Why "science-based lifting" is irrational

[Lyubov]

@Carl-Richard my point was pretty vague. I’m simply saying I don’t really know what degree of exercise and activity leads to longevity. I used to lift weights and do strength training. I was no bodybuilder or avid lifter. I’m saying I’m not sure even being an athlete means you’ll live a longer life. I’m trying to understand how much time I reasonably need to put into athletics and exercise to live to 100 and stay mobile and be reasonably strong enough to defend myself and my family. 
 

9 hours ago, Jannes said:

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

Depends on the program and how advanced you are. For people training who have passed intermediate level programming there are advanced programs that have one rep max for lower body lifts, usually deadlift, sometimes squat. Obviously for most novices (90% of lifters) you won’t be doing a program that has one reps for progression. 

[Carl-Richard]

11 hours ago, Jannes said:

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

Says who? I suggest to drop all preconceived notions and workout like a mystic would meditate. The knowledge you get from directly knowing your own self is much higher detail, much more sophisticated and real than some retarded estimate (which assumes 100 billion things about what even counts as a rep or how to execute a reo) based on bullshit studies. "Science-based lifting" is a bit like thinking getting a degree means you're now somehow something. No, knowledge itself, acquaintance with the thing itself, is the thing.

If you can pull an insane 1-rep max, you can pull insane 10-rep maxes, and it will be reflected in your muscles. The strongest men who have ever lived are also the most muscular men who have ever lived. Don't let bodybuilders with their visual appeal fool you. A 434 lb Eddie Hall is more muscular (has higher FFM) than any bodybuilder who has ever lived (except maybe Greg Kovacs who is 5 cm taller).

[Carl-Richard]

1 hour ago, Lyubov said:

@Carl-Richard my point was pretty vague. I’m simply saying I don’t really know what degree of exercise and activity leads to longevity. I used to lift weights and do strength training. I was no bodybuilder or avid lifter. I’m saying I’m not sure even being an athlete means you’ll live a longer life. I’m trying to understand how much time I reasonably need to put into athletics and exercise to live to 100 and stay mobile and be reasonably strong enough to defend myself and my family. 

The answer is always do what feels best (unless you're an automatized measurement freak like Bryan Johnson). Whether it's lifting weights or not, see what makes you feel the best, whether it's bodily or mentally or spiritually. If you start feeling bad, it's either a lack of adaptive response (too little training) or a buildup of fatigue (too much training). Both have their own signatures of presence or lack of vitality, clarity. If you value functionality over longevity, then you might trade-off some increased adaptive response for some increased fatigue (like professional athletes do: when a competition comes up, they often take a rest day to lower the chronically elevated fatigue temporarily).

But this is longevity through proxy. Feeling good isn't necessarily a straightforward line to longevity, but it's a very good proxy.

[Jannes]

34 minutes ago, Carl-Richard said:

Says who? I suggest to drop all preconceived notions and workout like a mystic would meditate. The knowledge you get from directly knowing your own self is much higher detail, much more sophisticated and real than some retarded estimate (which assumes 100 billion things about what even counts as a rep or how to execute a reo) based on bullshit studies. "Science-based lifting" is a bit like thinking getting a degree means you're now somehow something. No, knowledge itself, acquaintance with the thing itself, is the thing.

That like the most basic pointer of science. I see the point of going inwards and listening to your bodies signals and intelligence but if you keep science completly out of it, it becomes a mythical pre-rational not so sophisticated approach I feel like. 

34 minutes ago, Carl-Richard said:

If you can pull an insane 1-rep max, you can pull insane 10-rep maxes, and it will be reflected in your muscles. The strongest men who have ever lived are also the most muscular men who have ever lived. Don't let bodybuilders with their visual appeal fool you. A 434 lb Eddie Hall is more muscular (has higher FFM) than any bodybuilder who has ever lived (except maybe Greg Kovacs who is 5 cm taller).

Size and strengh arent antithetical to one another, you can certainly be very strong and also very muscular. Strength implies a certain degree of size and muscle a certain degree of strength. But look at Larry Wheels for example, he has a muscular built of cause but is nowhere near in size compared to Olympians out there who dont have the strength of him. 

 

Like Kai Greene:

 

Edited Wednesday at 12:08 AM by Jannes

[Jannes]

1 hour ago, Lyubov said:

Depends on the program and how advanced you are. For people training who have passed intermediate level programming there are advanced programs that have one rep max for lower body lifts, usually deadlift, sometimes squat. Obviously for most novices (90% of lifters) you won’t be doing a program that has one reps for progression. 

Is it purely a hyperthrophy program or also about strength?

[Carl-Richard]

2 hours ago, Jannes said:

That like the most basic pointer of science. I see the point of going inwards and listening to your bodies signals and intelligence but if you keep science completly out of it, it becomes a mythical pre-rational not so sophisticated approach I feel like.

Last I heard Mr. Mikeratel speak, it was 3-5 reps, so please be specific. Is he wrong?

Regardless, is there a study showing the benefits (or lack of benefits) of doing a one-rep max at the very end (the last set) of say your otherwise high-rep deadlift sets? Is there a study showing the benefits of doing a one-rep max-oriented workout once week or twice a week instead of every single session? What if you feel like working out any of these ways because it feels good? Should you trust "the science" or your feeling?

Is there a study quantifying exactly the workload per rep? Is every rep the same, for all people, for all situations, at all times, in all training phases, for all levels of fatigue, sleep deprivation, blood glucose levels? And what if you train the way I've suggested, treating every set like "one rep" (all reps are continuous with the next)? Does that give the same workload per rep as a "deep stretch" gimpsuit "I'm homosexual" certain specific Russian Jew rep?

There are times where severe critiques of science are not pre-rational but indeed post-rational. Integrating scientific understanding does not entail taking disgustingly generalized estimates as gospel. And at the end of the day, it's down to your own results. If 1 rep maxing (in whatever frequency or form) makes you see some hypertrophy-related progress you otherwise didn't see, then "the science" is irrelevant. And if my experience is worth anything, the more I challenge "the science" — the more I listen to how I feel and follow my own intelligence rather than some statistically embarassing "work" funded by a lab from Soylent-whatever University with untrained college students as subjects — the more results I get.

Besides I don't even train weights for hypertrophy mainly. It's like number 2-3 on the list of why I train weights. That autistic focus on hypertrophy itself muddies the entire discussion, but it's sufficient (and also more challenging) to counter "science-based lifting" simply on those terms (for other terms it's painfully obvious).

 

2 hours ago, Jannes said:

Size and strengh arent antithetical to one another, you can certainly be very strong and also very muscular. Strength implies a certain degree of size and muscle a certain degree of strength. But look at Larry Wheels for example, he has a muscular built of cause but is nowhere near in size compared to Olympians out there who dont have the strength of him. 

He is also nowhere near the strongest in the world. You're comparing somebody who is not the best in something with somebody who is best in something. Again, peak Eddie Hall or Brian Shaw, they both have more or less the same muscle mass as Greg Kovac, the most massive bodybuilder in history. But also, bodybuilding is not even much about mass either, but aesthetics, muscle insertions, genetics, tan, dieting; targeting the right muscles in the right way, getting the proportions right. If your traps, neck and torso are huge but your arms and shoulders are relatively small, you're a strongman not a bodybuilder. The former muscle groups tend to respond to really heavy, really tough workouts, the latter tend to respond to more light, isolated, targeted workouts.

Edited Wednesday at 02:12 AM by Carl-Richard

[Jannes]

21 hours ago, Carl-Richard said:

Last I heard Mr. Mikeratel speak, it was 3-5 reps, so please be specific. Is he wrong?

Regardless, is there a study showing the benefits (or lack of benefits) of doing a one-rep max at the very end (the last set) of say your otherwise high-rep deadlift sets? Is there a study showing the benefits of doing a one-rep max-oriented workout once week or twice a week instead of every single session? What if you feel like working out any of these ways because it feels good? Should you trust "the science" or your feeling?

Is there a study quantifying exactly the workload per rep? Is every rep the same, for all people, for all situations, at all times, in all training phases, for all levels of fatigue, sleep deprivation, blood glucose levels? And what if you train the way I've suggested, treating every set like "one rep" (all reps are continuous with the next)? Does that give the same workload per rep as a "deep stretch" gimpsuit "I'm homosexual" certain specific Russian Jew rep?

There are times where severe critiques of science are not pre-rational but indeed post-rational. Integrating scientific understanding does not entail taking disgustingly generalized estimates as gospel. And at the end of the day, it's down to your own results. If 1 rep maxing (in whatever frequency or form) makes you see some hypertrophy-related progress you otherwise didn't see, then "the science" is irrelevant. And if my experience is worth anything, the more I challenge "the science" — the more I listen to how I feel and follow my own intelligence rather than some statistically embarassing "work" funded by a lab from Soylent-whatever University with untrained college students as subjects — the more results I get.

Besides I don't even train weights for hypertrophy mainly. It's like number 2-3 on the list of why I train weights. That autistic focus on hypertrophy itself muddies the entire discussion, but it's sufficient (and also more challenging) to counter "science-based lifting" simply on those terms (for other terms it's painfully obvious).

For hypertrophy the range is 5 - 30 reps. Dr. Mike would never say 3 - 5 reps in this context.

No I assume there are no studies who look at exactly that. Studies just give general pointers into what you train with your rep ranges etc. 

Ofc a rep isnt perfectly defined but the pointer 5- 30 reps for hyperthrophy suggests that 1 rep or 100 reps if they arent performed in a very unusal way are likely not that effective for hypertrophy. 

 

21 hours ago, Carl-Richard said:

Besides I don't even train weights for hypertrophy mainly. It's like number 2-3 on the list of why I train weights. That autistic focus on hypertrophy itself muddies the entire discussion, but it's sufficient (and also more challenging) to counter "science-based lifting" simply on those terms (for other terms it's painfully obvious).

Well I argue about whats best for hyperthrophy. Obviously if thats not the goal the optimal training must look very different. 

 

21 hours ago, Carl-Richard said:

He is also nowhere near the strongest in the world. You're comparing somebody who is not the best in something with somebody who is best in something. Again, peak Eddie Hall or Brian Shaw, they both have more or less the same muscle mass as Greg Kovac, the most massive bodybuilder in history. But also, bodybuilding is not even much about mass either, but aesthetics, muscle insertions, genetics, tan, dieting; targeting the right muscles in the right way, getting the proportions right. If your traps, neck and torso are huge but your arms and shoulders are relatively small, you're a strongman not a bodybuilder. The former muscle groups tend to respond to really heavy, really tough workouts, the latter tend to respond to more light, isolated, targeted workouts.

He isnt as strong as the strongest but the strength gap isnt huge while the muscle size grap is pretty massive. 

But even Eddie Hall will also have some hyperthorphy built into his training regiment as he needs the muscle size to use for strength later. I think we already argued about that and Eddie Hall in this context specifically. 

 

[Carl-Richard]

12 hours ago, Jannes said:

For hypertrophy the range is 5 - 30 reps. Dr. Mike would never say 3 - 5 reps in this context.

I'm sorry, I misremembered; that was Jeff Nippster:

Showcasing yet another case of "consensus" among reviewers of "the science".

 

12 hours ago, Jannes said:

No I assume there are no studies who look at exactly that. Studies just give general pointers into what you train with your rep ranges etc. 

Ofc a rep isnt perfectly defined but the pointer 5- 30 reps for hyperthrophy suggests that 1 rep or 100 reps if they arent performed in a very unusal way are likely not that effective for hypertrophy.

So disregarding the "general pointers" (which people disagree about) doesn't make you pre-rational like you suggested.

 

12 hours ago, Jannes said:

Well I argue about whats best for hyperthrophy. Obviously if thats not the goal the optimal training must look very different.

It's not as much "arguing" (in terms of analytical argument) as being a religious scholar citing scripture (and their own interpretation). But why? Why this autistic focus on hypertrophy?

 

12 hours ago, Jannes said:

He isnt as strong as the strongest but the strength gap isnt huge while the muscle size grap is pretty massive. 

That's the 80/20 rule. To get to the very top requires disproportional amounts of whatever is required. And again, at the very top, strength or muscle, Eddie Hall / Brian Shaw vs Greg Kovac, there is no reasonable muscle gap.

 

12 hours ago, Jannes said:

But even Eddie Hall will also have some hyperthorphy built into his training regiment as he needs the muscle size to use for strength later. I think we already argued about that and Eddie Hall in this context specifically. 

 

What is hypertrophy training really if 3 reps is considered legitimate for hypertrophy and doing a one rep max even as a powerlifter is generally only something you do either once or a few times at the end of a workout or week? See how insignificant these terms are? The fact of the matter is if you aim to be best in either powerlifting/strongman or bodybuilding with whatever rep range you prefer, you will have statistically reasonably the same muscle mass.

The real distinction between a powerlifter/strongman and bodybuilder is the fat percentage at competition, muscle distribution, aesthetics; generally how the muscle is "used" during competition. The autistic focus on "optimal rep range" is a social media phenomena, it's a religious meme in the "science-based lifting" theological tradition. You will not have heard of a single person who started training with fewer reps (keeping overall intensity and volume the same) who noticed they lost muscle.

Edited 18 hours ago by Carl-Richard

[Michal__]

"Nippster " 

[Jannes]

14 hours ago, Carl-Richard said:

I'm sorry, I misremembered; that was Jeff Nippster:

Showcasing yet another case of "consensus" among reviewers of "the science".

That study says that 3x10 is about as hypertophic as 7x3

Well that just proves my point that higher reps are better for hypertrophy. Each set for 3 reps will likely be even more fatiguing then the set for 10 reps while not even being half as hypertrophic. 

 

14 hours ago, Carl-Richard said:

So disregarding the "general pointers" (which people disagree about) doesn't make you pre-rational like you suggested.

If the science is indeed unclear about it then no it isnt pre-rational. The science seems to be pretty clear about it though so I dont see good arguments how one could justify to disregard it. 

14 hours ago, Carl-Richard said:

Why this autistic focus on hypertrophy?

Its personally what I care about most. I want to look good and I want to built a functional body with lots of longevity. I dont care how much I deadlift if it doesnt help me with these things. 

14 hours ago, Carl-Richard said:

That's the 80/20 rule. To get to the very top requires disproportional amounts of whatever is required. And again, at the very top, strength or muscle, Eddie Hall / Brian Shaw vs Greg Kovac, there is no reasonable muscle gap.

The 80/20 rule could be true in that context, that you need the last 80 percent of muscle to get the last 20 percent of strength. But that would imply that strength and muscle arent strongly connected with each other as you can have lots of strength and very little muscle. The argumentation get strong to get big doenst really hit the nail then. By that standard Larry Wheels would be almost as muscular as "Eddie Hall / Brian Shaw / Greg Kovac" because he is almost as strong if strength is what makes you muscular. 

14 hours ago, Carl-Richard said:

What is hypertrophy training really if 3 reps is considered legitimate for hypertrophy and doing a one rep max even as a powerlifter is generally only something you do either once or a few times at the end of a workout or week? See how insignificant these terms are? The fact of the matter is if you aim to be best in either powerlifting/strongman or bodybuilding with whatever rep range you prefer, you will have statistically reasonably the same muscle mass.

If you like strength and like to train with low reps and dont care about managing your ressources perfectly to optimize hypertrophy then there is nothing wrong with doing heavy sets. It will also be somewhat hypertrophic. 

I am simply arguing about what optimizes hypertrophy. 

14 hours ago, Carl-Richard said:

You will not have heard of a single person who started training with fewer reps (keeping overall intensity and volume the same) who noticed they lost muscle.

Maintenence volume is very low. Studies show you can train with 1/9th of your muscle building volume and maintain all of your gains. 

Edited 6 hours ago by Jannes

[Carl-Richard]

1 hour ago, Jannes said:

Thats new to me, first time I hear first tbh

Where does Dr Mike say this though?

I guess that study in particular would suggest 3 - 20 reps and not 3 - 5 reps as you said. 

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.

 

1 hour ago, Jannes said:

If the science is indeed unclear about it then no it isnt pre-rational.

I think the entire "science" is unclear.

 

1 hour ago, Jannes said:

What Jeff quoted was just one study for the 3 rep sets though.

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.

 

1 hour ago, Jannes said:

Its personally most I care about. I want to look good and I want to built a functional body with lots of longevity. I dont care how much I deadlift if it doesnt help me with these things. 

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 hour ago, Jannes said:

By that standard Larry Wheels would be almost as muscular as "Eddie Hall / Brian Shaw / Greg Kovac" because he is almost as strong if strength is what makes you muscular.

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.

 

1 hour ago, Jannes said:

The amount of hypertrophy you get for the CNS fatigue is probably not great

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).

[Carl-Richard]

1 minute ago, Carl-Richard said:

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),

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

[Jannes]

@Carl-Richard I edited my original comment so much could you please reply to that one? Sorry. I can answer parts of your answer though. 

 

9 minutes ago, Carl-Richard said:

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.

Well you quoted Dr Mike directly. If you want to critique him in such a major way then it should be accurate. 

9 minutes ago, Carl-Richard said:

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?

Well I dont train nowhere near whats optimal for hypertrophy, I train in a way thats optimal for hypertrophy but do a few sets. 

Well I heard somewhere that grip strength is incredibly important for longevity.

9 minutes ago, Carl-Richard said:

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.

Oftentimes you cant find perfect 1 to 1 comparisons. 

But alright I agree, Eddie is significantly stronger. 

9 minutes ago, Carl-Richard said:

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).

You know when you hit a some heavy sets of deadlifts and you have zero interest in continuing the workout as you just feel washed. Your muscles could continue but your system just doenst want to go anymore? Thats what I mean. There are also more scientific explanations out there which I cant provide tbh

[Carl-Richard]

39 minutes ago, Jannes said:

@Carl-Richard I edited my original comment so much could you please reply to that one? Sorry. I can answer parts of your answer though. 

Another time, later.

 

39 minutes ago, Jannes said:

Well you quoted Dr Mike directly. If you want to critique him in such a major way then it should be accurate.

I said I misremembered and it was actually Jeff Neeples.

 

39 minutes ago, Jannes said:

Well I dont train nowhere near whats optimal for hypertrophy, I train in a way thats optimal for hypertrophy but do a few sets.

So Mr. Mike gimpsuit technique, I see.

 

39 minutes ago, Jannes said:

Well I heard somewhere that grip strength is incredibly important for longevity.

So lifting heavy shit is good?

 

39 minutes ago, Jannes said:

You know when you hit a some heavy sets of deadlifts and you have zero interest in continuing the workout as you just feel washed. Your muscles could continue but your system just doenst want to go anymore? Thats what I mean. There are also more scientific explanations out there which I cant provide tbh

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.

Edited 5 hours ago by Carl-Richard