You discovered something important. 95% of people don‘t. I train for over 30 years. Trust me if I tell you, don‘t split bodyparts. Split strenght and cardio. Leave at least 6 hours between the two.
@@wod-science or just do the wod science programming, because they know stuff like that. Greetings to big G, the best programmer and corn advisor. Greetings PB
Good video! However, I'm confused why the results of the study, particularly about muscle atrophy, are a novelty, since the conclusion seems quite obvious. What was the general consesus on the topic in academia before this paper was published?
Somethimes the 'obvious' needs to be proven before we can approve (or disprove) the 'bro'science :). The general consensus was that this was never actually proven. I could imagine people tought that non-recuited muscles would at best not gain any size, but the fact that this study shows that some muslces can actually decrease in size is definitely novel.
@@wod-science no worries, I thought I would comment asap so you could get all the benefits Love your channel btw. I have been using the intervals you mentioned for oxygen delivery and utilization and my vo2 max has increased while RHR and RR have both decreased (RHR by 6bpm).
Absolutely - this is for rather untrained individuals. Once you train multiple days per week you can add 10-50% to that number! The 36 kcals is based on the study explained.
Nice video, however this seemed like common sense. If you dont recruit a muscle and have insufficient protein the body will take protein from muscles not being used.
I love how you put the plant in the background. Very pretty ;)
That is about all the home decoration skill I have :)
Since stopped training the entire body and split training by "body parts", the problems began.
You discovered something important. 95% of people don‘t. I train for over 30 years. Trust me if I tell you, don‘t split bodyparts. Split strenght and cardio. Leave at least 6 hours between the two.
Excellent advice
@@wod-science or just do the wod science programming, because they know stuff like that.
Greetings to big G, the best programmer and corn advisor. Greetings PB
Good video! However, I'm confused why the results of the study, particularly about muscle atrophy, are a novelty, since the conclusion seems quite obvious.
What was the general consesus on the topic in academia before this paper was published?
Somethimes the 'obvious' needs to be proven before we can approve (or disprove) the 'bro'science :).
The general consensus was that this was never actually proven. I could imagine people tought that non-recuited muscles would at best not gain any size, but the fact that this study shows that some muslces can actually decrease in size is definitely novel.
@@wod-science Makes sense. Thanks for your reply
Build muscles is the second most energy intensive process .. which is the most intensive process?
I'm curious as well, I thought Gommaar would hit us with some trivia.... NO
hello gang 🙋🏼♂
The brain uses the first most, I believe
This would be sodium-potassium (Na+/K+) pump.
:( the link for the survey doesn't work
Fixed, thanks!
@@wod-science no worries, I thought I would comment asap so you could get all the benefits
Love your channel btw. I have been using the intervals you mentioned for oxygen delivery and utilization and my vo2 max has increased while RHR and RR have both decreased (RHR by 6bpm).
When you say >36kcal/KG how much training are you suggesting for this metric? Surely energy output is highly individualistic
Absolutely - this is for rather untrained individuals. Once you train multiple days per week you can add 10-50% to that number! The 36 kcals is based on the study explained.
Nice video, however this seemed like common sense. If you dont recruit a muscle and have insufficient protein the body will take protein from muscles not being used.
Yeah, potentially, but it was surprising to me that some muscles actually decreased in size (volume). This was never shown before.
The eternal skinny calve problem finally explained 🥲