Parts 1/2/3 of the programming podcast should be mandatory viewing for every person who has ever walked into a gym - great job guys. One thing has me puzzled though and I can’t seem to wrap my head around it. Let me just be sure I have this straight first: the more post-novice we get and the more developed our neurological factors and skills become, the evidence suggests that muscle size has the highest correlation to strength development over other factors. In addition to that, volume is the highest predictor of muscle size and the load on the bar doesn’t have nearly as much of an effect (assuming we’re not talking about a major difference in percentage of 1RM between two loads). Hypothetically, then, would it make sense that the “best” program would just have you doing more volume week to week with loads somewhere between 70-80% 1RM, to the point where after a year you’d be doing like 50+ sets a session? Now, obviously I know that isn’t practical and not the way anybody programs but even when I look at some of your templates - I have HLM, Bridge 2.0, Hypertrophy - the volume increases for a few weeks then actually decreases while intensity increases. From what I’ve heard you guys say, this seems to be done in a way to moderate useful stress/adaptation. Then I wonder how long these small blocks of undulating volume can be effective since, as stated before, volume is the primary driver for muscle size which is the primary driver for strength development… am I making sense?
Amarengi,
Thanks for the post and I hope you’re doing well. For your questions:
Let me just be sure I have this straight first: the more post-novice we get and the more developed our neurological factors and skills become, the evidence suggests that muscle size has the highest correlation to strength development over other factors.
It [hypertrophy] becomes increasingly important, yes.
volume is the highest predictor of muscle size and the load on the bar doesn’t have nearly as much of an effect (assuming we’re not talking about a major difference in percentage of 1RM between two loads).
Yes, provided both loads are > threshold for stimulating hypertrophy.
Hypothetically, then, would it make sense that the “best” program would just have you doing more volume week to week with loads somewhere between 70-80% 1RM, to the point where after a year you’d be doing like 50+ sets a session?
No. Why would you need to increase volume every week? This would assume that complete acclimation to the training stressors has occurred in 7 days, which does not happen generally.
Then I wonder how long these small blocks of undulating volume can be effective since, as stated before, volume is the primary driver for muscle size which is the primary driver for strength development… am I making sense?
I’m not quite sure what you’re asking here to be honest.
Thanks Jordan. So, your point about acclimation to training stress not happening with the week - looks like that is where I went wrong. In an attempt to clarify the last question, let me ask it a different way to you specifically: what is the primary reason or reasons for the rep/set/load schemes in your templates where you generally have a few weeks of increasing volume followed by a few weeks of decreasing volume but with heavier loads over the course of the full block - IF we know that volume becomes increasingly important for hypertrophy and subsequent strength development?
Ive got a parallell thread going with very similar point of confusion/contention. I see the contradiction as well. There is a disjointedness between the description of the way it works and the prescription of programming.
The issue is that if volume is what is buiilding, why periodically decrease it to focus on more fatiging intensity. We already established that isnt going to cut it at the end of the novice stage. Why keep returning to failed protocal.
If were going to claim moderate intensity, increasing volume is the way post-novice, why are higher intensity novice style blocks still around?
The response to any given stimulus will decay as it becomes acclimated to, so at the point when the response has waned enough to no longer produce empirical evidence for improvement we need to change the stimulus. You could add more stress in the form of volume, which will work for awhile before requiring either even more volume or a pivot/washout period in order to resensitize oneself to that particular stimulus OR, ALTERNATIVELY you could drop volume, crank up intensity and transfer the strength developed in previous training towards absolute strength display. Here we’d be maximizing neurological improvements, though both neural and structural improvements are ALWAYS happening when training is productive.
Not at all, in my opinion. In all of the podcasts we discuss the decreased response of the individual over time to similar stimuli. It therefore makes sense that the stimulus would need to change, yes?
The issue is that if volume is what is buiilding, why periodically decrease it to focus on more fatiging intensity. We already established that isnt going to cut it at the end of the novice stage. Why keep returning to failed protocal.
Intensity isn’t more fatiguing than volume without more context. This is one of the reasons that SSLP stops working, e.g. increasing absolute intensity for 3x5 is not stressful enough to drive adaptation.
Now I have to ask, did you listen to the podcasts?
Ahh - I see. That makes sense.
If I can ask one more question along these lines then I’ll let it go. As time goes by, it would seem to me that a progressively more trained person would need to train~program in such a way that volume would continually be added to some extent. For instance, let’s say I’m running the Bridge 2.0 now. A year from now if I tried running the Bridge 2.0 again, would it not be enough volume? Maybe now I have to run a “Bridge 2.5” where the volume is some degree greater. Then another year after that I’d require “Bridge 3.0” etc. Is that accurate?
But then again, when I look at your and Austin’s instagram’s it looks like you’re still doing similar volume work to what is prescribed in something like the Bridge. Thanks again for helping me understand all of this.
I don’t think you are engaging with the depth of the questioning that we’re bringing up. Can you get your partner to weigh in on this?
Not at all, in my opinion. In all of the podcasts we discuss the decreased response of the individual over time to similar stimuli. It therefore makes sense that the stimulus would need to change, yes?
Which is why : more volume
Older lifter has decreased response. What do? More volume at an appropriate intensity.
Novice graduate has decreased response. What do? More volume at an appropriate intensity.
Intermediate progress has stalled due to decreased response. What do? More volume at an appropriate intensity.
Why must the lp graduate be brought down to an “appropriate intensity”?
Because fatigue.
ntensity isn’t more fatiguing than volume without more context. This is one of the reasons that SSLP stops working, e.g. increasing absolute intensity for 3x5 is not stressful enough to drive adaptation.
That "bone on bone grinder " 5x5 when you are essentially doing all 5RMs will produce way more fatigue than a moderate intensity volume-maximized style. It will leave you beat up. There are threads all over various boards of people at the end of their novice stages accumulating so much fatigue they have to take naps after training. So If we can’t add productive stress in the form of intensity, we have to add stress in the form of volume. I know in your videos you guys say “difficult stress =/= productive stress”. This is true. But with maximal sets, there is a ton of fatigue generated. If we can only deal with a certain amount of fatigue, we need to spend it productively, correct? Spend it on volume, instead of higher intensities. There is a trade-off there.
Now I have to ask, did you listen to the podcasts?
About 3 times through already. Because I’ve been trying to figure this out. There is something that doesn’t quite make sense to some of us. .
I’m not trying to be difficult. I am an enthusiast, and I agree with most of what is laid out at barbell medicine, but on the macroscale there appears to be something illogical. The problem people are seeing and trying to articulate is this :
Allocating resources to intensity driven progressive overload seems to be (for post novices) a dead-end highly fatiguing road.
We have premises
-70% to 100%RM load are effectively equal
-100%RM loads are more fatiguing than 70% loads. “Appropriate intensity”
-You have a limited pool of resources to train and recover with.
-Volume is the only infinitely scale-able variable
-Most of the gains around very high intensity are neural and come/fade quickly.
The question is why keep introducing intensity driven overload phases? Why not infinitely scale volume, and incorporate exercise rotations and even 1-2 week training breaks for re-sensitization? Optimizing for those heavy singles or triples seems like a less efficient allocation of resources unless prepping for a meet.
We’ve got this old paradigm of “Strength” vs “hypertrophy”. The whole point is that outside of neural components they are the same. You must get bigger to get stronger, and the most viable way to achieve that is through volume emphasis. CSA is king in the long run. The underlying dichotomy more accurately seems to be spectrum with optimizing vs building. The more resources you put into optimizing expression of what you have, the less resources you put into increasing it.
I bought the gpp/hypertrophy template and it says run in between strength blocks. This is that same old strength vs hypertrophy dichotomy. This doesn’t makes sense to me. It’s like we’ve had a paradigm shift, but the macro scale programming is still from the old paradigm. The template is telling me to sandwich 1 volume emphasis between 2 intensity emphasis phases, but we already know "Allocating resources to intensity driven progressive overload seems to be (for post novices) a short dead-end highly fatiguing road. ". It’s prescribing in a 2:1 ratio the short-dead end-highly fatiguing road to the infinitely scale-able one. I don’t understand why? It seems to contradict the paradigm shift that barbell medicine is showcasing.
I’m at a loss for how to more articulately explain the coherency issue that people are getting at in these types of threads.
The idea when creating a template of any kind is to maximize results with an acceptable level of risk for a wide swath of the desired demographic with continuing updates as needed based on empirical results.
With that in mind, we typically see an improvement in strength development when exposed to a suitable amount of training stress through the relevant variables- volume, intensity, frequency, exercise selection, etc. for about 3-6 weeks depending on the context. At that point, change is required to further drive progress and we find the most success in the context of the strength trainee by alternating volume based development training with intensity based training. Most of our templates reflect that process.
In short, you cannot just add sets/reps/frequency over time without pivoting to higher intensities for periods of time without a decreased return on improvement in strength performance for training time invested. We think this is best mitigated by alternating training strategies in the fashion described.
I don’t particularly like the way you are trying to engage here. We are presenting our ideas in ways we feel like are as clear as possible given the medium and respond to questions that are being asked. You may not like the answers to the given questions, but that may be due to the question being asked, you know?
Older lifter has decreased response. What do? More volume at an appropriate intensity.
Novice graduate has decreased response. What do? More volume at an appropriate intensity.
Intermediate progress has stalled due to decreased response. What do? More volume at an appropriate intensity.
This is a fundamental misunderstanding of what has been laid out in the podcasts and exemplary templates. We suggest that in those who are resistant to a given dose of training that more stress is needed to drive further improvement. This can be done via more volume, yes, or more intensity, or more novel exercises, or a combination of all of the above (or other factors). Think of each factor as a lever. The degree to which one lever is pulled depends on the context. We also know that hypertrophy is an important aspect of strength development (and subsequent display), so when taken into consideration for a “best practices” model for the post SSLP/TM demographic- more volume at an intensity that allows the correct amount of increase stress to occur is the most effective way to do this from a strength development standpoint.
Why must the lp graduate be brought down to an “appropriate intensity”?
Because fatigue.
Not necessarily just fatigue, per se’, as fatigue is very useful in the appropriate amount. However, not all fatigue is created equal so the correct type and amount of fatigue must be generated through the appropriate stressors. You are paraphrasing us incorrectly.
That "bone on bone grinder " 5x5 when you are essentially doing all 5RMs will produce way more fatigue than a moderate intensity volume-maximized style. It will leave you beat up. There are threads all over various boards of people at the end of their novice stages accumulating so much fatigue they have to take naps after training. So If we can’t add productive stress in the form of intensity, we have to add stress in the form of volume. I know in your videos you guys say “difficult stress =/= productive stress”. This is true. But with maximal sets, there is a ton of fatigue generated. If we can only deal with a certain amount of fatigue, we need to spend it productively, correct? Spend it on volume, instead of higher intensities. There is a trade-off there.
How are you quantifying “fatigue”? Hell, how are you defining it? I don’t know if we’re even using the term in the same manner, certainly not using the definition we provided in the podcast. Does 5x5 @ 80% produce more stress than 5x5 @ 75%? Likely it does - though depending on some neurophysiological contributors- maybe not. The real question is, which one provides a better improvement in strength development within the context of the given program? That depends on the program, though I’d argue 5x5 @ 80% is not a great use of training resources for most folks and that the fatigue generated is less useful than the same 25 reps @ 75%. Perhaps, it produces less fatigue overall since it cannot be as readily applied or realized given the desired adaptations.
Allocating resources to intensity driven progressive overload seems to be (for post novices) a dead-end highly fatiguing road.
I think a more concise way to think about it is that maintaining volume, e.g. 5 reps x 3 sets, at the same to slightly increasing relative intensity of, say, 80-85%, is unable to produce long term improvements in strength. Furthermore, relying on intensity only as the stress lever to pull is fraught with all sorts of potential problems- some even deleterious, such as requiring a decrease in either average intensity whilst using the same volume (example 1) or decreasing volume overall while intensity goes up transiently in a relatively untrained population (example 2).
Example 1:
3x5 on typical LP is done at 80-85%. The relative intensity stays the same week to week as 1RM likely increases. However, when 1RM fails to increase as much as the the work sets are increased, the relative intensity goes up- maybe now at 85/86%. Doing 15 reps at this intensity certainly is stressful, but does it produce a good amount of useful, transferrable fatigue for further improvement with a 1RM? Well, we think there is some non zero amount of improvement, but this is why LP ultimately fails. The amount of fatigue that can be adapted to wanes as the intensity gets too high. To be clear, more stress and more fatigue is needed and this likely must be accrued over multiple sessions. We must take special care to produce a more useful/adaptable type of fatigue.
Example 2:
3x5 on LP is switched to 1 set @ 86%, and 2 sets @ 77%. Average intensity drops, volume stays the same. Total stress goes down, fatigue goes down. Previous training fatigue also starts to dissipate, which allows a transient increase in performance. This is peaking. For short term performance gain this can be useful in certain contexts, but in a novice population we feel like this short changes the longer term development of the lifter, though it can be useful for short periods of time for more advanced lifters going to a meet, testing, or resensitizing them to volume. Given that the novice is still relatively sensitive to volume compared to someone doing 5x5 or similar, we prefer to just increase volume here. Intensity generally will go down, but the coach and lifter are working towards a bottoms up approach to figure out the right approach.
We have premises
-70% to 100%RM load are effectively equal
This is not something we have said. Rather, we have explicitly stated the opposite when discussing neuromuscular development.
-100%RM loads are more fatiguing than 70% loads. “Appropriate intensity”
Eh, again I think we need to use fatigue properly and then also ascribe the other necessary parameters here to compare apples to apples. Are we talking about a 1RM squat (100%) vs a 10RM squat set (70%)? Which is more fatiguing? Which produces more stress? Which produces more useful adaptations? This nuance is important.
-You have a limited pool of resources to train and recover with.
Yes, though this is a dynamic variable.
-Volume is the only infinitely scale-able variable
Well, exercise variations and frequencies are also very scaleable- though maybe not infinitely. Everything is scaleable to a degree. The real meaning is- you cannot increase anything forever besides maybe volume. However, since there are multiple stress levers to pull- we prefer to use more than one to get the desired result.
-Most of the gains around very high intensity are neural and come/fade quickly.
We didn’t say this either and this depends on context.
The question is why keep introducing intensity driven overload phases?
See the response in the post above.
Why not infinitely scale volume, and incorporate exercise rotations and even 1-2 week training breaks for re-sensitization? Optimizing for those heavy singles or triples seems like a less efficient allocation of resources unless prepping for a meet.
The returns are limited and regardless of goals, you’ll likely want to transfer developed strength to strength displayed in addition to resensitize oneself to volume. Logistics play a role as well and the assumption that exercise variations represent a novel enough training stress to mitigate the need for higher intensities is not one I’m willing to make.
We’ve got this old paradigm of “Strength” vs “hypertrophy”.
This is not a paradigm by any definition. Please clarify.
The whole point is that outside of neural components they are the same.
No they’re not. There is no strength without neural components. If you’re saying you can get bigger and get stronger with only CSA increases and no neural adaptations I’d like to no how this is possible.
You must get bigger to get stronger, and the most viable way to achieve that is through volume emphasis. CSA is king in the long run.
Hypertrophy is very important and cannot be overstated- this is true. However, neural adaptations are also very important and they cannot be overstated. By your logic- one could just do leg presses for increasingly higher volumes before requiring a washout or completely novel stressor (not a squat) and just grow big legs and then squat more than if they’d have squatted during this duration of time. Why does the person squatting end up squatting more weight than the leg press only guy? Because of neurological adaptations. The guy squatting and leg pressing- or squatting with some regular exposure to higher intensities and doing other training that produces hypertrophy improvement (with concomitant neurological adaptations) is stronger still in the long term. In the short term, the guy who just squats will be a better squatter via practice (neural adaptations). Enter concurrent training…
We cannot reduce programming to simplistic sound bytes and still be correct.
The underlying dichotomy more accurately seems to be spectrum with optimizing vs building. The more resources you put into optimizing expression of what you have, the less resources you put into increasing it.
Some truth to that, though a good long term development plan will transition to periods of higher intensity and lower volumes- though not for long- then back to higher volumes, lower intensities. This works better than one or the other, e.g. periodization.
I bought the gpp/hypertrophy template and it says run in between strength blocks. This is that same old strength vs hypertrophy dichotomy.
It’s not a dichotomy.
This doesn’t makes sense to me. It’s like we’ve had a paradigm shift, but the macro scale programming is still from the old paradigm. The template is telling me to sandwich 1 volume emphasis between 2 intensity emphasis phases, but we already know "Allocating resources to intensity driven progressive overload seems to be (for post novices) a short dead-end highly fatiguing road. ". It’s prescribing in a 2:1 ratio the short-dead end-highly fatiguing road to the infinitely scale-able one. I don’t understand why? It seems to contradict the paradigm shift that barbell medicine is showcasing.
The strength blocks are not low volume, high intensity. I am really trying to understand your question here, but I am having a hard time.
I’m at a loss for how to more articulately explain the coherency issue that people are getting at in these types of threads.
I think that if people are thinking it’s all one or the other (strength or hypertrophy)- it’s not. If people are thinking its all volume or intensity- it’s not. If people are thinking that variables should change over time for various lengths of time depending on context, they’re right. It’s not simple, it’s not straightforward, and it always depends. It’s much more appealing to say “Just do this and confabulate reasons,” but we’re saying that without specific contexts and scenarios it’s difficult to provide an answer without multiple caveats.
This last paragraph of the extremely detailed and nuanced response has reminded me of The Last Jedi, where Ryan Johnson gives the finger to “Jedi vs. Sith” and “Empire vs. Rebels” through Kylo Ren’s yelling “Let the past die…Kill it if you have to…” I’m looking forward to a more nuanced Star Wars story line with multi-dimensional characters. Tribalism and absolutes are exciting but also getting old and not suitable for the future.
Yes apologies for getting off topic so feel free to delete…
Jordan, do you mind if I ask a question that comes to mind when I see these responses?
Are you developing these templates and programs based on your “model”, or are you developing your “model” based on programs that you’ve seen to have worked? My impression is that it’s the latter; e.g. Mike Tuchscherer - style training has worked out well for you and your clients, so now you’re trying to find a model that justifies it (backed-up by exercise science as well).
If it is the latter, I don’t think there’s anything wrong with that, but it probably does change the answer to some of these more specific questions. The model doesn’t seem air-tight to me, and I’d be far more convinced by an answer that was something like “This has worked best for me and my clients, and I think this is because of X, Y, Z”, rather than trying to answer questions like this more definitively. I find it hard to believe that the science and model is clear enough to know for sure the answers to some of these questions, like the importance of alternating periods of high-volume with periods of high-intensity. On the other hand, I’m completely willing to buy into the idea that you reckon it works better from experience, and have some general ideas as to why that might be the case.
Not at all, ask away!
Are you developing these templates and programs based on your “model”, or are you developing your “model” based on programs that you’ve seen to have worked? My impression is that it’s the latter; e.g. Mike Tuchscherer - style training has worked out well for you and your clients, so now you’re trying to find a model that justifies it (backed-up by exercise science as well).
A few clarifications and challenges here.
Clarifications:
-
No one has come up with a strength and conditioning or physiological model without some experience. In other words, it is not possible to even start to generate a model without having done a program. We are no different in that regard.
-
Everyone has biases 100% of the time. We are no different in that regard either, though by being aware of them we are (hopefully) not screwing the pooch too much.
-
Everyone is seeking explanation for things that are puzzling. We are no different here either.
So- everyone who has developed a model has done a program before and draws from that experience in some regard with a non-zero amount of bias.
Questions:
-
Define Mike Tuchscherer style training? I’ve worked with him off and on for almost 5 years now and there are huge differences in programming throughout that time.
-
If we accept that certain programs will work for certain people sometimes, but not everyone all the time- wouldn’t it behoove a curious coach to seek out generally productive training models?
If it is the latter, I don’t think there’s anything wrong with that, but it probably does change the answer to some of these more specific questions.
How?
The model doesn’t seem air-tight to me, and I’d be far more convinced by an answer that was something like “This has worked best for me and my clients, and I think this is because of X, Y, Z”, rather than trying to answer questions like this more definitively.
What is your question to the model? Rather, why doesn’t it seem air tight? You are able to have whatever opinion you like- regardless of its validity (or my opinion’s validity for that matter)- but I don’t think I’d cop to “I just think this works better based on experience.”
That’s irresponsible in my opinion.
I find it hard to believe that the science and model is clear enough to know for sure the answers to some of these questions, like the importance of alternating periods of high-volume with periods of high-intensity. On the other hand, I’m completely willing to buy into the idea that you reckon it works better from experience, and have some general ideas as to why that might be the case.
Well John, I think that the overall message of the podcasts- which was repeatedly stated over and over again- is that we are more confident in some of these things than others and that our opinions are provisional- based on the best current evidence.
That being said, one of the overwhelmingly clear things is alternating periods of training, as this is the basis of nearly all periodization models. That one is pretty straightforward.
So, at this time I’m not willing to chalk things up to experience if I don’t have to. On the other hand, the exercise variation and training exposure number are much squishier and I have stated that as well.
Yea I think that is probably true and particularly so in jargon heavy fields. That said, we did spend quite a bit of time defining our terms in all of the podcasts and there is a nice summary in the beginning of the 3rd.
For example, the NLP inevitably stops working because eventually the stress (intensity) doesn’t drive further adaptation
Stress does not equal intensity. They are not the same thing. Intensity is a variable that influences imposed stress, but they are not the same thing. There is volume in NLP (45+ reps per week), frequency (1-3x), etc/
Yet “running it out” sure as hell is stressful and fatiguing in the normal sense of those words. In fact, it can leave you feeling like you were hit by a damn truck, and in desperate need of a more than a few days of “recovery” (again, in the layman’s sense of that word). But as beat up as you indeed are, that does not mean the right “stress” has been applied.
I agree.
So, rightly or wrongly, I try to forget about whether or not the protocol is brutal. IIRC, the doctors have said stress does not always mean HARD. So I prefer the word “stimulus” to keep it straight in my own head, instead of “stress”.
So, I think this should be a point of clarification. We have said that harder does not equal better, but not necessarily that the reciprocal, “easier”, is better.
Rather, better is better.
Things that are hard aren’t good or bad based on the amount of chutzpah one needs to complete it. The discussion about virtue, nobility, and religious parallels drawn to this stuff are distractions. You can still be a piece of shit human if you squat 405 x 5 x 5 at RPE 10. You may also be weaker than the guy who only does one set of 405 @ 8. Isn’t that neat?
TL/DR: The use of the word “stress” may cause confusion. Maybe “stimulus” is another way to think of it.
I would agree with this.
i’m very grateful the BBM team is working out some optimal programming and i can simply enjoy the benefits. it has been very educational to be able to watch the process as you refine your approach in a public way (from watching SS and Alan Thrall separately to now seeing you come together under BBM).
i guess my question is “why now, why hasn’t this been figured out already?” I mean, there have been very strong power-lifters and olymic weightlifting for decades and decades. a lot of people have already figured this stuff out. where is that knowledge? Do those elite coaches keep their wisdom as proprietary?
what the discussion in this thread reinforces for me is that the only way to get close to your genetic strength potential is to work individually with a coach. i guess what’s new here is that BBM is MD’s trying to create advanced programming for the masses.
Well said, doctor.
If I recall correctly, the last BBL podcast I ever listened to, at one point the hosts agreed that EVEN IF IT IS NOT PRODUCTIVE, grinding out last NLP sets and reps were nonetheless very worthwhile because, in not so many words, it puts fuzz on your kiwis. Voluntary hardship, and all that. While I certainly see the value of acclimating yourself to handling very heavy weights/singles and the skills necessary in expressing that strength (practicing with specificity), I never understood how pursuing something that gets you nowhere (or sends you backwards) suddenly means it gets you somewhere…because it’s hard.
Hell, why not dig a 6 foot hole in their backyards using teaspoons? Hey, it’d be hard! And it’s voluntary! Kiwis. Fuzz.
As you say, better is better. Work hard productively, and we can have our cake and eat it too.
Well stated. All I’ve figured out from this last year of programming debate is that there are many ways to skin a cat for productive programming. Your never gonna run the most optimal programming no matter who designed it, and nobody has everything figured out. If your not gonna hire a coach, trial and error and design of your own programming is the best approach in my opinion.
I just don’t get it.
Like I just got done watching the pain science podcast 30 minutes ago and you say that high intensity causes more fatigue, that over-fatigue causes pain, and to get the pain down you need to decrease intensity…
But when I say things like “Intensity causes more fatigue” on this board, I get pushback with
How are you quantifying “fatigue”? Hell, how are you defining it? I don’t know if we’re even using the term in the same manner, certainly not using the definition we provided in the podcast
What’s it going to be? It can’t be both.
Or I read in response to the claim that ‘loads 70-100% were equally sufficient for hypertrophy purposes’
This is not something we have said. Rather, we have explicitly stated the opposite when discussing neuromuscular development.
But I can literally link you a time stamp in the programming podcast where you do say this. In fact, you say loads down to 65% are sufficiently above threshhold.
So you explicitly stated the opposite when discussing meuromuscular development…
And not 3 lines down when talking about the types of nueromuscular gains driven by high intensity
We didn’t say this either and this depends on context.
Again, It can’t be both.
There are about 3 or 4 other things In that response I can link to in the podcasts where there are contradictions but I don’t want to come across as overly combative.
We cannot reduce programming to simplistic sound bytes and still be correct.
And here I think we have a fundamental misunderstanding of exactly what It is I am doing here. I am not trying to flesh out or construct an entire model, I am trying to point out issues with it. I’m trying to point out inconsistencies in the model and discourse around it. I’m trying to flesh out and thoroughly understand the reasoning behind each part. When I try to point out very articulately, particularly, and specifically the issues I’m seeing, it’s not to attack and tear down but to explore and make better. Systems analysis is my jam. Errors and contradictions stick out to me. I’m trying to help, believe it or not.
The bobbing and weaving gets us nowhere though. Thanks for taking the time to respond.
This is the problem with oversimplifying things, Enthusiast. You can’t say something like 100% causes more fatigue than 70% because that’s not enough information to make that claim. If you had said something like 100% x 1 rep is more fatiguing than 70% x 1 rep for the same exercise then sure, but you have to clarify when speaking in absolutes.
Nope, because you can’t do enough volume with 100%.
Nope. We said that the hypertrophy outcomes were the same between 60-90% or 70-90% when volume is comparable or even 30-90% if volume is higher(depends on which podcast).
Dude, what are you even talking about? We make a very strong point to say that we need to develop hypertrophy and that this can be done across a wide range of intensities. Then we discuss the neuromuscular contribution requiring high intensities, e.g 70-85% will suffice for volume work.
I’m not sure why you’re upset or saying things we didn’t say, but I will need you to pose more specific questions if you’d like more specific answers.
There are about 3 or 4 other things In that response I can link to in the podcasts where there are contradictions but I don’t want to come across as overly combative.
I would like you link 1 think that we said in the podcast that I am contradicting. Please quote it and timestamp it for posterity.
Please point out the contradictions. If you are correct, I will send you 100 dollars. If you are incorrect, you have to shave your head. In the event your head is already shaved, I will send you a pink tutu and you need to take a picture of yourself in it with the accompanying barbell medicine t shirt on.
Oh, I see where the tragic disconnect in our conversation is. Now your responses make a lot more sense to me. You are flipping my generalizations into absolutisms, and arguing against them. That’s a bit of strawman’ing. Whenever I’m stating a principle(which you agree with), and you bring up some contextual nuance or exception to the principle, It throws me for a loop and makes it look like you are arguing against yourself. That’s why it looks like contradiction to me. I see what’s happening now.
When I make statements about principles, they aren’t absolutes. They are more like generalizations.
Nope, because you can’t do enough volume with 100%
I believe the exact wording was “Over a certain threshold” . You are agreeing with me in principle, but stating you are disagreeing it isn’t the case 100% of the time in all contexts.
Nope. We said that the hypertrophy outcomes were the same between 60-90% or 70-90% when volume is comparable or even 30-90% if volume is higher(depends on which podcast).
Again, you are saying nope, and agreeing with me. Nuance does not invalidate principles.
Then we discuss the neuromuscular contribution requiring high intensities,
When I say, higher intensities provide mostly neuromuscular improvements, you disagree. Here I am again, stating a principle, WHICH YOU AGREE WITH, and you are disagreeing with me.
Please point out the contradictions. If you are correct, I will send you 100 dollars. If you are incorrect, you have to shave your head. In the event your head is already shaved, I will send you a pink tutu and you need to take a picture of yourself in it with the accompanying barbell medicine t shirt on.
For some odd reason, you want to invalidate the principles of your own model with nuance(that’s not how principles work), instead of acknowledging the issues I was pointing out in the very beginning of this thread… which delt with long term programming structures being at odds with some of the principles laid out at bbm.