Mr. Mike Israetel fans real quiet after this dropped

[Carl-Richard]

Gaining muscles by cutting your program in half and WHILE ON A CUT (lower calories)? I bring to you, Mr. Jeff Nippa:

 

That's a convincing N = 1 empirical argument for why Mr. Mike is delusional and why rather training to failure is optimal for hypertrophy. Now, here's a convincing theoretical argument:

It's about providing a clear signal. When you push yourself to failure, your body literally cannot do any more. That is a clear signal for adaptation, which leads to muscle growth.

Anything else than that, e.g. "three reps in reserve", means you have to firstly add brakes, and secondly interpret where the zone of adaptation is. And this interpretation gets even more muddy as you add more volume (which is the only way you can drive adapation if not pushing yourself to failure), because the zone of adaptation constantly changes. And those changes tend to be so so small. Three reps in reserve with respect to 15 reps the one day vs 16 reps the next day is not a straightforward mental operation, if it's even possible.

With three reps in reserve, what is more likely is that you will choose a level of adaptation you're comfortable at, and you'll stay there largely irrespective of how much volume you add. Because even if you do manage to nail the miniscule increase between 15 vs 16 reps, you would have to nail that for every other set as well for the rest of the exercise, and you should expect that extra effort to be evened out by the next set (because you're seeking a zone of "medium" effort, you are seeking where to pull the brakes, in a body made for minimizing effort and taking the path of least resistance).

You have to use the natural tendencies to your advantage: let any and all effort go to pushing the gas pedal, let that become the path of least resistance, let there be no other alternative. Let the body speak, let the mind be silent.

Edited 3 hours ago by Carl-Richard

[Vali2003]

I agree. I was brainwashed by RIR. Going to failure or at least close to it on every set feels more natural to me. 

[Leo Gura]

5 reps x 5 sets for major compound lifts works great.

For isolation exercises I like 10-15 reps per set.

This isn't complicated.

[Lyubov]

Look up Starting Strength and Barbell Logic. Almost every person training only needs to do 3x5-5x5 for most compound lifts except the deadlift which is 1x5. Upper body handles volume a bit better than lower body. Every session you need to be adding weight. You aren’t proving anything if the quantity of kilos/pounds doesn’t go up by some percentage each workout until you plateau and need to change your programming to claw for additional advanced gains (most people are training improperly and novice/intermediate and do not need complex programming)

[Jannes]

It doesnt say much. 

To maintain muscle you only need to hit maintenance volume which is pretty low and thats what he hit with this program. 

Strength gains are to be expected and doesnt contradict high volume training which doesnt aim to make you as strong as possible. Powerlifter train short and intense, thats how you train your central nervous system. 

The body recomp result show he lost 5.5 pounds of fat and 1.8 pounds of muscle, thats okay I guess. 

That the dexa showed that he gained 0.5 pounds of muscle and lost 2.3 pounds of fat is really impressive. He himself said that this would be in the realm of error though. And it would also imply that the results from Day 1 to Day 30 were that he lost 2.3 pounds of muscle and 3.2 pounds of fat which is pretty horrible.

Its also just a one case study. Jeff clearly has above average genetics for bodybuilding which means he has more fast twitch muscle fibers as they get bigger then slow twitch muscle fiber. Which also means he needs to train shorter and more intensely then the average person. 

[Jannes]

16 minutes ago, Lyubov said:

Look up Starting Strength and Barbell Logic. Almost every person training only needs to do 3x5-5x5 for most compound lifts except the deadlift which is 1x5. Upper body handles volume a bit better than lower body. Every session you need to be adding weight. You aren’t proving anything if the quantity of kilos/pounds doesn’t go up by some percentage each workout until you plateau and need to change your programming to claw for additional advanced gains (most people are training improperly and novice/intermediate and do not need complex programming)

When you are a beginner almost everything works. 

Whats argued about is whats closest to the perfect training strategy, as this is required to make gains after so many years of training. 

[Vali2003]

@Leo Gura Leo, your info on weightlifting is like 5-10 years outdated I’d say .

But yeah, most people, especially if they’re beginners will get great results from that I’d say. 

In general, all the tactics, strategies, to train to failure or not to train to failure, deep stretches, de-loads etc. are much more relevant for advanced lifters who hit plateaus. 

Beginners can do whatever they want and gain muscle. 
 

 

 

[Bogdan]

Guys, I've studied the fitness industry at nauseum for almost 10 years now.

I came into lifting from a sedentary background, and got injured a lot of times due to training as if I already had an athletic body.

Long story short, for compound lifts, I recommend this sort of approach:

I didn't know who to listen to, so I went balls to the wall on everything. I was dumb, yes.

For hypertrophy I found a GVS (Geoffrey Verity Schofield) approach to work best.

Check out Lucas Hardie aka Range Of Strength to remain flexible while doing so. Check out David Weck to take care of your spine, balance and coordination.

Btw GVS - one of the best (probably natty) natural bodybuilder ever, pretty much agrees with what Leo said, as advice for beginners.

[Carl-Richard]

@Bogdan

I saw a video of GVS that made start questioning wtf I was doing training like Mr. Mike, supporting my intuitions. I just saw his video on Goodhart's law and it's essentially one more straw in the hat for "listen to your body, holism is a supreme virtue, your mind and reductionist science usually screws things up more than it helps".