Carl-Richard

The effective reps are condensed into one rep. And if the worry is that it's hard to know if you could have gone harder for that one rep, if you progressively creep up towards a 1 RM through progressive overload with more than one rep, or you always attempt more than one rep even if you'll most likely fail, that problem doesn't arise. I've done 1 RM maxes like this and it made me sore as hell the next day: If you intuitively aim at your goal, I believe so. You can lift in a "hypertrophic maximizing way" that is in flow and has high intensity and it could look different from merely throwing the weight up. For example, when I do tricep pulldowns, I don't usually try to yank the rope down like I'm trying to destroy the machine. I rather try to make the burn as severe as possible. Triceps pulldowns is actually one exercise that is particularly good for the "your entire set is one rep" cue, and it is generally not a "move weight" kind of movement but rather a quite constricted and firm movement pattern.

Have you tried working in a windowless room full of mirrors? That's what Mike Israetel does and he used to struggle with ADHD.

When you're stuck making Blue comments.

Well yeah. It's interesting that when cutting like 10-20% of your calories but you keep training the same, suddenly you're in danger of losing muscle, meanwhile cutting 88% of your training volume putatively leads to zero muscle loss. In WSM 2025, 40% of the final events were max weight events. They usually sit at around 15% though in the last 20 years. But you generally have to be well-rounded to be the very best. Mariusz Pudzianowski was an anomaly. Yep. Bodybuilders are sometimes told by their coaches to cut mass to fit into a weight class that is the most aesthetically appealing for their frame. Yeah, well, that's not on me, but on the "science-based" lifters. They are the ones doing the unusual thing. Very rarely if ever in a scientific study do you see a claim at the end that says "this is the most optimal method that exists". What you usually get is just "here are the results, here are the limitations, here are some careful conclusions and future directions". For example, you might have a study that suggests that a treatment method is efficacious for treating a certain illness. Or that a drug showed an effect on x variable. But the claim "most optimal compared to everything else", is scientifically radioactive. It's ironically pre-rational. The rational position is to present the results that were actually discovered. To then later gather a bunch of studies with generally entirely different methodologies, with statistically patchy results, and then creating a combined summary that modestly hints in one direction, and then claim "this is the most optimal method", that is also scientifically radioactive. Meta-analyses and systematic reviews also have Limitations sections. Rarely do they ever make sweeping claims across entire fields. That's what expert talking heads do based on their feel. And even if they are very humble and transparent in the way they do it, if the entire field is essentially in a crisis (which is basically my claim), that humility and transparency doesn't mean much. It only reveals exactly the flaws of the field. It will lead to whatever you feel like doing. But it will generally lead you away from "slow and controlled" and more towards "flow and intensity". Whether that means high weight low reps or low weight high reps is probably neither here nor there. You could definitely train in a way that is relatively more characterized by flow and intensity with both high reps and low reps. But I personally find myself drawn to not necessarily 1 RM (I've actually never trained in a way to specifically maximize 1 RM) but lower rep ranges (12-15), which some may not consider low, but it is lower than doing for example 30 pushups. I had an argument with a friend around 6 years ago about whether a gym membership is worth it and if bodyweight exercises are all you need. Even then, I pointed to "there is just something special about doing really heavy squats, the rush you feel, the feeling of intensity".

GPT that too. My impression is that the top bodybuilders and top strongmen share FFM both in hypothetical on and off season, I don't see why the strongmen would have a harder time in principle keeping muscle were they to slim down. Interestingly, sumo wrestlers have been measured at a similar FFM. That further underscores my point: being the top in anything mass-related, tends to produce same levels of mass. And they also do 1 RM yet same mass. I'll say my spiel again for SBL: if you want to conclude what is "optimal" for hypertrophy, basically all studies that exist are bullshit.

GPT their FFM. Is spending 3 hours in the gym grinding ungodly volume more efficient than 1 hour horsing loads? Shit studies + variable methodology = mega shit "consensus". I watched a video of Elliot Hulse 6-7 years ago about working out every other day, putting all your soul into that workout day and then resting the next day, is the way to go. I've stuck with it since (of course adding some sprint/4x4 days on top of that, now currently just one sprint/4x4 day a week). I was afraid I was not doing enough volume. And now I look at people who train only twice a week and look jacked and I'm like "maybe not". I still prefer training every other day, because it keeps my well-being and cognitive functioning on top.

Interesting. 3x10 is 30 reps total, 7x3 is 21 reps total. So 30% fewer reps for the same hypertrophy. Measure it in a study (I already addressed this; high weight low reps could create more fatigue but also more hypertrophy). If all the studies are shit and the entire field is shit, you can disregard it. That's close to where I'm at with hypertrophy science. You don't have to be strong to get big. But getting strong gets you big. Or else how do you explain Eddie and Shaw being as massive as Greg Kovac? Is it just a coincidence that when you maximize strength, you also maximize muscle? The studies only run for a few weeks (and even then show mixed results), and with the absolutely horrendous statistical power of most exercise science studies, you would expect them to not be able to pick up very real changes (they always rely on "statistical significance" which depends on sample size, power). Something tells me homeostasis would eventually catch up and bring you to a stable level. Even if there is an evolutionary pressure for maintaining muscle, that there would be zero change for perpetuity when dropping 88% of volume, I would have to see impossible studies for that (N = 500, 3-year studies).

I have heard about it. But again, you're dealing in hypotheses/conjecture. There seem to be no studies measuring CNS fatigue for high weight low reps vs low weight high reps and using it to explain differential effects on hypertrophy. And even if there is more CNS fatigue for high weight low reps, it doesn't matter if there is also more hypertrophy stimulus. And again, these things have to be measured specifically before you can make the leap from hypothesis to conclusion. And you can measure these things by proxy, but of course the proxies are sometimes really bad (slowing reps = stimulus...?), so that's again another brilliant feature of sports science.

The comment section, absolutely disgusting levels of cope. "W33d doesn't do that". Peak levels of ignorance. Read one statistic on weed 5150s.

Your alternative scenarioes are abstractions and likely not existentially coherent. The thing about God's creation is it's coherent all the way down, to all ends of the universe, at every scale. Every part of reality is deeply connected to everything else. It's a marvelous coordinated clockwork.

It also produces CO2 and H2O and other compounds.

Another time, later. I said I misremembered and it was actually Jeff Neeples. So Mr. Mike gimpsuit technique, I see. So lifting heavy shit is good? Nope. Never had that. Always done deadlifts, and it is fatiguing yes, but not "CNS fatiguing" (whatever that is) and I continue with the rest of the workout until I'm truly fatigued. This honestly sounds like some hallucination or fantasy you've cooked up. Regardless, this is conjecture, and I'm being deliberate in word choice here. If you have a way to measure CNS fatigue and you have demonstrated a difference for high weight low reps vs low weight high reps, that's science. If you explain behavior or results in other variables by pointing to a theoretical concept of CNS fatigue, that's something else; it's conjecture. Conjecture doesn't mean always bullshit, but if you have no way of measuring it, it can very much be bullshit.

The video said Eddie's bench max was 496 lbs without mentioning reps, meanwhile: Eddie Hall Bench Presses 496 Pounds for 10 Reps https://barbend.com/eddie-hall-bench-496-pounds/ 10 fucking reps. 🥲 Fuck AI

My guy, 3 - 5 reps was me sloppily saying the "range" for the lowest amount of reps, not the range for all reps. And I don't give a fuck about Dr. Mike. Jeff Shniples said it. I think the entire "science" is unclear. That's "science-based lifting" for you. But an appeal to laziness is not an argument: ask ChatGPT for studies showing 3 reps = anything above. Nothing longevity about doing 5 billion sets per muscle per week or whatever insane number is "optimal" in Dr. Mikensteins book. What's your take on grip strength = longevity? 1. He is not almost as strong. That AI slop video you posted compared sometimes random training videos rather than competition numbers and sometimes different rep ranges (wtf); anyways, Eddie 3x-8xed the reps for all those cases (and what's the point of comparing a 900 lb 1 RM with a 761 lb 8 rep set?). As for the one rep maxes, with the exception of bench (which I doubt even the accuracy of considering the AI slop-level production but which Eddie still won), Eddie always dwarfed Larry, especially the deadlift: 425kg vs 500kg, that's a 15% difference. And 500kg is not even the world record anymore. All in all, Larry always lost where the comparisons made sense, and generally with great to epic margins. 2. You're just vibing these descriptions ("almost as muscular", "almost as strong"), nothing objective about them. I need a citation for this because it sounds like bullshit conjecture. How do you measure "CNS fatigue"? I've heard "CNS fatigue" being used for inhuman levels of volume (not citing a study here).