Mike Israetel's PhD is a Joke

[Jannes]

If I would do a pdh in sport science I would examine how small the frequency of training a musle could be if the stimulus is very high and if your goal is muscle maintenance. 

For example with stiff leg deadlifts, I cant not be sore for a few days afterwards. I dont need to train hamstrings once a week to maintain them, maybe every two weeks, maybe once a month..

After two weeks you will start to loose muscle but can the stimulus be so strong that this lost muscle will be regained with one training session? Does the body/ muscle prepare for such very low frequent high stimulus training? 

Lots of new discoverys could come from that. 

[Jannes]

6 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

The notion that one needs science to be an effective gym-rat is a joke.

Squat

Benchpress

Shoulder press

Deadlift

Rows

Curls

There's all the science you need to get swole.

And of course steroids.

With this kind of hardcore training I feel like you would quit faster, but it would give you like 80% of the results if you keep at it. But you still need science for learning the technique and doing the right diet.

[Carl-Richard]

4 hours ago, Jannes said:

With this kind of hardcore training I feel like you would quit faster

Let's actually take Mike's PhD conclusions that more muscle leads to more strength. What about the other way around, more strength leads to more muscle? Surely the relationship is reasonably two-way. So then, shouldn't one try to become as strong as possible, lift as intensely as possible, such that one builds as most muscle as possible, not lift with this punctuated movement deep stretch bullshit? Or do we pick and choose which studies to trust, i.e. the ones with bad ecological validity where people lift in awkward ways that you would never lift in an actual gym session (one arm with one technique, other arm with another, researcher breathing down your neck and controlling every rep) vs those where the people actually try to lift at highest intensity and thus as close to their usual training as possible? Hmmmm.

Edited yesterday at 06:25 PM by Carl-Richard

[Carl-Richard]

The world's strongest man is big:

[Jannes]

3 minutes ago, Carl-Richard said:

Let's actually take Mike's PhD conclusions that more muscle leads to more strength. What about the other way around, more strength leads to more muscle? Surely the relationship is reasonably two-way. So then, shouldn't one try to become as strong as possible, lift as intensely as possible, such that one builds as most muscle as possible, not lift with this punctuated movement deep stretch bullshit? Or do we pick and choose which studies to trust, i.e. the ones with bad ecological validity where people lift in awkward ways that you would never lift in an actual gym session (one arm with one technique, other arm with another, researcher breathing down your neck and controlling every part of the movement) vs those where the people actually try to lift at highest intensity and thus as close to their usual training as possible? Hmmmm.

It definitely goes one way, the other way is a bit more complex I think. You NEED muscle to lift heavy shit. But powerlifter train their central nervous system primarily, they dont grow a ton of muscle. Thats why some relatively skinny looking powerlifter can lift insane numbers. Of course the more muscle they have the better. Thats why they do hypertrophy phases to built new tissue which they then need to learn to use optimally with their central nervous system. But I dont think that these central nervous system gains help you built muscle a ton. You learn to use more muscles but your central nervous system is also specialized to low rep ranges and it takes time to switch. 

[Jannes]

9 minutes ago, Carl-Richard said:

The world's strongest man is big:

I can give you a counter example. You can reach high numbers with a relatively slim figure. This guy is still muscular but the main thing here is that his central nervous system can use all of his muscle optimally. 

https://www.instagram.com/reel/CtcW96gRSd3/?utm_source=ig_embed

[Carl-Richard]

1 hour ago, Jannes said:

I can give you a counter example. You can reach high numbers with a relatively slim figure. This guy is still muscular but the main thing here is that his central nervous system can use all of his muscle optimally. 

https://www.instagram.com/reel/CtcW96gRSd3/?utm_source=ig_embed

Of course a junior will be smaller and will also lift 328kg and not 500kg. But do you think Eddie Hall did "hypertrophy phases"? He simply trained to become the strongest man, and consequentially, he became some of the biggest men to walk the Earth. Eddie Hall weighs 196.5kg in that picture. A huge chunk of that is muscle, he is actually rather lean in that picture. Ronnie Coleman, probably biggest bodybuilder to walk the Earth, insanely strong, trained extremely heavily. "But genes". Well, their training style apparently didn't stop them from becoming that big, and maybe, just maybe, it wasn't just a coincidence.

Edited yesterday at 06:23 PM by Carl-Richard

[Jannes]

32 minutes ago, Carl-Richard said:

Of course a junior will be smaller and will also lift 328kg and not 500kg. But do you think Eddie Hall did "hypertrophy phases"? He simply trained to become the strongest man, and consequentially, he became some of the biggest men to walk the Earth. Eddie Hall weighs 196.5kg in that picture.

Yeah I think he did some kind of hypertrophy work. Maybe phases, maybe assistence work at the end of training idk. I listened to how powerlifter structure their program, they specifically do hypertrophy phases to built more muscle which they then train to utilize optimally in strength phases. 

This article explains it a bit: https://www.usaweightlifting.org/news/barbend/2021/november/05/when-should-weightlifters-focus-on-hypertrophy?

32 minutes ago, Carl-Richard said:

A huge chunk of that is muscle, he is actually rather lean in that picture. Ronnie Coleman, probably biggest bodybuilder to walk the Earth, insanely strong, trained extremely heavily. "But genes". Well, their training style apparently didn't stop them from becoming the best, and maybe, just maybe, it wasn't just a coincidence.

If you are on of the biggest bodybuilders on earth you have predominantly fast twitch fibers, because they get bigger then slow twitch muscle fibers. And fast twitch muscle fibers are stimulated better with lower reps, so they need to train heavier then people with more balanced muscle fiber types. 

But even still pretty much every bodybuilder doesnt train like a strongmen. Ronnie did these heavy ass squats and deads for show, he mostly trained with higher reps.  

Edited yesterday at 06:55 PM by Jannes

[Carl-Richard]

1 hour ago, Jannes said:

Yeah I think he did some kind of hypertrophy work. Maybe phases, maybe assistence work at the end of training idk.

And let's see what kind of intensity he is training at there. I'm not saying only training with super low rep ranges is necessarily what builds more muscles. I'm saying training with intensity, not the nerd shit Mike pushes, could very easily do that. I'm just pointing out that even when you focus on low rep ranges, and you don't try to fit a weight class and you try to become the strongest as possible, you also end up becoming some of the biggest human beings on the planet. Even in that "weaker" case, you see enormous effects on hypertrophy. So in the stronger case, as with Ronnie Coleman and the like (and really most top bodybuilders in history), you shouldn't be surprised if it's the best alternative.

Edited yesterday at 07:56 PM by Carl-Richard

[Jannes]

53 minutes ago, Carl-Richard said:

And let's see what kind of intensity he is training at there. I'm not saying only training with super low rep ranges is necessarily what builds more muscles. I'm saying training with intensity, not the nerd shit Mike pushes, could very easily do that. I'm just pointing out that even when you focus on low rep ranges, and you don't try to fit a weight class and you try to become the strongest as possible, you also end up becoming some of the biggest human beings on the planet. Even in that "weaker" case, you see enormous effects on hypertrophy. So in the stronger case, as with Ronnie Coleman and the like (and really most top bodybuilders in history), you shouldn't be surprised if it's the best alternative.

You can train intensely with a high rep sets, optimized controlled technique, deep stretch and all that ..

[Carl-Richard]

1 hour ago, Jannes said:

You can train intensely with a high rep sets, optimized controlled technique, deep stretch and all that ..

There is a range of intensity within that, but the fact of the matter is the more restrictions you put on a movement, the more inhibited your movement will be. More inhibition, less power output, less muscle recruitment, less intensity. 

If you tell a sprinter to "deep stretch" and "pause at the bottom of the rep", they will have a horrible workout. A sprinter is taught techniques to remove inhibition of movement, to optimize the fluidity of the movement, to open up for the most efficient expenditure of energy. The same principle can be applied to weight training, and I believe it could easily be better for hypertrophy than simply grinding out lower intensity exercises. 

Please acknowledge that the types of techniques Mike has arrived at are the results of studies with FLAWED research designs for the claims he are trying to make; to say they're merely limited is an understatement. If you want to make statements about what is optimal training, make your study participants train under optimal conditions. It's that simple. Is it easy to execute such studies? Not necessarily. Are there trade-offs compared to other studies? Sure. But if you care about this very specific statement "optimal training for hypertrophy", at least get the "optimal training" part right for the study itself.

Edited yesterday at 10:28 PM by Carl-Richard

[Jannes]

7 hours ago, Carl-Richard said:

There is a range of intensity within that, but the fact of the matter is the more restrictions you put on a movement, the more inhibited your movement will be. More inhibition, less power output, less muscle recruitment, less intensity. 

If you tell a sprinter to "deep stretch" and "pause at the bottom of the rep", they will have a horrible workout. A sprinter is taught techniques to remove inhibition of movement, to optimize the fluidity of the movement, to open up for the most efficient expenditure of energy. The same principle can be applied to weight training, and I believe it could easily be better for hypertrophy than simply grinding out lower intensity exercises. 

No thats backwards. You can use inhibition to isolate muscle activity. 

Your bodys goal is not to activate muscles as much as possible, quite the contrary, your body tries to utilize all the swing, bounce, other muscles, .. whatever it can and the least muscle it has to to get the most out of a movement. You quite literally unlearn your bodys natural instincts for energy preservation and effectiveness when you train in the gym. 

A sprinter is not a bodybuilder btw. Of course a sprinter should keep his bodily instincts because he needs to be an effective sprinter, not one with the biggest butt possible. 

[Schizophonia]

If a PhD had to be revolutionary, no one would be a PhD.

[vinc3nc]

Update: Mike and his team tried to edit the draft and pass it as the final dissertation, but got caught.

This is just getting worse and worse.

[something_else]

Honestly, this post on his instagram doesn't give off the best energy either, especially the last bullet point. Where did you see that he was caught editing it @vinc3nc?

[vinc3nc]

@something_else check his latest IG post... and then the comments.

[Carl-Richard]

11 hours ago, Jannes said:

No thats backwards. You can use inhibition to isolate muscle activity.

What if isolation isn't always a good thing?

 

11 hours ago, Jannes said:

.Your bodys goal is not to activate muscles as much as possible, quite the contrary, your body tries to utilize all the swing, bounce, other muscles, .. whatever it can and the least muscle it has to to get the most out of a movement. You quite literally unlearn your bodys natural instincts for energy preservation and effectiveness when you train in the gym.

There is a point to be made that you're trying to strike the balance between "moving the weight" and stressing the muscle, and it might lead to a different outcome than simply moving the weight. But there is a way of doing that which is more informed by your own body, by what feels best, by what is conducive to flow, and then there is doing it in a way that is more inhibitory and mind-focused. The science is not out on which is best, but my intuition and general knowledge about lifting and sports tells me it's likely the former that wins out for a majority of exercises (probably especially compound movements).

When did "isolation" become an axiom of bodybuilding? Bodybuilding is about building muscle, not isolating muscles during exercise. Isolation can be a tool for sculpting your physique and working on your weak spots and targeting muscles that are maybe harder to activate in compound movements, but that's about it.

 

11 hours ago, Jannes said:

A sprinter is not a bodybuilder btw. Of course a sprinter should keep his bodily instincts because he needs to be an effective sprinter, not one with the biggest butt possible. 

It's true a sprinter is not a bodybuilder, but I simply used it to make a point. I think you're possibly taking Mike's frankly very obscure ideology for granted.

Edited 5 hours ago by Carl-Richard

[Carl-Richard]

3 hours ago, vinc3nc said:

Update: Mike and his team tried to edit the draft and pass it as the final dissertation, but got caught.

This is just getting worse and worse.

They claim it wasn't an edit but a software quirk when "comparing documents" (unsure what they are referring to). But it makes no sense to edit it and then post it online if you are going to get the university to confirm and upload the latest version themselves. That would be a very not-160 IQ move by Mike IsVerySmart. They probably posted it online, without editing it, to get it out as soon as possible to at least quell some suspicion. And then we can confirm later whether the one they posted and the one the university posted are identical. You can do better than simply feeding into the outrage.

EDIT:

Ok what the fuck:

https://www.instagram.com/p/DPdoieaDZnh/?igsh=MWpudjl6ZjBzb2drYg==

Well, considering I currently don't see how he now didn't just lie about the entire thing and edited the document while trying to pass it off as the real version, that's pretty- wow.

Edited 4 hours ago by Carl-Richard

[Jannes]

38 minutes ago, Carl-Richard said:

What if isolation isn't always a good thing?

38 minutes ago, Carl-Richard said:

When did "isolation" become an axiom of bodybuilding? Bodybuilding is about building muscle, not isolating muscles during exercise. Isolation can be a tool for sculpting your physique and working on your weak spots and targeting muscles that are maybe harder to activate in compound movements, but that's about it.

Thats a bit confusing, I used isolation in this context to say something a little different to how it is usually used in the fitness context. 

With isolation I meant isolating the muscles aka eliminating: swinging, bouncing, supporting muscles which arent the target, (not isolating a single muscle. You can do a moderate grip bench with chest, triceps and front shoulders as your focus or flies with only chest as your focus, I dont care.)

And I would argue that isolating the muscles is pretty much always a good thing or do you have a counter example?

38 minutes ago, Carl-Richard said:

There is a point to be made that you're trying to strike the balance between "moving the weight" and stressing the muscle, and it might lead to a different outcome than simply moving the weight. But there is a way of doing that which is more informed by your own body, by what feels best, by what is conducive to flow, and then there is doing it in a way that is more inhibitory and mind-focused. The science is not out on which is best, but my intuition and general knowledge about lifting and sports tells me it's the former that wins out.

But in my experience they largely overlap. If a way of doing a technique is scientifically shown to be more stimulating and when the sicence is right then you should also feel that doing the exercise. I knew that the deep stretch on the chest press was amazing and used it before I knew the science of deep stretch. The science is like a pointer which can inspire you to try out something new but it only sticks when it actually feels right. 

I have to agree though that in some cases the movement could work in theory but in practice its really akward. I tried these glute deadlifts and they feel terrible, this is where I would clearly agree with your point. 

 

[Leo Gura]

Frankly, this whole PhD thing is irrelevant. Mike gives good fitness advice regardless. His videos are great if you are looking for fitness advice. Being a good scientist is not needed at all for making YT gym videos.

Edited 5 hours ago by Leo Gura