Why "science-based lifting" is irrational

[Carl-Richard]

4 hours ago, VioleGrace said:

Not really in my sense disagreeing on something and recognising something is here but trying to gind the nuances is pretty different 

This is to reductionnist in this case the aim it is more "how much do you have to lift to gain more muscle" that is not really the same, and with that this study is a review not a conducted field study, it act more like a "what studies about this are suggest" 

Bro I literally cannot understand what you're saying. Work on grammar please.

 

4 hours ago, VioleGrace said:

I dont see what you mean by flawed methods ? 

What if having a scientist count all your reps, or decide which exercises you should do, or how often you should train, reduces your gains? This is not an unreasonable assumption. It's an ubiquitous fact of psychology (and biology) that externally dictated behavior is less motivating than internally dictated behavior.

How can you properly compare high-intensity low-volume training with low-intensity high-volume training if all your research subjects are untrained (as they often are), not motivated to train (they only participated because they are taking an exercise science class in college and their professors gave them course credits for participating), and you have no way of objectively measuring intensity/effort?

Of course the results will favor low-intensity high-volume, because unmotivated individuals naturally do not push themselves hard. And intensity is anyway hard to measure and hard to control, in stark contrast to volume, so even with motivated individuals, you actually do not know whether they did push themselves hard or not.

Edited December 9 by Carl-Richard

[VioleGrace]

On 09/12/2025 at 8:53 PM, Carl-Richard said:

Bro I literally cannot understand what you're saying. Work on grammar please.

I edited the post to make it more easy to read 

 

On 09/12/2025 at 8:53 PM, Carl-Richard said:

What if having a scientist count all your reps, or decide which exercises you should do, or how often you should train, reduces your gains? This is not an unreasonable assumption. It's an ubiquitous fact of psychology (and biology) that externally dictated behavior is less motivating than internally dictated behavior.

How can you properly compare high-intensity low-volume training with low-intensity high-volume training if all your research subjects are untrained (as they often are), not motivated to train (they only participated because they are taking an exercise science class in college and their professors gave them course credits for participating), and you have no way of objectively measuring intensity/effort?

Of course the results will favor low-intensity high-volume, because unmotivated individuals naturally do not push themselves hard. And intensity is anyway hard to measure and hard to control, in stark contrast to volume, so even with motivated individuals, you actually do not know whether they did push themselves hard or not.

This a lot of "if" and It is a very vague example but the thing is a serious scientific study won't be managed like that, and most of the time your assumptions or hypothesis will be addressed as much as they can.

And if they are not, they will mention it in the limitations section of the study or mention it, so hopefully other studies can investigate further these matters 

Sorry for the grammar lol i am doing my best


 

Edited December 10 by VioleGrace

[Michal__]

Natural lifting is all about how much you can lifts. Especially on the big lifts or their variations.

Push ups and pull ups included.

You wont look good if you are weak.

No matter how many reps you do, what you eat etc 

 

[Carl-Richard]

1 hour ago, Michal__ said:

You wont look good if you are weak.

There is also an underappreciation in "pure bodybuilding" culture of the aesthetics of athletic movement. A sprinter moves, walks and even talks in a specific way that is much more attractive than a bodybuilder who can't walk up a set of stairs without losing their breath or can't reach halfway down to their toes or lift their hip without tearing a muscle.

 

When your steps are light, when your legs are nimble but strong, that just looks much better than if you're a walking brick house.

 

 

Edited December 15 by Carl-Richard

[Michal__]

5 minutes ago, Carl-Richard said:

There is also an underappreciation in "pure bodybuilding" culture of the aesthetics of athletic movement. A sprinter moves, walks and even talks in a specific way that is much more attractive than a bodybuilder who can't walk up a set of stairs without losing their breath or can't reach halfway down to their toes or lift their hip without tearing a muscle.

 

When your steps are light, when your legs are nimble but strong, that just looks much better than if you're a walking brick house.

 

 

Sure. 

[Carl-Richard]

Here is an insight I've rescued after deconstructing "science-based lifting" and the training style I had since I started training over 14 years ago:

When you do a set, the entire set is like one rep. In other words, each rep you do is in a continuous flow with the next, such that your muscles are under a constant tension that builds throughout the set and then peaks when you hit failure and can't do anymore. This is really what I believe is intended with the cue of "controlling the weight". It's not about slowing down, not about limiting intensity, but about maximizing flow.

The main pitfall of science-based lifting is the tendency to make divisions, e.g. between eccentric and concentric, and consequentially making prescriptions like "slow the eccentric, explode on the concentric". This limits flow, because in flow, only the body decides what the movement is, and it's one movement. There is no eccentric or concentric, and there are no reps. There is the set - the exercise - and rest.

If the goal is truly just "stimulus", then letting the body perform the movement it knows best to reach muscular failure, that is the only job. Techniques like "deep stretch" or "pause at the bottom of the rep" are tools that can come in handy in some situations, but the main exercise, the main part of the workout, is in my opinion to maximize the smoothness of the curve to muscular failure.

Whether you prefer fantasies like "2-3 reps in reserve" or taking on endless amounts of volume, the same goal still applies: approaching muscular failure. My claim is simply that maximizing flow is generally the best path towards this end. Why? Because we see this in professional athletes: flow is the best measure for performance. So if you're an athlete of hypertrophy, why would it not be the same?

Flow is a synonym for doing something right, as right as possible. If you perform the movement as right as possible, focusing all resources on exactly what you need to perform the movement, then you will be more efficient, you will have more resources to use on exactly that movement, which gives more resources for hypertrophy. We know things like stress, doing cardio instead of resting, impact hypertrophy, because they require resources that could be used for hypertrophy. Flow limits the loss of resources to factors external to hypertrophy.

It could be something as simple as flailing your arms a little too much, or indeed not controlling the weight in a way that targets the muscle. Maximizing flow streamlines the targeting of the muscles during the exercise, and it also maximizes rest during rest periods. If you spend your time during rest moving in a less efficient way, there will be less resources for the set.

These may seem like inconsequential things that a scientific reductionist who is numb to anything slightly subtle will brush away as indeed inconsequential. But consider that the line between the mediocre and the best, is subtle. And it's rooted in a personal relationship to oneself as the best, which cannot be replaced by a scientific formula written in a book or spoken about in a podcast.

Edited December 16 by Carl-Richard

[Ramasta9]

Isometrics, how ancient bodybuilders did things  

[Lyubov]

Has anyone here heard of Starting Strength? Thoughts on these barbell strength training programs. I've actually had measurable change in my display of strength following a program from Starting Strength. Downside to it is I find it boring. I'd rather get my exercise outside hiking, but Starting Strength would say this is different, it's "training", which I agree. I just find strength training difficult, repetitive and fucking boring. 

[Lyubov]

On 12/8/2025 at 7:04 PM, Jannes said:

My thesis is that science can help to tune training intuition by preventing self deception in exposing misguided intuition which comes from wanting to avoid painful trainings aspects and or compensating with showoff training (1RM, excessive swinging etc.)

How is one rep max show off training? The most obvious demonstration of CHANGE that your are actually getting stronger is if over 3-6 months you can demonstrate you can lift more weight... That's all a 1 rep max shows, If your 1 rep max is 100 kilo squat and six months later it's 150... you got stronger...

[Elliott]

34 minutes ago, Lyubov said:

 I just find strength training difficult, repetitive and fucking boring. 

I often do physical work but i get good workouts in 'bouldering' and doing hot yoga(vinyasa), i love both. You might have a bouldering gym near you.

@Carl-Richard this guy's norwegian, deals with Strongman guys, beat them in some row and grip strength tests.

Edited yesterday at 07:15 PM by Elliott

[Carl-Richard]

53 minutes ago, Lyubov said:

Has anyone here heard of Starting Strength? Thoughts on these barbell strength training programs. I've actually had measurable change in my display of strength following a program from Starting Strength. Downside to it is I find it boring. I'd rather get my exercise outside hiking, but Starting Strength would say this is different, it's "training", which I agree. I just find strength training difficult, repetitive and fucking boring. 

You probably find meditation boring too. Or sauna. Or taking hot baths.

[Michal__]

Try bulgarian lite, hitting PRs everyday is downright addictive.  Just like modafinil assisted meditation haha.

[Jannes]

2 hours ago, Lyubov said:

How is one rep max show off training? The most obvious demonstration of CHANGE that your are actually getting stronger is if over 3-6 months you can demonstrate you can lift more weight... That's all a 1 rep max shows, If your 1 rep max is 100 kilo squat and six months later it's 150... you got stronger...

Why would you test your strength for a 1 rep max if you can do it for reps?

You can test your 10 rep max and then again 3-6 month later again. 

1 rep max performance heavily depends on your central nervous system which is why skinny lifter can sometimes lift insane numbers. Their nervous system is just well trained.

[Lyubov]

3 hours ago, Carl-Richard said:

You probably find meditation boring too. Or sauna. Or taking hot baths.

Sometimes, so? Path of least resistance. Find what works. I can do self enquiry journaling and go deeper than most meditations, and enjoy it in the process. I did strength training for almost 5 years. The programming is boring. There's no secret to getting strong. You do 3-4 compound lifts every workout for months on end then do intermediate programming which is more of the same. It's boring compared to playing a sport or hiking. 

1 hour ago, Jannes said:

Why would you test your strength for a 1 rep max if you can do it for reps?

You can test your 10 rep max and then again 3-6 month later again. 

1 rep max performance heavily depends on your central nervous system which is why skinny lifter can sometimes lift insane numbers. Their nervous system is just well trained.

Ok... then do 10 rep max. If the weight went up... then you got stronger. It's just a way of measuring. People who lift a heavy 1 rep max do so because they are strong. It doesn't need an explanation. You get in the gym, do your programming, and if your weight goes significantly up whether it's shown through 10 reps or 1 rep max, good, it means you got stronger after your training and your program works. 

Edited 22 hours ago by Lyubov

[Lyubov]

I'm really not sure training a lot even leads to a longer life. I heard there are studies coming out now that are basically saying it's either inconclusive or shows little proof intense training actually makes you live longer or healthier. 

I think obviously failing to do any exercise and eating junkfood, basically retiring to the TV come 70 basically is giving up your mobility. I'm not saying sitting around and eating junk food vs exercising are the same. 

Just that I question all the hours people spend in the gym, is it worth it? Is simply staying active, going outside a lot and living with purpose maybe all you need? I say this as someone who has grown jaded with the gym, it's genuinely boring and I'm questioning if it's even extending my life or mobility. My dad never went to the gym, he bikes a lot and eats healthy and doesn't smoke. He moves great for his age for a man in his 70s. My grandpa was lazy in retirement and got zero movement, his brain deteriorated as he spent his retirement in front of the TV, he moved decent up until he died when he was 90 (his mind went away long before his movement). 

I have my doubts about all this training and weight lifting these days. Seems like if you avoid smoking/alcohol, don't get fat, eat healthy, walk and get lots of sun, obviously some athletics (maybe play a sport that's fun?) and have lots of relationships you care about, you'll live longer than most gymcels. 

Basically what I'm saying is I don't do all the training I used to, I don't think you need to spend more than 5 hours in the gym a week nor chasing all sorts of super high competitive numbers. 

Edited 22 hours ago by Lyubov

[Jannes]

1 hour ago, Lyubov said:

People who lift a heavy 1 rep max do so because they are strong. It doesn't need an explanation.

Do you know the term ego lifting?

Ofc there are legit cases of people being interested in powerlifting.

[Carl-Richard]

9 hours ago, Jannes said:

Do you know the term ego lifting?

Ofc there are legit cases of people being interested in powerlifting.

Everything is ego lifting. Lifting heavy to show off is just one case of it. But you can lift heavy because it's fun. It's not necessarily to show off.

[Carl-Richard]

11 hours ago, Lyubov said:

I'm really not sure training a lot even leads to a longer life. I heard there are studies coming out now that are basically saying it's either inconclusive or shows little proof intense training actually makes you live longer or healthier.

You have to be very careful about what you mean by "intense" here.

Just theoretically a priori (and on the extremes), if you do very intense training (i.e. very high BPM) but very low volume, that's more conducive to longevity than very low BPM and very high volume (almost per definition, as the latter at the most extreme is not considered exercise). Higher intensity gives more adaptive response (makes you healthier) per unit of time, a shorter window of stress, and a longer window of rest and recovery. And in that window of rest and recovery, you will of course be resistant to stress because of the adapative response (hence the longevity effect).

The problematic aspects (again theoretically a priori) is when you keep stacking on volume and time spent in a state of stress, shortening the recovery window, and lowering the adaptive response per unit of time. I think that is what you are referring to. I've heard somebody say that for example jogging (low bpm, low adaptive response, more conducive to higher volumes, etc.) does not make you live longer than the time you spend jogging. But if you like jogging and you feel better the hours and days after jogging, then it can still be a positive thing for your life.

 

11 hours ago, Lyubov said:

I think obviously failing to do any exercise and eating junkfood, basically retiring to the TV come 70 basically is giving up your mobility. I'm not saying sitting around and eating junk food vs exercising are the same. 

Just that I question all the hours people spend in the gym, is it worth it? Is simply staying active, going outside a lot and living with purpose maybe all you need? I say this as someone who has grown jaded with the gym, it's genuinely boring and I'm questioning if it's even extending my life or mobility. My dad never went to the gym, he bikes a lot and eats healthy and doesn't smoke. He moves great for his age for a man in his 70s. My grandpa was lazy in retirement and got zero movement, his brain deteriorated as he spent his retirement in front of the TV, he moved decent up until he died when he was 90 (his mind went away long before his movement).

1 hour every other day is nothing. You spend more scrolling TikTok accidentally. Besides, high intensity low volume training is hip now (30-45 minutes, 1-2 sets per exercise). I personally prefer 3 sets per exercise, even 4 for the beginning set, because I don't feel I get the neurophysiological fatigue response and serotonergic/endorphinergic "feelgood" response that last throughout the day and next days if I don't.

But if you simply prefer staying active through other means, that's fine, but it's not clear whether that is better for longevity than short, focused and intense training sessions punctuated with long periods of genuine rest. Try "staying active" by e.g. moving houses with a deadline and see how wore down and exhausted you will be. You will be very active during that time, but you will tend to eschew rest and consequentially probably severely drain your longevity.

 

11 hours ago, Lyubov said:

I have my doubts about all this training and weight lifting these days. Seems like if you avoid smoking/alcohol, don't get fat, eat healthy, walk and get lots of sun, obviously some athletics (maybe play a sport that's fun?) and have lots of relationships you care about, you'll live longer than most gymcels.

Now you're adding many confounding factors. The comparison is between going to the gym and staying active through other means. Again, I think high intensity and high rest times has a strong theoretical basis for longevity. But that is not to say longevity cannot be relatively assured through other means.

 

11 hours ago, Lyubov said:

Basically what I'm saying is I don't do all the training I used to, I don't think you need to spend more than 5 hours in the gym a week nor chasing all sorts of super high competitive numbers. 

Oh yes for sure. Those high volume masochistic bodybuilding freaks are not doing it for longevity, just like the drugs they're taking.

Edited 10 hours ago by Carl-Richard

[Jannes]

2 hours ago, Carl-Richard said:

Everything is ego lifting. Lifting heavy to show off is just one case of it. But you can lift heavy because it's fun. It's not necessarily to show off.

Sure, but everything below 5 reps isnt optimal for hypertrophy.