Yea I’d argue it’s not a strawman at all, as I don’t know you, your programming thoughts, or anything else besides what is written here, you know?
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.
Well, yes- I disagree that you can’t say 70 and 100% of 1RM are equivalent for hypertrophy.
Again, you are saying nope, and agreeing with me. Nuance does not invalidate principles.
I am not agreeing with you. I am disagreeing with you. The terminology must be more precise.
Earlier in this thread you accused me of not brining enough detail or effort in to the responses I was given. I have provided more detail and now you’re saying, “You know what I’m saying even though I didn’t say it.”
No. I don’t know what you’re saying. I just know that based on multiple statements you are misrepresenting our stance on this and this may be why you are saying we are contradicting ourselves when we are . not, in fact.
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.
Look man, a principle is only a principle if it includes enough context to actually be meaningful.
You saying, high intensity is mostly neuromuscular improvements without defining high intensity. The literature discusses “high intensity” as that being >60%. I wouldn’t agree that with that definition high intensity is mostly neuromuscular. I would agree 85% of 1RM for a set of 3-5 produces a greater neuromuscular improvement than 70% of 1RM for a set of 3-5, but the hypertrophy response is about the same between the two so…I can’t really agree with you, can I?
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.
I am not invalidating anything. I am simply saying that your misunderstanding is due to not listening closely enough to the podcasts to be able to recapitulate what we’re saying. I understand that podcasts have some drawbacks for conveying ideas and information in that they are usually long form, require multiple listens, and note taking- usually. That said, you have not produced a contradictory statement by us. Our programming structures are not at odds and I described why.
It is frustrating that you’re wanting to argue without being specific. I can only tolerate that for so long.