safety thing, a means of reducing the peak stress on your joints and connective tissue. It's just a physics thing about the properties of bodies in motion, does that even need a study?
Yes, every bodybuilder did different things, so they are not a good conclusive metric of what's better. But so the studies lol You find me a single topic that has been clarified and I'll give you props. And evidence that going to the gym and train hard build muscle doesn't count. I don't wanna sound like a dick, I'd love to have a good answer on hypertrophy training, but the science on programming is pretty bad. Most of what advanced lifter do comes from the coaching world and a basic of biomechanic. Studies on 20 partecipant are not relevant to most of us
Didn't the first study you mentioned use Casein protein? We already knew how slowly digestible it is. It doesn't mean that if you take 200g of whey protein in the morning it will keep supplying for 24 hours. Please at least take a slightly deeper dive into these studies before making such statements. A lot of other youtubers covered this fact extensively (the ones who actually looked at the study themselves).
When it comes to growth not having any difference as long as volume is the same is just plain wrong, if that was the case then any strength athlete would do all their work in 1 blast and rest the week out. As it stands now i got 20 sets of pressing per week, if i were to set aside a day just to press and do all 20 sets, first of all by the time im 10 sets deep i would already be pretty fatigued which then means anymore sets would just have their performance decrease. Where as splitting them up in several doses allows me to come in fresh and push the most weight, and stimulate the muscles again the more you can stimulate as a natty the more growth you will see.
@@merogaro7197 As natty growth and strength are pretty much the same, and he even said for muscle and strength. If you take your 95lbs ohp to 165 you will grow A LOT, just no way about it.
i was eating once a day, naturall bodybuilding not that fake natty crap nowadays, and i was amazed on how people thing 30-40grams is some sort of limit. i was eating 180-200 in one sitting and getting bigger while laughing at, mostly people who juiced, who's muscle synthesis was 10x than of a natural guy, for the same effort put in training, i was laughing at "knowledge" those guys possesed. nowadays i laugh about 99.9% of all fitness influencer who claims natty yet trains splits. no splits will ever fill your frame (this bearded dude who talks here didnt fill out his frame even with that much bodyfat on him, because he trains splits). you need to train more frequently same muscle groups till failure or near failure. fitness industry is a whack industry only aiming to sell. not knowledge but products.
Can you make a video on if bands are worth doing for muscle gain. I might buy a band set up like the x3 since I’ll be traveling a lot for work, or would just sticking to bodyweight be more efficient
SOMETHING IS BETTER THAN NOTHING ,but bands are inferior beacuse the load it exactly yhe opposite of what is best ,yeah can you build muscle yeah sure why not its still resistance and IMO if you are travelling why not learn home workout outs
I have had a lot of success with bands using lengthened partial reps. This mostly but not entirely eliminates the force curve issue. They tend to suck tho for any exercise with a large RoM
Buy and try the bands, if you dont like them, just give them to your son, they'll be *certainly* useful for him (once he is old enough/not too old). Also i, personally, dont know ways to do rowing exercises without machines but you can do them with bands. I only do bodyweight/calisthenic stuff at home because im an absolute beginner and i'll definitely get me some bands because I need variety in exercises, even with diminished results, because keeping the trainings engaging and fun instead of boring is simply more beneficial so I dont just stop.
Revision, and even revolution, happens in the "hard sciences" as well...obviously. Consider the switch from Newtonian kinematics to relativistic kinematics. JC Maxwell, whose equations describing electromagnetic behavior, which he derived based on experiment, could be used to derive relativistic kinematics. Maxwell took a lot of shit precisely because his equations didn't show Newtonian kinematics -- folks said, that proved the equations were wrong. Nopes. Maxwell was right, Newtonian kinematics was wrong. And then there was the switch from classical to quantum mechanics. Whoo howdy, did that stir the can of worms. After a while, this seemed to flip physics and physicists to a more "everything has gone weird, so we may as well go along" attitude, with a lot more snark and humor, e.g. naming quantum properties things like "strangeness", "charm", "beauty", plucking a nonsense word out of James Joyce to name fundamental building blocks of particles -- quarks. (TBC, Gell-Mann already was using silly words similar to "quark", but came across the spelling "quark" in Finnegan's Wake, and picked it up.) But then, more recently, when one would think these past examples of "everything we know is wrong" would instill some humility or hesitation to dismiss, there was a big reaction against string theory, to the point where, when I was an undergrad physics major, in the early 70s, we were not even told about it, let alone taught anything about it, though it had been around for some while. And this was at one of the big-name science schools (not wanting to shame them).
Re #5 I feel like Dr. Mike and the full ROM people would say yes we don't know if full ROM is better for hypertrophy than long-length partials BUT we haven't seen evidence that it's significantly worse for hypertrophy and we (I think) do at least have reason to believe that it might be better for something like joint health. Is that accurate at all? Outside of hypertrophy, is there any area where we do know, or at least have reason to think, that full ROM might be beneficial over long-length partials? If we can't say that full ROM is better, can we at least say that it's not worse?
I’ve read somewhere in RUclips comments (highest level of evidence I know) that training full ROM might strengthen the tendons more uniformly compared to training only one part of the movement, this might play a role in injury prevention, also being strong from a variety of angles may be useful in real life - again no great evidence, just some thoughts.
This is exactly why I put anecdotal over scientific. I don't disregard what the science is saying but when I'm seeing things differently than what the science says I tend to believe that. Because I've known for over 20 years these five things that science is just now understanding were wrong.
"Science helps to uncover truth" Bullshit. Greek philosophers who were also scientists for some of them didn't create science, as an institution or discipline, which most people forget, to replace "truth". These are two different things. Science is important but the quest to truth is metaphysical. Science is doubt at its essence which allows to get back on previous experiences.
Eh, I'm still not loving the state of affairs and will be consuming far less fitness content from now on. Let me blow everyone's minds: 9 years ago Mike Irsaetel did a podcast interview where the interviewer asked about protein refractory periods and the number of protein boluses in a day. He replied that while there does appear to be a leucine threshold and while we don't have experiments to answer every question like that, you can easily walk through the arguments why that -- for other than very comically low meals per day or absurdly high meals per day -- the number of boluses probably doesn't matter. He ends the discussion by saying that the lower ones will have higher MPS spikes because the muscles need those spikes to make up for intervening periods of amino acid deficiency, and there isn't any overall improvement here that allows for optimization. That was NINE YEARS AGO! As in, we did NOT have the recent study on 100g protein (from 8 months ago) cited in this video. Back then, Dr. Mike was more representative of a level headed exercise scientist and not a manic youtuber. Lots of scientists knew the preceding 9 years of protein bolus obsessions wasn't holistically sound and could argue against it, but most scientists aren't youtubers who need to market any and all information available as useful optimizations. Frankly, I'm kinda sick of evidenced-based content because I'm sick of content. It's good that you change your minds, but its bad that you feel the need to create content about these specific optimization topics in the first place. Most people can do things to optimize, but it's going to be so different and heterogeneous for each person that you can't run a study on it and it wouldn't make watchable videos anyway. But since youtubers NEED to make content, they have to use what is available: research that can suggest optimizations that may be wrong or most likely just don't matter to the individual because that wasn't their limiting variable. The real optimization available to you is to experiment, including experimenting outside the narrow frame that fitness youtubers put your brain in.
Yes they rush to make videos on preprints before the studies are published in a peer reviewed journal. I will say this for Dr. Mike he actually reads the full study not just the abstract like everyone else
So let me get this straight, you don’t like that science changes and that is consistently communicated 😅? Isn’t that the whole point? Should we wait until we’re almost certain about something to communicate it? Should science just be kept within the academic community for the few that are able to understand it etc? Cmon Additionally, the level of science communication and free information at the moment is extreme. 10 years ago you barely had a meta on volume and hypertrophy, let alone THREE TRILLION free videos on training, nutrition, supps etc. I get that there’s constantly more and more content coming out but that’s not inherently a bad thing. Sure, I understand, especially since you were about 9 yrs ago, that going from THREE PEOPLE TALKING ABOUT THAT ONE STUDY to A NEW VIDEO ABOUT NEW SCIENCE everyday can be a bit fatiguing/annoying. But you’re also getting sooooooo much more nowadays. Also the whole “everyone is special and responds differently so try it on yourself and see” is literally an extremely limited meh version of science. Lastly, “JUST LIFT” is pretty clear by now. Even science confirms it to an extend. We know that you can just lift with intensity consistently for years and make gains. But many of us love lifting and want to find out more about the details behind muscle growth, strength etc, including how you can hypothetically achieve the greatest gains. But finding out is a veeery lengthy process and things change along the way. We, and by we I mean myself and very close circle, do not just “make content”. If I wanted to just “make gym content” for youtube, there are much better things to do than update you on what the latest rest meta analysis showed. We genuinely love lifting AND science and aim to communicate science to those that care about THAT side of the lifting world. All sprinkled with disclaimers, “consistently lifting is king” etc. If you don’t like consuming this sort of content, then genuinely don’t. Chances are you will still make amazing gains. But at the same time, take a step back and adjust your expectations from lifting science, because it’s understandable that you’re “disappointed” if you expect a definitive answer that won’t change over time.
@Dr__Pak Thank you for your reply. I think you have put a lot of thought into this subject. You have a lot to say and I think I now understand how justifiable feel about these other people you were referring to in your reply. With all that said: "So let me get this straight..." no, you didn't get it straight and I don't feel understood. I am going to watch less evidence based fitness content because I am getting sick of all content in general. It isn't about science content changing, although I did use that as my starting point. I think science content is helpful when the viewer knows nothing or when being provided an overly specific frame of thinking turns out to be a helpful guide. But it isn't always a helpful frame, especially as you learn more and fewer broad-based optimizations are reliable or relevant (which is how I see almost all content now). Yet I do think optimizations are still possible and I think you have to be thoughtful to get them--I did not ever say "just lift". I believe people have to experiment, including experimentation outside the narrow frame of thinking that watching content will put you in. This frame isn't just composed of objective facts, but it is also composed of patterns, tendencies, it is composed of vague things like how a person thinks about variables, and what changes they would consider vs wouldn't even occur to them, what ideas they reject out of hand, etc.. I'm not sure what "everyone is special" means, but the way you talked about it sounds like there is a version of "everyone is special" that you think is absurd. Ok, fine, I will trust you and agree. But there is a version of individuality that isn't absurd. There is a version of "hey, I got benefit from a personal trainer that gave me individualized feedback" that isn't absurd. There is a version of "the lowest hanging fruit/biggest boost for me right now is making change XYZ that is a type of change that isn't a youtube video topic". With all do respect, Dr. Pak, I do not think you understand what it is like to be a viewer & a regular person (not like yourself who has lived fitness their whole life and does it for a living). There is something both bad and good about regularly watching content, which would still be there even if the science discussed was not evolving.
Thing is,you will defend a study to the death when it comes up and treat it as some holy proof and the moment another study comes up that disproof it,you will be like "oh sometimes we are wrong sowwyyyy" and defend the new study to the death 🤦
The more studies and meta-analysis I read of exercise science, the more I realize how terrible it is. People tested and figured this all out 70 years ago, and they tested it properly. For example, rest times. All serious good bodybuilders through the years have stated that 30-60 secs rest times is best. Meanwhile the science is still lacking and saying resting as long as you need to do your set properly and no more is the best. But if you look at the studies, they either force people to use the same weight(so short rests get overall less reps and less work), or aren't maximizing the stimulus for that workout(by using completely sub maximal loads) so rest times don't matter. Ignoring the cardio benefits, the point of shorter rest is to get more sets and more work in which is a requirement as you get more advanced. Another thing is rep tempo and constant tension, a lot bodybuilders have always stood by this for a reason but exercise science cannot test this properly because you would have to control for stimulus, fatigue, and recovery. It is currently impossible using science to tell during a workout, a person has maximized their stimulus for that workout, how much fatigue they have generated and how long it would take to recover from that workout. The people pushing the limits know this is extremely individual, and have tested various methods for months on themselves and found what works and what doesn't because they are pushing the stimulus, fatigue, recovery balance to it's limit. The science lab does not push that balance to it's limit and therefore cannot be the best tool to figure out the best details on how to maximize results.
Regarding training frequency; while the conclusions seem clear, it would seem that certain muscle groups that have lower healing time would benefit from more frequent training while others that require longer healing time would not. The study doesn’t appear to directly address this.
Something else to consider is the concept of "Junk Volume". Sure, I can do 12-15 sets of chest in one day, but let's be honest, how effective were those last 5-6 sets? The first 7 sets if done with proper intensity took all I had, the last half I'm just sandbagging it. If my chest still feels fresh after 7 sets, then those sets weren't hard enough. I argue that it would be better to cut the chest workout off after 7 sets, start recovering, then hit it again after 2-3 days.
@@richardcaraballo1185 yeah, that also makes sense. I feel like modified push/pull/legs is nearly optimal if you scale the exercises to optimize SFR, then program things like biceps and side delts more frequently because they heal faster.
Science being “wrong” is a good sign. Science isn’t about, “I am always right” it is about finding out what is right. Testing and documenting every variable. Performing repeat tests with slight variations and comparing results. Be wary of those who tell you to not be skeptical and to just trust.
The way hypertrophy is tested needs to be vastly improved so that the conducted studies are accurate and "more" definitive.
@@terminator2348 Don’t think is is me being a smart ass. This is a genuine question. What is stopping you from devising a better test? I don’t have the knowledge to do that. You seem to though. The great thing about this too is you can access every research done and can critique how you think it could have been performed better. If you do, I look forward to the peer review.
Exercise science specifically is VERY limited so wouldn’t take this advice too serious until studies in trained adults adapted to the training style examined in the study
@@djb1634Money and time
@@djb1634exercise science is seen as being rather “Mickey Mouse” in academia, and despite the passion of those who are involved in the undertakings of the best studies and meta-analyses that are to our avail, the funding just isn’t there to optimize the viability of these projects. It’s not a shortage of ideas; it’s a shortage of funding and interest.
I am happy lifting weights isn't outdated yet
Yet being the operative word.
It's only when we gonna get the magic exercise pill that this is gonna be truly outdated.
@@youokaybuddyfitness i have made a lot of progress recently by swapping out lifting weights with dropping them. On my feet.
My feet are getting bigger by the day and once they're not swollen anymore, they're so much flatter and wider that its not even worth comparing before/after.
Amazing stability, feels like walking on painful sheets of paper
@@MrFakefall umm
Menno posted studies several times showing that you dont need weights, you can get the same gains just with bw training..
Faith in science gone, turning to crystals.
Fancy huh? I'm here trying to make with my divining stick
I mean if you're caliming that looking at a crystal might slightly boost your recovery i'll believe ya.
Skibidi toilet sigma ohio fanum tax goonmaxxing rizzler
I'm a Pisces. So bro splits and carnivore diet align my chakras.
Meth will never be outdated
I'm on board with the large protein intake and prolonged anabolic response... but I'm gunna say there's an upper limit only because I've been to a rodizio and made the restaurant staff cry. 🤣 Protein hangover is a thing! 🤣
When will you restock the lemons on Amazon? I've been waiting a very long time to buy lemons but they are supposedly currently unavailable. I tried buying lemons from another seller, but there were no lemons inside the box I received, just a small man who kicked me and laughed at me but no lemons. Please, Mr. Dr. Pak, restock the lemons so I can finally have a lemon, life does not give me lemons and I am getting desperate out here for lemons.
You heard him Mr. Dr. Pak! This man wants lemons, this man needs lemons, somebody give this man lemons.
Dr. Pak please restock the lemons 😢😊
Lemons are needed by this man. He needs lemons, so please give him lemons. Lemons.
Why is Dr. Pak hiding the lemons? Lemons. L emons
All restocked! Go to LEMONPARTY dot ORG to get your lemons!
Would love a study comparing higher amounts of protein like 50g vs 75g vs 100g.
I’ve been doing long length yielding isometrics for several months now.
Even if they’re not superior for hypertrophy, the practical benefits are worth it for me. Though I would not be surprised if they resulted in better growth due to those practical reasons!
Full ROM does not really seem "outdated" to me. Switching from bro-reps to full ROM usually means going to a more stretch, which we already knew is better. And the next step also makes perfect sense - let's stay at a better part of the rep instead of going to a less good part. Though I doubt many non-professionals would train like that because it's really awkward
How is it awkward? It literally takes
@@psycholars1 It is awkward in my opinion because it's harder to control and probably harder to do as well and overall feels different. Though I never tried to go full sets like that, only a couple last reps after failing full ones. Overall there can be reasons not to go full ScIeNcE if you are just a casual gym goer. But you might be right and I might be wrong in my estimation that most people won't do this.
Also is it 10% though? Aren't you gonna to have more of those half-reps?
@@yefremjr maybe so, yeah. I usually do 5 full reps, 5 lengthened partials, repeat till failure. pretty nice
@@yefremjr The stretched position can be very different for different movements and feel more or less hard.
As an example, the stretched position for a dumbbell benchpress is at the bottom position where you usually fail. To just do reps in that position before failure is really hard.
The stretched position for the lat pulldown is in "the easiest part" where you never fail. You fail at the bottom position (contracted) and can then continue at the top position.
Doctor Pak could you make a few tier list videos for exercises that runners of all kinds should do (everything from explosive Sprints to ultra pro plus Max marathon running) because who better to give us a concise view on the sports science literature regarding athletics and maybe other Olympic events too
Not to put too fine a point on it, but science is not looking for the truth. Science is looking for the best model that explains everything we currently observe, and make predictions about things we have not yet discovered ("if model X is accurate, then we should expect to find Y at some point"). This makes it really easy to change ones mind in light of new evidence. Nothing is considered "true", just best current understanding.
No, you are categorically wrong, science works its way towards the truth over time
If we have infinite evidence, then it is truth
AAAAAAAaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa, can we just please contain the metaphysical debateeee to philosophical discussions? Especially that your argument while well-intended is is double-edged. For example the geocentric theory was *more* accurate than the heliocentric one when it was first published and it took like 100 years between Copernicus and Newton to make heliocentric theory more plausible. Furthermore without concept of truth you have no reason to change your understanding since it cannot be false as well. So what you want to get rid of is a certain attitude connected with a belief in truth that actually betray the truth and not the concept of truth itself. The only reason to get rid of the concept of truth is that you find it too metaphysical but then all historical attempts at getting rid of metaphysics failed and ended up in paradoxes (check out the paradox of induction and try understanding it correctly, it is not about the fact that induction may be mistaken) on one hand and on another we have a solid formalism to explain what truth is (a semantic property of language). So what you should complain about is rather the belief in unified and absolute conception of the world but this conflict doesn't cause any issues to the concept of truth (since two sentences made true by two incommesurable concepts of the world [such as biological sentence explaining the movement of my hand and psychological sentence explaining it in as intention of grabbing the glass of water] can both be true and the issue is about the relationship of those two truths without invalidating any of those two).
For a good literature try reading:
1. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions by Thomas Kuhn
2. Truth and Truthfulness by Bernard Williams
3. On Truth by Simon Blackburn
4. The Semantic Conception of Truth: and the Foundations of Semantics by Alfred Tarski
5. Truth and Meaning by Donald Davidson
6. What is this thing called Science? by A.F. Chalmers
7. Proofs and Refutations by Imre Lakatos
8. For and Against Method by Paul Feyerabend and Imre Lakatos
9. Laboratory Life: the Social Construction of Scientific Facts by Bruno Latour
10. Are Methodologies Theories of Scientific Rationality? by Curtis, R. C
email me (yea the email is just wincentypukar on gmail) if you have troubles finding the pdfs
@@hannesgranlund8838 Does it? How do you know that?
@eyalguz6303 That is a scientist's conception of science. I approve. Take my Like.
An observation I've made about the Ryan Humiston emg experiment where he examined how other muscles jumped in instead of the target muscle, is that no one has out right said that his recommendations for best exercises for each muscle group are wrong. I think it would be interesting for the science based approach team give his recommendations a go and see if they get results. (Have you seen how much bigger he's gotten over the past couple of years? He's doing something right)
For myself across two 10 week periods, I saw significant increases in size and strength when training closer to a “bro-split” weekly routine. Each muscle group was trained once per week at 14(+/-2) sets per week. My calories were kept the same at a surplus of 200 for both cycles. Exercise selection stayed the same as well. I’m glad I was able to experiment and find what worked well for me.
Regarding training frequency; while the conclusions seem clear, it would seem that certain muscle groups that have lower healing time would benefit from more frequent training while others that require longer healing time would not. The study doesn’t appear to directly address this.
I think the answer is always "when volume is equated" and most people will find they can do more volume across multiple sessions or they are at least more willing to do more volume. A little like the protein absorption study, you don't have to split the amount of protein you eat, but chugging a liter of protein pudding is less feasible. Let's you know if you are only able to do the work one day this week you aren't losing out as long as you can get the volume, kind of like you could add half a scoop to a shake if you had to snack on the go for lunch.
@@zacharylaschober it just don’t seem logical to me because that seems to assume muscles heal at the same rate and that’s clearly untrue.
@@drizzt3117 again, as long as you can get in the volume. there are a host of reasons to train a body part more than once a week, but if you do three working sets tuesday/friday or six working sets just tuesday... should be the same for muscle growth. all of the reasons for being more frequent with training is about the realities of training, not the magic of frequency.
Plus, I would expect there is a frequency/consistency which on average is best because of course if you're too infrequent then muscles atrophy, and there is no reason to think the seven day structure is of particular relevance to training volume.
merely, if you can sustainably get more volume in, that is where the benefit is derived.
No high frequency is always better with adequate volume it always results in more effective reps theres literally a study showing that training 1 day a week but higher sets resulted in maintainance where as 1 set but multiple sessions resulted in gains@@drizzt3117
@@drizzt3117this is because muscle atrophy occurs after 48 hours so training more often stops this from happening and triggers a new growth process, this also means you are doing more effective reps as with every set you do you get diminishing returns meaning that higher frequency has a higher sfr
Spoke like a true Greek philosopher there, Dr. Pak. Karl Popper would be proud.
I would still argue that it would be better to spread a given amount of protein out through the day. The Trommelen study also showed that about 13% of the 100g injestion was incorporated in to muscle, while about 18% of the 25g ingestion was. This may not seem like very much difference, but that equates to a 38% increase is use efficiency.
It would be very interesting to see a replication study to be done but add a third group which ingests 25g of protein at the start, and at the 3, 6, and 9 hour mark to compare the 25g, 100g, and 100g spread out to see how that impacts absorbrion efficiency.
25 g is a small amount that if you eat only 6 meals would mean only 150 grams per day. That is a small amount for a big man.
You have to up the amount and if you do that the percentage absorbed will get smaller.
In the end I think the total amount of protein rules. As long as you eat at least 3 meals per day it doesn't matter. In fact i has only been shown that at least 2 meals are better than 1.
@@Magnus_Loov 150 grams for 0.75g per pound is fine for a 200lb lean man... That's like body builder level of mass for a man. The other 99% of the population will be fine with less than that amount. 200lbs is about the average American male but the average is also an insultingly unhealthy body fat percentage.
But that wasn't really the point. The point was to get the study to answer the question of which is better for overall hypertrophy.
This original study put to rest the myth that you can't utilize more than 30g per meal. You could argue that 2 very large 60-100g protein ingestions, one in the morning and one at night would cover you just as well as 6 meals a day using the same amount of protein overall... But this study doesn't actually answer if that is true. It might be more cost efficient to spread out your protein intake due to higher efficiency of converting what was ingested to muscle tissue.
As an example using the numbers from the study if the 100g was converted at 13% and the 25g at 18% then 13g of the 100g was used and 4.5g of the 25g was. If that was true through the day taking 25g at 0, 4, and 8 hours then 75g of protein would have 13.5g converted to muscle... More than the 100g all at once. Meaning your cost to grow would be cut by 25% for the same result.
Muscle incorporation isn’t the efficiency metric. What, you think you’re making dozens of grams of muscle a day?
@@soonahero Yes, that's what the study suggested. That obviously doesn't include how much turnover there was though. If you could save 25% on your protein cost for the same result, wouldn't you want to know how?
@@Snerdles the 25g metric was done on incredibly small, like 100 lbs, young men. Of course their efficiency is higher, they were undertrained and underweight. The efficiency rate is more of a BMI phenomenon than the frequency.
The fastest way to put on 50 lbs of muscle is to first 50 lbs of muscle.
The efficiency rate of going for 15 bmi to 18 bmi is a lot better than going from 39 bmi to 42 bmi for anyone at any training age ever
Will keep these things in mind , thanks Dr. Pak🙌
Another excellent video, (doctor Pak. Thank you
I like Dr Israetel a lot but he has tons of subscribers so Im gonna tune in to Dr Pak too because there are less 100 comments here which means a greater chance of my comments getting read and that feeds my ego af
Thanks doc!
P.S.: i was technically wrong, i didnsome calculations and 17k subscribers with an average of 90kg is 1 530 000 kg which is 1530 tons so Dr Pak already has "tons" of subs, thousands of tons, in fact.
Also, please do chapters in the videos!
😂
2:10 - Top-notch acting 😅
I just control the concentric and eccentric. Just seems safer than going too quickly on either component. I just try to make sure that each set is at least 50 seconds.
6:30 acutally I heard it first from Eric Helms & Dr. Mike. There was a video form both of them where they talked about a study where participant where strapped intp torture devices stretching the calves and pec over a prolonged period of time which led to muscle growth. No lifting just stretched over an hour a day.
We’ve known that this would “work” for decades, but A) it certainly does dot work any better than conventional resistance training, B) no ethical review board would ever allow a study to test the tension and duration of strength on humans to even find the point where the stimulus would *match* that of conventional training, as it would no doubt be a form of literal torture, and C) there’s no practical way to implement this method that wouldn’t be physically and emotionally deleterious to the trainee. I know this is all rather obvious, but we wouldn’t want anyone to think they can build a torture rack at home to use as a bodybuilding bio hack lol
My new belief is to train every single function of the muscle real hard is optimal for growing that muscle. I think that's why in the past we used to believe that we need to do 30-40 sets per muscle group to maximize hypertrophy because everyone changes their tehnique without even knowing to emphasize a stronger less stimulated muscle in compound moves and so yeah, i think just focus on isolating the functions is the way to go, wich means yeah you gotta do quite a bit of volume on chest because it does so many things.
@@loganwolv3393 fxck hypertrophy, go for supertrophy
Just dont forget your pacs are a lot like romantic partners: they will leave you once the relationship gets too toxic
With regards to no1 and protein absorption limit, the previous studies (showing that via protein shakes MPS maxes out with 20g of protein, and that via steaks it maxes at around 30g) were pretty straightforward. Do we now need to reject them that this new one claims something different? Why should we be skeptical towards those previous studies based on one new study, and not be skeptical of that new study based on two previous studies?
Mostly due to the methodology employed in the latest study
"Seems" is a good word to insert.
Do these studies have enough subjects in them to have statistically signficant findings? Does the metaanalysis compare studies that are truly similair, to have relevant findings or are we combining apples with oranges?
Iltam Zumra rashupti ilatim
No, they don't. No, they don't.
Honestly not that deep bro
Alexander bromley been real silent since this dropped
It has been two hours bro
@@Agnes135 exactly, he is clearly off his game
🗣🗣🗣🗣(who the fuck is that)
@@ziwuri a crusader, saving us from the exercise scientists who seek to k1ll our gains
A potato sack physique giving bodybuilding advice @@hayesdelezene4590
When I started my workout was like over 2 hours with rest times, volume, rep speed; could watch a whole movie. Now my work out tends to be about 30-40 minutes and my gains are way better.
Your workout was really shitty before. Training volume still is one of the most important factors when it comes to hypertrophy
The REAL DOCTA!
Yep
People question my bro split until they see my physique. I don't even argue with them, anymore.
What is your bro split ?.
@@markaguilera493 chest triceps, back biceps, legs, shoulders, legs 2
Good vid. Incidentally, I discounted every one of those "truths" back in the early 2000's in when I was writing for the muscle mags and early websites , and was told I'm crazy with no scientific knowledge by the top "science" guys at the time. As for isometrics -- yeah, they work the muscle. We've known that for 100 years. (The Charles Atlas course came out in the 1920's! ) But no one ever developed outstanding muscle growth from isometrics alone. And yes, I like partials. They further stress the muscle at a time when a full rep can't be completed, so...they do something.
Thank you for educating me. I will only do quarter squats from now on. #Science
Το καλύτερο κανάλι του κόσμου
The best Chanel of the world for hypertrophy
Είμαστε περήφανοι 🇬🇷💪
Italy better lil bro 🇮🇹🇮🇹🇮🇹🇮🇹
I think some people take the science stuff too seriously especially when it comes to gimmick exercises
When I hear 'gimmick exercise', I can only think of Joel Seedman.
That first study on protein frequency is a bit misleading. It doesn’t just talk about building muscle but also protein turnover. 20-40 grams is still the soft cap for building muscle
I was about to comment Ryan hunniston is mad about the emg trash talk, and then you used clips of him 😂😂
I have days when I can manage only about 75 grams of protein but the next day I follow it up with 300 plus grams of protein... My weekly average is good but somedays I just can't eat so much chicken or egg... Am I doing it all wrong?
Is there data showing volume/frequency for lower set volumes across the week? For example 6 sets once a week v 3 sets twice a week v 2 sets done three times per week?
I've been training like this for a while now and it's been a game changer for me. I used to do 20 sets of legs in one day, that was unnecessarily brutal, now I hit em 2x a week for 10 sets each day. Much easier to maintain.
I think there is data on that, I saw it some video a few weeks ago.
But even without the data, I am sure that splitting up your volume is the better option. Nobody can do product sets after a certain amount, I would say 6-10 is around the sweet spot and doing it two times instead of one time 20 seems better.
@@stephanraidl7576 Yeah, I'd interested to see whether sets split across the week achieve better results when you lower the total set volume and fatigue is completely out of the picture. I currently split upper body into 3 workouts and lower into 2, with 2-4 working sets per body part per session.
what about an OMAD (one meal a day) for muscle protein synthesis?
And what about isometrics pushing against an inmovable object? Are they hypertrophyc? Same or worse than dynamic? Are there enough studies?
They are safe and hypertrophic. Though i dont know how it compares.
I think Mike Israetel discusses this in some of his videos, it sounds like there is clear evidence they aren’t as beneficial to hypertrophy as the concentric and eccentric part of the lift. I could be wrong on this, though, you should double check.
@@aperson6291 thing is he never mentions how much is the difference between the types. I think the difference is negligible for non elite athletes, and overcoming isometrics is different than yielding isometrics. Overcomings are gonna build your strength while yieldings are gonna be more suited for endurance (which is still a good tool in the beginning stages so you have the endurance to go through a workout)
All I can think of is the Monty Python's Flying Circus bit where the bodybuilder is doing arm vs arm isometrics until the hypertrophy inflates them so much he explodes like popped balloon.
I can't believe Dr. Pak would spike people's drinks with milk protein. What an evil man. Hugely appreciate the effort in production to make such B-rolls.
Let's be fair, following current science never resulted in bad gains. It didn't result in the most optimal gains. But even knowing the science, most of us's programs don't optimise the gains but instead make it convenient and tolerable. Science doesn't tell you what to do, it tells what is. You apply the knowledge, or decide not to for other reasons. Like sports coaching often makes decisions that are very complicated for individuals, and an evidence based lifter might wonder if it makes any sense. But the science informs on averages and sports on individuals, and science informs mostly in isolation or certain context, whereas being an athlete has so many factors interfering with the training goals.
Absolutely. I think that people often imply/flat out say that science has and will significantly worsen your gains. That implication is basically just a random assumption, and a tenuous one at that. Many of the main tenets that have been established within the literature are accepted as ‘normal’ and ‘common sense’ and are not perceived as scientifically-based. Additionally, the fact that science doesn’t tell you what to do is levied as a critique/way of arguing against the value of science. It doesn’t seem like the aforementioned limitation of science actually discredits it? The ability to apply the results of a study 1:1 to your training is a misguided metric for judging science.
Isnt training 2 times per week generally noticeably superior then training 1 times per week for muscle group given that volume are the same? Not like night and day difference, but make meaningful difference.
Only if your volume is so high that your last sets are shit. You're stronger in the first half.
@@Borzogo I think the is the best reasoning for higher frequency, it's just a tool to avoid junk volume due to fatigue.
Controlling the eccentric is primarily a safety thing, a means of reducing the peak stress on your joints and connective tissue. It's just a physics thing about the properties of bodies in motion, does that even need a study?
Hey @Dr__Pak, what are the current science backed indicators/measurements of hypertrophy?
Most reliable is MRI, less useful options would include ultrasound or DXA.
Isnt there new data that says more frequency is better
Yes, every bodybuilder did different things, so they are not a good conclusive metric of what's better. But so the studies lol You find me a single topic that has been clarified and I'll give you props. And evidence that going to the gym and train hard build muscle doesn't count. I don't wanna sound like a dick, I'd love to have a good answer on hypertrophy training, but the science on programming is pretty bad. Most of what advanced lifter do comes from the coaching world and a basic of biomechanic. Studies on 20 partecipant are not relevant to most of us
Im getting motion sick
Please take a seat dont walk
Didn't the first study you mentioned use Casein protein? We already knew how slowly digestible it is. It doesn't mean that if you take 200g of whey protein in the morning it will keep supplying for 24 hours. Please at least take a slightly deeper dive into these studies before making such statements. A lot of other youtubers covered this fact extensively (the ones who actually looked at the study themselves).
evidence BASED
When it comes to growth not having any difference as long as volume is the same is just plain wrong, if that was the case then any strength athlete would do all their work in 1 blast and rest the week out. As it stands now i got 20 sets of pressing per week, if i were to set aside a day just to press and do all 20 sets, first of all by the time im 10 sets deep i would already be pretty fatigued which then means anymore sets would just have their performance decrease. Where as splitting them up in several doses allows me to come in fresh and push the most weight, and stimulate the muscles again the more you can stimulate as a natty the more growth you will see.
It's hypertrophy we are talking about.
@@merogaro7197 As natty growth and strength are pretty much the same, and he even said for muscle and strength. If you take your 95lbs ohp to 165 you will grow A LOT, just no way about it.
Huge?.. How huge?... Can you eat 100g of protein 3 times a day?...
The anabolic window?
i was eating once a day, naturall bodybuilding not that fake natty crap nowadays, and i was amazed on how people thing 30-40grams is some sort of limit. i was eating 180-200 in one sitting and getting bigger while laughing at, mostly people who juiced, who's muscle synthesis was 10x than of a natural guy, for the same effort put in training, i was laughing at "knowledge" those guys possesed. nowadays i laugh about 99.9% of all fitness influencer who claims natty yet trains splits. no splits will ever fill your frame (this bearded dude who talks here didnt fill out his frame even with that much bodyfat on him, because he trains splits). you need to train more frequently same muscle groups till failure or near failure. fitness industry is a whack industry only aiming to sell. not knowledge but products.
Sonic Boom Records!
Can you make a video on if bands are worth doing for muscle gain. I might buy a band set up like the x3 since I’ll be traveling a lot for work, or would just sticking to bodyweight be more efficient
SOMETHING IS BETTER THAN NOTHING ,but bands are inferior beacuse the load it exactly yhe opposite of what is best ,yeah can you build muscle yeah sure why not its still resistance and IMO if you are travelling why not learn home workout
outs
No Matter what happend don't listen to the comments. Not even me. Evry Fitness commentator IS a Scientist now days.
I have had a lot of success with bands using lengthened partial reps. This mostly but not entirely eliminates the force curve issue. They tend to suck tho for any exercise with a large RoM
Bands are not great because they are easiest in the stretched position but of course they can be better than nothing. Perhaps do heavy partials
Buy and try the bands, if you dont like them, just give them to your son, they'll be *certainly* useful for him (once he is old enough/not too old).
Also i, personally, dont know ways to do rowing exercises without machines but you can do them with bands.
I only do bodyweight/calisthenic stuff at home because im an absolute beginner and i'll definitely get me some bands because I need variety in exercises, even with diminished results, because keeping the trainings engaging and fun instead of boring is simply more beneficial so I dont just stop.
I don't have faith. Religious people do.
Revision, and even revolution, happens in the "hard sciences" as well...obviously.
Consider the switch from Newtonian kinematics to relativistic kinematics. JC Maxwell, whose equations describing electromagnetic behavior, which he derived based on experiment, could be used to derive relativistic kinematics. Maxwell took a lot of shit precisely because his equations didn't show Newtonian kinematics -- folks said, that proved the equations were wrong. Nopes. Maxwell was right, Newtonian kinematics was wrong.
And then there was the switch from classical to quantum mechanics. Whoo howdy, did that stir the can of worms. After a while, this seemed to flip physics and physicists to a more "everything has gone weird, so we may as well go along" attitude, with a lot more snark and humor, e.g. naming quantum properties things like "strangeness", "charm", "beauty", plucking a nonsense word out of James Joyce to name fundamental building blocks of particles -- quarks. (TBC, Gell-Mann already was using silly words similar to "quark", but came across the spelling "quark" in Finnegan's Wake, and picked it up.)
But then, more recently, when one would think these past examples of "everything we know is wrong" would instill some humility or hesitation to dismiss, there was a big reaction against string theory, to the point where, when I was an undergrad physics major, in the early 70s, we were not even told about it, let alone taught anything about it, though it had been around for some while. And this was at one of the big-name science schools (not wanting to shame them).
"Fak" on a wall baaaaabyyyyyyy 😂
It's hard to argue w a gymnasts body.
Frequency doesn't matter? So instead of doing 156 sets of curls all year I can just get them all done in a day and rest all year? Thanks Science!
Yup! Exactly as stated on the video!
great
the gymbros were right all along 😂
Gainz are killing your gainz, bro ! 😅😅😅
Re #5 I feel like Dr. Mike and the full ROM people would say yes we don't know if full ROM is better for hypertrophy than long-length partials BUT we haven't seen evidence that it's significantly worse for hypertrophy and we (I think) do at least have reason to believe that it might be better for something like joint health. Is that accurate at all? Outside of hypertrophy, is there any area where we do know, or at least have reason to think, that full ROM might be beneficial over long-length partials? If we can't say that full ROM is better, can we at least say that it's not worse?
I’ve read somewhere in RUclips comments (highest level of evidence I know) that training full ROM might strengthen the tendons more uniformly compared to training only one part of the movement, this might play a role in injury prevention, also being strong from a variety of angles may be useful in real life - again no great evidence, just some thoughts.
Full ROM means you have mobility in various muscle lengths as well. That is just better for life
"Science" = religion of gravity
"Quantum" Mechanics - REAL EXPLAINATION:
ruclips.net/video/8EUy_82IChY/видео.html
HOLY BUCKETS
This is exactly why I put anecdotal over scientific. I don't disregard what the science is saying but when I'm seeing things differently than what the science says I tend to believe that. Because I've known for over 20 years these five things that science is just now understanding were wrong.
Plato likes
For the love of gains, do not give any attention to 20 year olds on tiktok.
"Science helps to uncover truth"
Bullshit. Greek philosophers who were also scientists for some of them didn't create science, as an institution or discipline, which most people forget, to replace "truth".
These are two different things.
Science is important but the quest to truth is metaphysical.
Science is doubt at its essence which allows to get back on previous experiences.
Eh, I'm still not loving the state of affairs and will be consuming far less fitness content from now on. Let me blow everyone's minds: 9 years ago Mike Irsaetel did a podcast interview where the interviewer asked about protein refractory periods and the number of protein boluses in a day. He replied that while there does appear to be a leucine threshold and while we don't have experiments to answer every question like that, you can easily walk through the arguments why that -- for other than very comically low meals per day or absurdly high meals per day -- the number of boluses probably doesn't matter. He ends the discussion by saying that the lower ones will have higher MPS spikes because the muscles need those spikes to make up for intervening periods of amino acid deficiency, and there isn't any overall improvement here that allows for optimization. That was NINE YEARS AGO! As in, we did NOT have the recent study on 100g protein (from 8 months ago) cited in this video. Back then, Dr. Mike was more representative of a level headed exercise scientist and not a manic youtuber. Lots of scientists knew the preceding 9 years of protein bolus obsessions wasn't holistically sound and could argue against it, but most scientists aren't youtubers who need to market any and all information available as useful optimizations. Frankly, I'm kinda sick of evidenced-based content because I'm sick of content. It's good that you change your minds, but its bad that you feel the need to create content about these specific optimization topics in the first place. Most people can do things to optimize, but it's going to be so different and heterogeneous for each person that you can't run a study on it and it wouldn't make watchable videos anyway. But since youtubers NEED to make content, they have to use what is available: research that can suggest optimizations that may be wrong or most likely just don't matter to the individual because that wasn't their limiting variable. The real optimization available to you is to experiment, including experimenting outside the narrow frame that fitness youtubers put your brain in.
Yes they rush to make videos on preprints before the studies are published in a peer reviewed journal. I will say this for Dr. Mike he actually reads the full study not just the abstract like everyone else
So let me get this straight, you don’t like that science changes and that is consistently communicated 😅? Isn’t that the whole point? Should we wait until we’re almost certain about something to communicate it? Should science just be kept within the academic community for the few that are able to understand it etc?
Cmon
Additionally, the level of science communication and free information at the moment is extreme. 10 years ago you barely had a meta on volume and hypertrophy, let alone THREE TRILLION free videos on training, nutrition, supps etc. I get that there’s constantly more and more content coming out but that’s not inherently a bad thing. Sure, I understand, especially since you were about 9 yrs ago, that going from THREE PEOPLE TALKING ABOUT THAT ONE STUDY to A NEW VIDEO ABOUT NEW SCIENCE everyday can be a bit fatiguing/annoying. But you’re also getting sooooooo much more nowadays.
Also the whole “everyone is special and responds differently so try it on yourself and see” is literally an extremely limited meh version of science.
Lastly, “JUST LIFT” is pretty clear by now. Even science confirms it to an extend. We know that you can just lift with intensity consistently for years and make gains. But many of us love lifting and want to find out more about the details behind muscle growth, strength etc, including how you can hypothetically achieve the greatest gains. But finding out is a veeery lengthy process and things change along the way.
We, and by we I mean myself and very close circle, do not just “make content”. If I wanted to just “make gym content” for youtube, there are much better things to do than update you on what the latest rest meta analysis showed. We genuinely love lifting AND science and aim to communicate science to those that care about THAT side of the lifting world. All sprinkled with disclaimers, “consistently lifting is king” etc.
If you don’t like consuming this sort of content, then genuinely don’t. Chances are you will still make amazing gains. But at the same time, take a step back and adjust your expectations from lifting science, because it’s understandable that you’re “disappointed” if you expect a definitive answer that won’t change over time.
@Dr__Pak Thank you for your reply. I think you have put a lot of thought into this subject. You have a lot to say and I think I now understand how justifiable feel about these other people you were referring to in your reply. With all that said: "So let me get this straight..." no, you didn't get it straight and I don't feel understood. I am going to watch less evidence based fitness content because I am getting sick of all content in general. It isn't about science content changing, although I did use that as my starting point. I think science content is helpful when the viewer knows nothing or when being provided an overly specific frame of thinking turns out to be a helpful guide. But it isn't always a helpful frame, especially as you learn more and fewer broad-based optimizations are reliable or relevant (which is how I see almost all content now). Yet I do think optimizations are still possible and I think you have to be thoughtful to get them--I did not ever say "just lift". I believe people have to experiment, including experimentation outside the narrow frame of thinking that watching content will put you in. This frame isn't just composed of objective facts, but it is also composed of patterns, tendencies, it is composed of vague things like how a person thinks about variables, and what changes they would consider vs wouldn't even occur to them, what ideas they reject out of hand, etc.. I'm not sure what "everyone is special" means, but the way you talked about it sounds like there is a version of "everyone is special" that you think is absurd. Ok, fine, I will trust you and agree. But there is a version of individuality that isn't absurd. There is a version of "hey, I got benefit from a personal trainer that gave me individualized feedback" that isn't absurd. There is a version of "the lowest hanging fruit/biggest boost for me right now is making change XYZ that is a type of change that isn't a youtube video topic". With all do respect, Dr. Pak, I do not think you understand what it is like to be a viewer & a regular person (not like yourself who has lived fitness their whole life and does it for a living). There is something both bad and good about regularly watching content, which would still be there even if the science discussed was not evolving.
dyde i beg you trim that mustache
Three brainy, brawny beards.
“A gorified blogpost?!
It was self-deprecating humour.
Also, Dr. Pak, is that a shirt you sell? A) it's awesome, and b) gotta help feed the hungry muscle-scientists. :)
Why source stock b-roll when you can record it yourself?!😂 love it
Thing is,you will defend a study to the death when it comes up and treat it as some holy proof and the moment another study comes up that disproof it,you will be like "oh sometimes we are wrong sowwyyyy" and defend the new study to the death 🤦
The music is distracting.
"Faith in science" is an oxymoron
The more studies and meta-analysis I read of exercise science, the more I realize how terrible it is. People tested and figured this all out 70 years ago, and they tested it properly. For example, rest times. All serious good bodybuilders through the years have stated that 30-60 secs rest times is best. Meanwhile the science is still lacking and saying resting as long as you need to do your set properly and no more is the best. But if you look at the studies, they either force people to use the same weight(so short rests get overall less reps and less work), or aren't maximizing the stimulus for that workout(by using completely sub maximal loads) so rest times don't matter. Ignoring the cardio benefits, the point of shorter rest is to get more sets and more work in which is a requirement as you get more advanced. Another thing is rep tempo and constant tension, a lot bodybuilders have always stood by this for a reason but exercise science cannot test this properly because you would have to control for stimulus, fatigue, and recovery. It is currently impossible using science to tell during a workout, a person has maximized their stimulus for that workout, how much fatigue they have generated and how long it would take to recover from that workout. The people pushing the limits know this is extremely individual, and have tested various methods for months on themselves and found what works and what doesn't because they are pushing the stimulus, fatigue, recovery balance to it's limit. The science lab does not push that balance to it's limit and therefore cannot be the best tool to figure out the best details on how to maximize results.
You have read 0 studies or meta analyses bro stop the 🧢
lol - what a wall of BS
Drink raw eggs. Rocky figured it out 48 years ago. Keep broing, bro.
Oh people deny God because "science". You dont look so flawless now 😅
Regarding training frequency; while the conclusions seem clear, it would seem that certain muscle groups that have lower healing time would benefit from more frequent training while others that require longer healing time would not. The study doesn’t appear to directly address this.
Something else to consider is the concept of "Junk Volume". Sure, I can do 12-15 sets of chest in one day, but let's be honest, how effective were those last 5-6 sets? The first 7 sets if done with proper intensity took all I had, the last half I'm just sandbagging it. If my chest still feels fresh after 7 sets, then those sets weren't hard enough. I argue that it would be better to cut the chest workout off after 7 sets, start recovering, then hit it again after 2-3 days.
@@richardcaraballo1185 yeah, that also makes sense. I feel like modified push/pull/legs is nearly optimal if you scale the exercises to optimize SFR, then program things like biceps and side delts more frequently because they heal faster.