From my own experience, there's no way I'd grow much with only 9 sets per week. I also think a surplus is absolutely necessary for naturals to see long term progression. I've messed around with maingaining several times over the years and it led to quicker plateaus. I think the novel stimulus of a new program can mask that over 8 weeks, but I think if this were stretched out to 8 months you'd see a massive difference. Now, you can absolutely make gains while at maintenence, but for me personally, the gains would turn negligible much more quickly than if I were bulking. This led me a few times to think that I was at my genetic limit lol. You can also look to real world examples, almost all of the most jacked natty guys in RU-vid fitness have bulking and cutting phases. Lastly, I'm gonna rant a little about natural "bodybuilding". I think the standards have to change. Expecting that naturals should be of the same leanness (striated glutes, for example) as enhanced pros is ridiculous. I don't think anyone looks particularly impressive on stage when compared to the Silver Era guys who stepped on stage in the 10-12% range, they had fullness and a healthy look to their physiques instead of looking stringy and starving. I feel like everyone looks about the same on stage now, and all of them look much better 8 weeks out. Natural bodybuilding used to be about health and performance, not an unhealthy leanness competition that crashes hormones and often leads to bad rebounds.
It was never about the amount of sets, but rather how strong you are at them. The guy who bench presses 315 for reps for 3 sets a week will have bigger upper body than the guy who does 15 sets for chest, but benches 200 or less. Building muscle takes times, it's extremely slowly and you won't gain more than 40lb anyways. So to worry about volume when all you have to do is stay patient is a waste of time. Just get strong and never do more sets than necessary. You have to recover from those sets eventually. Who do you think is gonna recover faster, the guy who does 3 sets or 13?
Thank you for this comment. I ran into Coach Greg "maingaining" near the beginning of my serious fitness journey. I was never adding weight to the bar after 2 months then switched programs and thought I was progressing again. I never really was until I found RP. Dr. Mike basically said, "Look MFer, you need to gain weight to gain muscle." The rest is history.
@NLLeFa I'm talking about myself specifically. I fall into more of the workhorse category, especially if it's not a barbell compound (I can't handle high volume on barbell bench or deadlift, but probably could on squat variations if rotated throughout the week). I can handle 20 sets easily on arms and delts, more than that on back (not that I'm currently doing that, but have in the past with no recovery issues). I never go below 4 RIR intensity on hypertrophy work, and that's in a deload. I take my hypertrophy work to failure every 4 weeks, so I know actual rep maxes across a lot of exercises, and I have advanced technique for hypertrophy (similar to the RP standard). The number of sets needed varies from person to person, and often varies based on what you've just done. If you came out of a lower volume phase, you are likely primed for volume. If you're a high volume person, you might benefit from a high intensity, lower volume phase. 9 sets to failure just isn't that much across a week (3 sets a day? Pssssh), and if some trainees are less advanced, failure is kind of a sliding scale even if you have someone administering the workout urging them on. I'll give them the benefit of the doubt that they are probably within the 0-4 RIR range, in which case I stand by my point that 9 sets isn't that much.
Have not fully finished the video, but this immediately caught my attention as I have actually already independently developed and am testing an applied version of this theory based off previous research by Ribero et al. [1] that showed that differing caloric surpluses/weigh gain rates result in varying ratios of fat to muscle gain in very trained individuals. "Ratio Based Bulking" What I tested on my last 7 month bulk was what I call "Ratio based bulking" where you let the ratio of fat to muscle mass gain dictate the caloric surplus. The high level summary is to be in a caloric surplus and measure your skinfold thickness and using the Evans et al.[2] or Parillo skinfold methods (Evans has been shown in studies to be the most accurate for young trained individuals [3] but Parillo mirrors it closely, takes into account more sites and was developed with BBing in mind). Aim for a Muscle:Fat gain ratio of at least 2:1. Should the ratio be higher than around 4:1, consider adding 125 calories to the daily intake. Should the Ratio be lower than 2:1, consider reducing by 250 calories or increasing total lifting volume. Obviously the athlete can also make adjustments ad lib based on their individual goals and fat tolerance. I collected all my data into a spreadsheet consisting of all my twice weekly 9 point skinfold readings, twice weekly weigh ins, as well as a few simple analyses and charts/trendlines. My results will need to be confirmed on my cut (for which I am currently doing), but preliminary results (and visual estimation as a sanity check) show that over that time I was able to actually achieve a nearly 6:1 average muscle: fat gain ratio over 35 lbs of weight gain (Ratio was higher as I was constrained by the difficulty of consuming more than 4k a day), eating at the end 4k calories a day and having 100% nutritional tracking and nearly 100% exercise consistency. Limitations 1. This was a N=1 scenario. 2. The accuracy of skinfold thickness testing is limited by the proficiency of the tester and the equation chosen. Tester inaccuracy was minimized though over a year of practice and taking many measurements through the week and plotting the polynomial trendline. My equation choice of Evans/Parillo was the result of many hours of research and I believe it to be the most accurate for younger athletes with significant muscle mass. 3. Ultimately, skinfold to body compositional conversion is inherently inaccurate. Part of what I am testing and proving to myself is if the accuracy and particularly the precision, is high enough to obtain practical benefits. So far it appear it is, though I will be more confident once I have cut. 4. It is possible that given the better than anticipated results that I am might have a genetic advantage. This might not be reproduceable. 5. Strict, complete and as accurate as possible nutritional tracking is vital. 6. Not feasible for all athletes given the difficulty and frequency of tracking. [1] Ribeiro AS, Nunes JP, Schoenfeld BJ, Aguiar AF, Cyrino ES. Effects of Different Dietary Energy Intake Following Resistance Training on Muscle Mass and Body Fat in Bodybuilders: A Pilot Study. J Hum Kinet. 2019 Nov 30;70:125-134. doi: 10.2478/hukin-2019-0038. PMID: 31915482; PMCID: PMC6942464. [2] Evans, E. M., Rowe, D. A., Misic, M. M., Prior, B. M., & Arngrímsson, S. A. (2005). Skinfold prediction equation for athletes developed using a four-component model. Medicine and science in sports and exercise, 37(11), 2006-2011. [3] Jagim AR, Tinsley GM, Merfeld BR, Ambrosius A, Khurelbaatar C, Dodge C, Carpenter M, Luedke J, Erickson JL, Fields JB, Jones MT. Validation of skinfold equations and alternative methods for the determination of fat-free mass in young athletes. Front Sports Act Living. 2023 Aug 11;5:1240252. doi: 10.3389/fspor.2023.1240252. PMID: 37637224; PMCID: PMC10453806.
Great to see this type of research being conducted! As someone who doesn’t increase energy in to build, more so continual maintenance, interesting to see if and how much more muscle I might have gained if implemented those increases followed by a ‘cut’. Thank you for the overview!
Should also say I'm not natural but I can pack on a ton of weight, a lot being muscle, do a super hard cut with tons of protein and gear, strip the fat very fast and can go right back to building. The gains are almost not noticeable at maintainence for me
Bulking is fun and easy, at least for me. I gain strength consistently and maintain a lot of it when I minicut it off. I gain around 1kg per month, which is a lot for a guy my height (5'9), but I cut 4kg of that in 4-5 weeks every 4-6 months. I never become overweight, I have loads of energy, no bloating, no stretch marks, no force feeding, and I can still hike for miles. It's just a simple and repeatable cycle for me that always nets me gains. I absolutely believe I could do it better, but I love eating and I love making progress, so whatever.
Highly informative and insightful. Really loved the discussion and learned plenty. Thank you! Appreciate all the valuable information and experience you share with us in such a comprehensive manner. I’m truly grateful to you for that. 👍🙏💪
Lmao I wasn't gonna say nothing about this one because I couldn't come up with a good subspace tachyon field joke but Omar's face when Eric said "advanced from the waist down" made me cackle
It just doesn't make logical sense. Like what would I look like after 10 years of hard training and not gaining weight if I started off at 140lbs bodyweight? Probably not great...
god to see new research on the subject! funny that I would be disqualified to participate in this study as a 82kg male with a 240kg sq 170kg bench and 295 dl, due to 2 weeks of being sick! good job Eric (and omar)
Im a maintenance guy right now but bulked for many years. Always looked at two cousins who didnt and they were looking better than me all the time and I could only match their physique when I was really lean. The answer was always in front of me.
@kodymcgrath7148 sure. The argument is that you'll plateau a lot quicker when you aren't sticking to a small surplus. I've tried maintaining, and even tho it's been at bf levels that would seem appropriate, progress is certainly slow. Trying a dedicated longer bulk this winter, looking forward to becoming a bit of a beefcake
So the people trying to eat around maintenance are likely to be in a small surplus some days and a small deficit on others and still build similar muscle to the surplus group even when training isn't optimal for hypertrophy. Very interesting findings and maybe a good option to eat at maintenance for the average person
Would be incredibly contextual and helpful to have Eric explain how it is mathematically possible to have anything approximating statistical significance from a sample size of 10 people per group. Where I come from this would be considered absolutely unacceptable and disregarded since even 1 subject who is an outlier will ruin the whole data set
Mike Matthews is a solid dude. Very no nonsense. Just wants good data and good information to disseminate on his platform and good info to create his supplements.
The study design is amazing, but the exercise selection sounds a bit iffy to me. Personally, my triceps and quads wouldn't grow a single milimeter if bench and barbell squat were the only exercises that would potentially hit them. Having exercises that would surely stimulate the muscles regardless of the individual's characteristics may have changed the outcomes, who knows.
They'd have to do a longer study where they change exercise programs every 4 to 5 weeks. Hard to do it right that's why self observation wins out most times.
I feel like Sisyphus describes resistance training, bodybuilding and life better than Milo. But I really respect Helms proving that corporations can be people by tattooing Raskol badge on himself, like becoming the superhero alias of himself - the Raskol. The new title of the study is really catchy, gonna probably be singing it all day. The way Helms puts the summary on the different levels of surplus in context of your progress, it's practical and easy to understand, but gets complicated when you factor in being just a normal person with occasional or regular sleep deprivation and varying stress levels etc. Meaning all the factors that hurt the performance and results in rather unpredictable ways.
Almost everybody on the fitness scene went through a gigabulk at some point and everybody made some gains...yet everybody will afterwards say it was useless too extreme...damn just respect the reallity!
I’m just halfway through the video, but I would like to ask a question (I don’t know if it was already talked about in other episodes): if we compare two groups, both of which are going to gain (let’s say) 3kg over 5 months, is there an actual difference in muscle and total fat gain if the weight gain is scattered throughout the months (0.6 kg per month in this example) vs front-loading that weight gain (gaining those 3kg in the first month or two and then maintaining the weight)?
Bulking is a pain in the ass. I was eating 4200 calories a day for a month and the scale didn’t move lol. Just going to leave it around that and see what happens
@@akalion213 i upped it to 4 1200 calorie meals and it nothing. From the start of the bulk I was 242. Gained 10 lbs of water in a few weeks but zero changes after that. Went back down to 3 1200-1300 calorie meals and dropped the 10 lbs in less than a week. Damn water lol
I strongly disagree that most people know what "statistically significant" means. Many people have heard the term, sure, but I'm willing to bet almost all of those people have an incorrect understanding of what it is. Many will confuse it with a meaningful effect size, others will confuse it as the probability that there is a real effect. In reality, statistical significance occurs when the data is extreme enough that we can reject the test hypothesis while not exceeding a predefined type 1 error rate. How many people actually know that?
I disagree with much I heard from Eric here. Firstly, 8 weeks studies are ridiculous. The next study I will read is one looking at people over a duration of 8 months. More importantly, why is it impossible to accomplish slow weight gains. I have people gain 1 lbs per month consistently without counting calories. Just weigh yourself daily and calculate a 9 day average. Plot a straight line into the future for your lean bulk…. Say 10 lbs more in 10 months. Then simply use auto regulation. If you find your weight going up too fast, increase your daily steps by 2000 and eat slightly less. If you don’t gain enough weight do the opposite. You will be surprised how well you can guide your 9 day weight average to the desired goal without difficulty. People who can stick to a weight lifting program and go close to failure can do this. It’s the easy part.
*when bulking is not the answer* - there's nearly always an exception to the rule, but rules exist for good reasons. When both studies and anecdotal evidence contradict your title, it's probably a good time to rethink your approach.
I see a problem with making the evaluation of muscle growth dependent on weight gain. You will be completely blind for differences in partitioning. Lets take two lifters, same surplus. Both gain tissue equivalent to 300 kcal/day. One lifter gainz 75 % muscle (20 g protein, 5 g fat per 100 g muscle), 25 % fat (5 g protein, 80 g fat per 100 g), the other vice versa. After 30 days, both are 9000 kcal in surplus. Lifter 1 gained ~53 g of muscle and 3 g of fat, lifter 2 of ~18 g muscle and 9 g of fat. So 56 g vs. 27 g - is it any wonder, that lifter 1 gained more biceps size? Probably not, you selected for it. I'm ignoring "tissue creation cost" here, which is probably a bit higher for muscle as for fat. But still, I would love to see an evaluation using the changes in skinfold measure in combination with the prescribed surplus (assuming perfect adherence) to see how big the selection actually is.
Old man Helms may have his fancy degree and Greek god physique, but can his “science” explain why Trexler can put on 2 lbs of muscle for every pound bodyweight he loses? How about why kids love the taste of Cinnamon Toast Crunch? That’s what I thought.
I feel like this episode just talkes about in jokes and nonsense. You could have made it 30 minutes full of good information. But it just feels like rambling cliche. I love your other videos, I just wanted to give you honest feedback.
Its weird how Mike israetel is an "expert" who knows all the answers m, but doesn't clarify that' he's on shit tons of gear. Like, maybe that changes ones perspective on training and diet. Maybe Mike israetel should try going off the juice for a year so he can have some experience actually natural..Kudos to Eric and Omar for staying off the juice
