My thoughts have already been expressed. I’m locking this thread.
…jk lol
Thanks for your reply man. Really interesting topic that I admittedly need to dig deeper into the weeds on. What, if any, have been your favorite sources for this in the literature?
I think you’re right that the majority of hypertrophy-focused literature are using a broad range of submaximal intensities for their MU recruitment model (given the broad range of intensities they tend to study, as low as 20-30% sometimes).
A few questions: when you say “I’m seeing either a) REDUCED recruitment of my high-threshold/quick-fatigue MUs, or b) twitch patterns of high-threshold MUs going to shit.” - how, specifically, are you seeing this phenomenon and coming to this conclusion? Or is it more of a physiologic assumption based on bar speeds / power output?
The theory you describe at the end is certainly plausible - and if your data set is as compelling as it sounds, I’m all ears!
They all suck (please fuck off with your n=11 “studies”, Ex Phys). Literally, I trust none of them. I’ll dig for the less horrid-smelling turds for you, though.
In the hypertrophy studies I’ve sifted through, “going near failure” simply seems like a default protocol rather than a tested variable.
Yeah, it’s an assumption. Reduced spatial and/or temporal MU recruitment just seems like the most obvious/plausible explanation for reduced rep speed/wattage.
Unrelated: Austin, I know it’s a touchy subject, but I thought your post in SS thread about “THE Article” was superb.
I wanted to clap for this: “We are also aware of no direct human evidence of significant “sarcoplasmic hypertrophy” or “non-contractile hypertrophy” preferentially occurring in any particular intensity range compared to another, as has been suggested”.
I couldn’t believe it when I heard the “sarcoplasmic vs myofibrillar hypertrophy” thing used to justify the SS methods. I actually felt vaguely sad.
Sounds good, thanks - even if you have a preferred recent review article, that should provide a good starting point.
Got it. Might be true, at least as an explanation for the majority of what you see, though I’m sure there are some central factors involved there as well.
Don’t think of it as a bummer, think of it as you helping wake me from the Matrix.
I for one am glad the discussion continues!
By the way I hope Jordan shared my apology with you in case in any other formats I came off as being in one “tribe” or other. Debates are usually good, and arguments are usually stupid. Once emotion creeps into it it is hard not to get into the second.
I may be old and hard headed sometimes but I feel that being a skeptic and a critical thinker is very important. Also despite what some folks might think, advances in technology and systems are what drive the free market.
I strive to remain always a fan and never a fanatic!
"I tested moderated intraset fatigue on myself and about 20 bros. My guiding rule: no rep within a set slower than 20% of the fastest rep. The prescription looked like this:
3 sets of 5 @70%, then
6 sets of 3 @70%
or
2 sets of 3 @80%, then
5 sets of 2 @80%"
Hi John, I’ve been following some of your stuff over on exodus as it relates to your HPS program. I’m assuming this is part of that scheme? For the 70% or 80% prescription, is that each a day of training (i.e. is the 70% something you’ve used on hypertrophy day and 80% what you’re using on power day?) I’m curious, and have been trying to follow the general outline but think I’ve gotten lost a bit in the forums over there.
I second John’s comment - your response was excellent. It was very disappointing to see the “other” thread locked, as I was looking forward to an extended discussion on these topics.
I love that Barbell Medicine is taking a slightly different approach, because I’m a firm believer that conflict creates clarity. I couldn’t care less about who is “right” or defending a belief, but I’m deeply interested - as I know most serious people here are - about discovering what is viable/optimal/“right” and refining my beliefs in the process.
If I may ask: do you and Jordan have any plans to do a long-form podcast with Reynolds/Hambrick? I know you guys were on their podcast not too long ago (which was damn funny to listen to, by the way), but it would be great to hear both sides of the table in an extended format. I get that time considerations/business considerations/other commitments/etc. will make it a bitch to schedule, but there’s nothing better than extended conversation for clarifying concepts. And if after 90-120 minutes you’ve made no progress, then you can take Matt’s advice and kill each other
someone training in the Texas Method is better off replacing the intensity day with another volume day? And probably train for the 1RM once or twice a month?
while typical volume day might be 80~90% 1RM, can one get more purchase for the time spent by having two volume days at 60~80% 1RM (hence accruing more tonnage per week while still working in the 3~8 “strength” rep range)?
how close do two volume days need to be for the total tonnage accrued to stack up?
I was pretty disappointed over this whole thing too. SS is what got me into weight training. Unfortunately, I see Rip as pushing away BBM just because they happen to view programming beyond the NLP differently. There’s really no need to do this. I think SS would be a much stronger brand in the long run if they had these competing ideas and voiced the reasons behind them. The posts from Austin and Jordan were great to that effect. But then Rip’s replies were the same as if some internet troll had put them up. That was the sad part.
This is one of those situations where you’re changing the program so much that it’s no longer anything like the original program. Just throw TM out. The idea is that you want to increase the weekly training volume in that 70-80% range. How it’s distributed throughout the week can be done in any number of ways.
This was discussed on the first page of the thread in more detail. Again, the idea that the sets need to approach failure in the context of the research literature is strictly looking at hypertrophy outcomes. Consider the goals of those advanced lifters in terms of training outcomes - are they training to optimize strength? Hypertrophy is necessary for this, of course, but there are additional considerations in terms of fatigue management that come into play.
Do I understand correctly that the general idea is to have a lot of volume in the 70-80% range, with some sets close to failure and others not? What about work in higher or lower ranges for someone who is not peaking?
Any discussion between you and Hanley is a bright spot. I hope we can see more of it, here or elsewhere.
If I may, Rip refusing to engage in a discussion is a major disappointment. You, Jordan and others raised very valid points and shutting off discussion goes against the science, empiricism and free market of ideas that was supposed to be his strong point.
The idea isn’t to automatically have “a lot” of volume in that range – the idea is that, whatever your total dose of training volume is at a given time, whether “high” or “low”, the majority of it should be spent in that percent range. For the purposes of long-term strength outcomes, this training volume will tend to increase over time. We don’t like taking sets to failure, but at least some of your sets should approach it (say, RPE 7-9 range). I don’t know what variable you’re referring to when you say “higher or lower ranges”.
And yes, it was disappointing. There has yet to be a substantive discussion of this stuff, beyond the general “digging in of heels” based on tradition.
“We don’t like taking sets to failure, but at least some of your sets should approach it (say, RPE 7-9 range)”. Isn’t RPE 7-8 the normal training range? RPE 7-8 is about 80% (plus or minus) for sets of 5. I fear I’m misreading.
“higher or lower ranges”: I was trying to ask about lifting above or below the 70-80% range, e.g., 60% or 90%.
“the general “digging in of heels” based on tradition”. This somehow reminds me of Planck’s pessimistic line, “A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.” I guess he had experience with those who refuse to engage in substantive discussion.
Apologies if any of this comes across as argumentative. I’m just trying to understand.
I recently came across the paper “Do metabolites that are produced during resistance exercise enhance muscle hypertrophy?” by Dankel et al., 2017, which is extremely relevant to some of the discussion on the first page of this thread about the necessity of training to high RPE for hypertrophy. I encourage anyone interested in this topic to look at it.
The summary version: it’s all about mechanical tension, and as long as you’re recruiting and fatiguing those motor units, you’re going to get jacked.
But you do have to recruit and fatigue them. If bar speed hasn’t slowed, I would guess this probably hasn’t happened to the high threshold ones. So unfortunately you can’t get huge doing 30 singles at 70% every workout.
