Why "science-based lifting" is irrational

[Carl-Richard]

12 hours ago, Jannes said:

They never lean down for a bodybuilding show though. They would loose a lot of muscle.

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.

 

12 hours ago, Jannes said:

And generally Powerlifter and Strongmen will have phases or asseccory work of hypertrophy training. 

 

And they also do 1 RM yet same mass.

 

12 hours ago, Jannes said:

You usually need more time to for rest to refocus in between sets if you use very heavy loads and lighter loads also seem to be about twice as hypertrophic per set if you can trust the study that Jeff Nippard mentioned in that video you posted.

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.

Edited Saturday at 12:53 PM by Carl-Richard

[Jannes]

15 hours ago, Carl-Richard said:

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.

They would have a harder time to keep the muscle while loosing the fat if it turns out that higher rep training is more hypertrophic then strength training, but thats the basis of our discussion I believe. 

15 hours ago, Carl-Richard said:

And they also do 1 RM yet same mass.

Well a mix of strength training and hypertrophy and constant "bear mode" will get you far ofc. 

Btw. Eddie Hall and Brian Shaw are strongmen though. In strongmen events you do mostly exercises where you need strength endurance. 1 rep maxes dont train that optimally. They likely train mostly in the hypertrophy range anyway.

I dont think Olympian BB are always the pinnacle of maximum muscle development when I think about it, some symmetrie and proportion is important. Greg Kovac, despite being arguably the biggest BB ever never placed highly because of it. A big gut often carries with it more muscle, but its unaesthetic. 

15 hours ago, Carl-Richard said:

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.

Well that makes a basis for argumentation pretty small. 

Btw. do you think that all intuitive training will lead to strength based training?

What do you think about the Golden Age bodybuilder who did lots of sets. They didnt have the science so they trained in a way that intuitively felt good. And then Mike Mentzer the science guy came along with his one set high intensity style lol. 

There is a calisthenics icon which I cant find anymore unfortunately. He collabed with Jeff Nippard and I believe Frank Yang at some point. He does his own intuitive training style and does unholy amounts of volume every day. 2020 pull ups to new year and stuff like that. What do you make of that?

Edited Saturday at 06:11 PM by Jannes

[Michal__]

Theres  also a huge difference between natty programming and steroid programs.

Naturals have to focus all their effort on progressive overload whereas steroid assisted lifters have to focus more on all fancy scientific rep and set ranges . 

[Carl-Richard]

9 hours ago, Jannes said:

They would have a harder time to keep the muscle while loosing the fat if it turns out that higher rep training is more hypertrophic then strength training, but thats the basis of our discussion I believe.

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.

 

9 hours ago, Jannes said:

Btw. Eddie Hall and Brian Shaw are strongmen though. In strongmen events you do mostly exercises where you need strength endurance. 1 rep maxes dont train that optimally. They likely train mostly in the hypertrophy range anyway.

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.

 

9 hours ago, Jannes said:

I dont think Olympian BB are always the pinnacle of maximum muscle development when I think about it, some symmetrie and proportion is important. Greg Kovac, despite being arguably the biggest BB ever never placed highly because of it. A big gut often carries with it more muscle, but its unaesthetic.

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.

 

9 hours ago, Jannes said:

Well that makes a basis for argumentation pretty small.

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.

 

9 hours ago, Jannes said:

Btw. do you think that all intuitive training will lead to strength based training?

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".

Edited yesterday at 03:50 AM by Carl-Richard

[Jannes]

20 hours ago, Carl-Richard said:

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.

For the strongmen they would need to cut more then 10-20% of their 10000 kcal diet. 

You are mostly in danger when you get very lean, to get shredded muscle needs to be sacrified. To get relatively lean not so much. 

Maintenance volume rises in a cut of course. 

20 hours ago, Carl-Richard said:

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

20 hours ago, Carl-Richard said:

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.

I see what you are saying. 

But generally what science suggests is that a big spectrum of rep ranges work for hypertrophy. 

I used GPT to research the scientific body a bit and it turns out very heavy sets (1-2) reps are rarely measured for their hypertrophy stimulus directly because such studies are hard to do. Its more indirectly that scientist believe that very heavy sets arent as good for hypertrophy because the amount of effective reps (reps close before failure where all the wonderful stimulus happens) are so little as its mostly just 1 rep compared to sets with 6 , 12 , 20 reps with more effective reps before failure so thats why it doenst seem as effective. 

20 hours ago, Carl-Richard said:

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".

Your body may point intuitively to some way of training but is that intuition pointed towards what you want? In my case maximum hypertrophy. Does my goal and my bodies intuition align? 

I would consider 12 - 15 reps mid to high reps. Generally you want to do the whole rep range from time to time though. 

I dont really have a bias for a specific rep range I think. Well with some exercises I need a higher rep range to actually feel the muscle. And with Quads I try to be in the lower rep range as it makes the exercise easier psychologically.

[Carl-Richard]

2 hours ago, Jannes said:

Its more indirectly that scientist believe that very heavy sets arent as good for hypertrophy because the amount of effective reps (reps close before failure where all the wonderful stimulus happens) are so little as its mostly just 1 rep compared to sets with 6 , 12 , 20 reps with more effective reps before failure so thats why it doenst seem as effective.

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:

 

 

2 hours ago, Jannes said:

Your body may point intuitively to some way of training but is that intuition pointed towards what you want? In my case maximum hypertrophy. Does my goal and my bodies intuition align?

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.

Edited 18 hours ago by Carl-Richard

[Jannes]

1 hour ago, Carl-Richard said:

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.

Maybe, maybe it acually needs more time under tension, I dont know. I dont know how science argues about it enough. 

 

1 hour ago, Carl-Richard said:

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:

 

Hehe, yeah thats how I would picture a hypertrophy stimulating 1 rep max as well. 

But that cant be the answer, either a not so grindy 1 RM (or close to 1 RM) is stimulating enough for hypertrophy or 1 RM should be reserved for strength. The amount of fatigue you accumulate with this one rep is unholy. A whole workout will cause less fatigue then this. 

CNS fatigue!? 

 

1 hour ago, Carl-Richard said:

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.

Would you say "scientific lifting" overlaps heavily with "intuitive lifting aimed at hypertrophy" ? 

Whats the difference?

[Carl-Richard]

1 hour ago, Jannes said:

Maybe, maybe it acually needs more time under tension, I dont know. I dont know how science argues about it enough. 

 

Hehe, yeah thats how I would picture a hypertrophy stimulating 1 rep max as well. 

But that cant be the answer, either a not so grindy 1 RM (or close to 1 RM) is stimulating enough for hypertrophy or 1 RM should be reserved for strength. The amount of fatigue you accumulate with this one rep is unholy. A whole workout will cause less fatigue then this. 

CNS fatigue!? 

 

You're making it seem like the fatigue is for nothing. But even if it was the case that the 1 RM set itself was sub-optimally hypertrophic, you could imagine that becoming adapted to the immense fatigue could convert to hypertrophic work in other sets. You have to look at the bigger picture. It's like how in nutrition, it's not only the three standard macronutrients and essential micronutrients that affect nutrition and how these nutrients work. Other things you consume also effect it, but not just things you consume. The body is after all an interconnected whole.

 

1 hour ago, Jannes said:

Would you say "scientific lifting" overlaps heavily with "intuitive lifting aimed at hypertrophy" ? 

Whats the difference?

I don't believe "slow and controlled" as distinct from "flow in control" (another word for the "entire set is one rep" cue) is intuitive. I've seen how Mike trains, how he makes people train, and I've trained that way myself for about a year. It does have a kind of intellectual appeal, and it seems "smart" in kind of an engineering sense and it might even feel kind of satisfying, but then I have to return to the example of teenage noobs who have to be literally held back from instantly injurying themselves just from the sheer power that exists there intuitively. The fact of the matter is that intuitive is intense, but of course that is not to say inexperienced teen lifters embody what is a reasonable, cultivated lifting style. The answer lies somewhere in the middle.

[Jannes]

4 minutes ago, Carl-Richard said:

You're making it seem like the fatigue is for nothing. But even if it was the case that the 1 RM set itself was sub-optimally hypertrophic, you could imagine that becoming adapted to the immense fatigue could convert to hypertrophic work in other sets. You have to look at the bigger picture. It's like how in nutrition, it's not only the three standard macronutrients and essential micronutrients that affect nutrition and how these nutrients work. Other things you consume also effect it, but not just things you consume. The body is after all an interconnected whole.

You could challenge your bodies capacity for tolerating fatigue with doing lots of volume with other exercises as well..

Whats unique about the 1 RM deadlift is that its a ton of stress for a short time. When I started doing deadlift back in the day I always got very lightheaded until I got used to it. If that is of use and a worthy opportunity cost for other hypertrophy work later I dont know. 

4 minutes ago, Carl-Richard said:

I don't believe "slow and controlled" as distinct from "flow in control" (another word for the "entire set is one rep" cue) is intuitive. I've seen how Mike trains, how he makes people train, and I've trained that way myself for about a year. It does have a kind of intellectual appeal, and it seems "smart" in kind of an engineering sense and it might even feel kind of satisfying, but then I have to return to the example of teenage noobs who have to be literally held back from instantly injurying themselves just from the sheer power that exists there intuitively. The fact of the matter is that intuitive is intense, but of course that is not to say inexperienced teen lifters embody what is a reasonable, cultivated lifting style. The answer lies somewhere in the middle.

Yeah, Mikes training style does feel smart and like you are training your body like a machine, that resonates with me. Its not unique to Mikes training though.

I find it very hard to identify what is intuitive with all the subconscious programming we have which influences training. From male role model, believes about fitness from culture, influence of other gym goers, motivation level, testosterone, surpressed emotions, ... 

Can you imagine a child intuitively training for muscle growth?