This is unrelated but can you do a video on antinutrients. some people out here have got me overthinking about peanut butter, like how dare they disrespect peanut butter.
I've always focused on lifting light enough to optimize mind - muscle connection, but heavy enough that I don't fatigue my cardiovascular before the muscle. Seems to be 8-12 rep range for pretty much all my lifts. That's just me though. I'll throw in crazy shit toward the end of my block (rest pauses, drop sets, etc) but 8-12 is my general go - to.
Once again great delivery! Love your videos and I think you should do some sort of collaboration with Mike Isratel from Renaissance Periodization. You both have quite similar no nonsense scientific approach to fitness and training. I'm sure it would be really informative and entertaining just to see you too discussing about different topics
Great study! However, I believe the hypotheses were not the ones I would assume to be true from begin with. As you said in the beginning: Fast twitch dominant muscle fibres fatigue faster than slow twitch dominant muscle fibres. So my prediction/hypothesis would be that fast twitch dominant muscle fibres would need less overall volume (number of hard sets in close proximity to failure) to grow than slow twitch muscle fibres do, because they are easier to fatigue. Annecdotal evidence to support this: I train most at home with kettlebells, a pull-up bar and body weight exercises. I noticed that when I train close to failure on deficit push-ups within the first three sets there is a strong decline in number of reps I am able to achieve (keeping rest relatively constant training in an E2MOM). But the decline after set number three is less steep. I am more or less able to crank out 8-6 reps almost forever whereas my max is 17. I hypothesize that by set 4 my fast twitch fibres are pretty much fatigued and the 8-6 reps I am always able to do (worked up to 10 sets when trying this out) is baseline strength coming from slow twitch muscle fibres. Also I can feel a difference in speed of motion once I „depleted“ the fast twitch fibres. Which practical application would this have? Possibly we could roughly determine needed volume using this approach. Since fast twitch fibres also have the greatest potential for hypertrophy working to fast twitch fibre fatigue would be my minimum volume. Depending on what fibre amount is dominant there would be more or less merit in adding sets (more volume for a stronger slow twitch muscle fibres spread, less volume for someone with a larger fast twitch percentage. Essentially, giving us a better and more individual indication of when junk volume starts.
Back in the late 90s, doctor Doug McGuff (MD) explained fiber type recruitment patterns in his Ultimate Exercise Bulletin #1. He provided a compelling argument for why "Superslow" reps, performed to momentary muscular failure, were the safest and most efficient way to inroad the largest possible number of all fiber types.
And turns out he was absolutely wrong, you always want fast concentric speed and once you get close to failure the reps slow down involuntary and you know you're getting mechanical tension at that point.
I never paid much attention to the speed at which I performed reps when I was younger, but I gotta say, training every muscle group with 4 exercises, 3 working sets per exercise and 12 reps per set (with the exception of quads with rep ranges of 12-30) - I blew up. Made more gains in 2 years than most people make in 10.
iF bRAD DOES THE STUDY AND YOU TELL US WHAT IT MEANS, how can we go wrong? So many of these studies point toward optimal results while the vast majority of us are happy with good results. Hard work and your explanations will give great results. Thanks
Isn't making one leg the control a bit of an issue? When people get into casts, they train the other side to prevent atrophy in the immobilized side. The cross training effect may be small, but isn't it very possible that it's larger than the effect of fiber types and thus this study methodology would mask it's effect?
Could you do a video (or point me and others who are interested in the right direction) regarding joint health? I've heard lots of things that i can't decide if they're true or just myths, like low load high rep stuff and isometrics are good for your joints, and increasing load when muscles can handle it, doesn't mean that joints can as well. Muscles taking X amount of time to get stronger, but connective tissue takes like 4x or something. Etc.
He does not agree with him nor Dorian Yates. I believe more in Mentzer and Yates than this "expert" I train that way more than 20 years ago with fantastic results , but, recovery is the other variable of the equation.As a matter of fact, Nick Walker just accepted that once he dropped the volume of his training, he grew to a new level.
If you don't think that slow twitch muscles respond to higher volume and less weight, all you have to do is look at the next UPS drive's calves you see.
Im sceptical about the calf muscle, general conception is that is a very stubborn muscle, and if it was not long study in duration, there would be probably no real growth
What about using resistance bands to do reps quicker than you could with free weights? Does doing the reps faster incorporate more fast twitch muscle fiber?
I prefer listening to how my body feels that day. Some days you are perfectly rested and fueled up, your joints feel good and you feel like lifting heavy shit. Other days, maybe not so much so you decide to go for the higher reps and lighter weight and get a skin splitting pump that feels incredible. Both are good and I think will keep you training without serious injuries as you age. The days where I haven’t listened to my body is when I’ve always gotten hurt. Now as I’m 45 years old, I know how to apply that wisdom now and leave my ego at the door.
Great content!. On a side note, I always had this doubt, if you want your muscle to be seeing and toned them (besides having low % of fat) I heard that to tone them you have to do a lot of series and reps with low volume? I don't know if that is true. EDIT: More than toned, maybe the word is definition?
I dont think that your muscles will look more defined doing that, you have to be at a certain body fat % to see definition. But also building muscle will add definition to some extent I believe.
Why is hypertrophy the standard? If the soleus is primarily there for endurance, shouldn’t the standard be muscle VO2 for the soleus? Is this study strictly for mirror athletes or real athletes?
How does this impact non-weightlifting/bodybuilding/powerlifting focused athletes. 🤔 Seems that this would mean specificity doesn't apply? Am I missing something then?
So I generaly agree with your thesis of this video...I believe higher(ephasis on higher rep...or really getting those last few reps) you'll get more hypertrophy...why...because if you only engage a 70% of your fibers every time you train....your strongest and best fibers...only 70% of the fibers will grow....but if you take it past failure...where your top 70% of fibers can't continue...the others also have to grow...I belive this is also why sometimes people are way stronger than they look (olympic lifters) vs people way weaker than they look (bodybuilders)....that being said, olympic lifters can be big, and and bodybuilders can be small..but I thinkthe principle is correct. My thesis...take it to failure...and beyond if you want the biggest muscles(not the strongest....)
Study was in untrained subjects, really should have at least mentioned that. One N=26 study in untrained subjects doesn’t really prove or disprove anything, certainly not for more advanced trainees
This will always remind me of the time I was in the gym and a couple of bro’s were chatting, “Dude you HAVE to stop eating dark meat on a chicken because it’s slow twitch! You have to eat chicken breast ONLY because it’s fast twitch and goes straight to your muscles.” 🤦🏻♂️
Two minutes in my confirmation bias...kicking in...my concept...from things as old as the Arnold Schwarzenegger bodybuilding encyclopedia (I've bought two versions through my life)...essentially...fast twitch or slow twitch...if you go until failure...you get all of them...you make sure they are all of them...I personally call myself dropset man...love...dropsets...its the only way I feel a true connection...I've got lots of bad habits...over drinking/eating/not training regularly enough...but when I do train it is every set is a drop set to absolute failure...I like to go until I can't do a rep without shaking with nearly no weight....breaking myself...
My only reservation with the design comes from my personal struggle. I have a significantly better ability to control my right calf as apposed to my left and it has led to developmental differences that are apparent btw them. I now only train my calves uni-laterally. Any advice for what I'm experiencing. I can flex my right calf to a point where it cramps on command and comparably can barely feel my left calf when I flex. It's better in the seated position but still strikingly different.
Its hemisphere dominance as far as i am concerned. If you want to Maximally contract your gastrocnemius make sure you do plantar flexion (pointing toes down) and also knee flexion since the gastrocnemius originates at the condyles of the femur. In terms of learning go for as many repetitions as possible and some day you get a hang of it. For me i find it very hard to compare the right half of the body to the left, since I think they are controlled by whole different brains (its a exaggerated, but you get the idea)
@@Michaah I've been doing high reps and it seems to be "waking up". I've also experimented with blood flow restriction in an effort to connect with it more. I want to possibly try something with a tense device (I think is what it's called) where you're exercising with an outside electrical stimulus. I also wanted to mention I've toyed with lying leg curls pointed toes and tried to keep the "feels" in the range where the calf proximal the knee joint seems to be doing the "pulling" I'm just hoping some combination of the science experiment I'm doing on myself will yield results.
