Lyle Mcdonald VS Mike Israetel Debate

[Hardartery]

I just like to look at volume as something you titrate based on training results. If you can actually do only 3 sets of an exercise a week and it's going up, why add more just because some guy says "10-20 is best"?

This is it imo. It does both go ways though... I've seen people insist that if you're doing more than X sets per whatever it must be junk volume.

I'm sure the second coming of Ed Coan is somewhere thinking "man these idiots that think they need to squat more than once a week".

I saw a video of Tom Platz the other day where he straight said that he only did squats every two weeks, it took him that long to recover and he seemed pretty sure the guys doing multiple sessions a week are just doing it wrong. LOL.

[CheekiBreekiFitness]

I just like to look at volume as something you titrate based on training results. If you can actually do only 3 sets of an exercise a week and it's going up, why add more just because some guy says "10-20 is best"?

This is it imo. It does both go ways though... I've seen people insist that if you're doing more than X sets per whatever it must be junk volume.

I'm sure the second coming of Ed Coan is somewhere thinking "man these idiots that think they need to squat more than once a week".

Sure, but this also with the same mega-caveat as the most successful Westside people: tons of hypertophy work (volume based), just not done using powerlifting movements. Start off with a few years of bodybuilding, then do lots of hypertrophy, then add in sport specific linear periodization and you'll probably be set.

You've (probably) gotta get the volume in somewhere if you want to grow. The depth of this debate does confuse me. Try both ranges, see which one works for you this year. Next year if it stops working try the other.

As to the "set counting is nonsense" point raised here: can someone figure of a HNFM that takes post set RPE estimates? To me that's (if you must strive for optimal) the path. You need to know how much stimulus and fatigue you got today. As discussed elsewhere sets across often feels highly variable in an RPE sense. If they are actually providing different stimulus amounts then sets is nonsense and we all need Tendo units/phone apps or to go near failure/go until some RIR level.

Something like (but not equivalent) to an HNFM with RPE as an input is RTS's stress index, which is useful as a sanity check when you design a session for a particular exercise (I tend to shoot for a stress index of 3 for a given movement on a given day).

But the problem is that its is an oversimplified view of the biological processes that underlie all of this, and (to the best of my knowledge) no one was ever able to design a formula that can actually predict stimulus and fatigue accurately (there was this Nuckols article about whether or not you can predict growth which I thought was great). I tend to be skeptical that this is even possible.

My belief is that the set counters/volume calculators are trying to focus on the wrong problem, which is "given the inputs (set,reps,rpe,tempo,rest time, amount of ammonia and death metal,etc) how do I predict outputs (increases in size and strength) ", when the correct problem to solve is "given pairs of inputs and output, what can I say about the relationship between them, and what do I do next if what I'm currently doing does not give me the output I like". The worse thing is that the set counting/volume calculation approach is presented as "scientific", which if you have any background in science sounds dubious to the very least. You are not "doing the science" you are playing with numbers.

An example of this behaviour (which @CaptainAwesome mentionned) is the guy who's doing 3 sets a week and who's seeing performance increases, but wants to change up his training because he read on instagram that infographic that clearly stated that 10-20 sets was the money range for results.

[CheekiBreekiFitness]

If you're not doing SBD type compounds I think last set AMRAP works very well.

Yeah, I've been doing that for machines (while doing a pivot block) and it's awesome. For movements in which you want the most efficient technique the problem is that those AMRAP sets might encourage bad motor patterns.

[James]

I'm sure the second coming of Ed Coan is somewhere thinking "man these idiots that think they need to squat more than once a week".

Wasn't Coan's typical squat day like eight sets of competition squat, four sets of leg press and then a couple sets leg extensions and curls each?

Edit: forgot calf raises.

[dw]

I'm sure the second coming of Ed Coan is somewhere thinking "man these idiots that think they need to squat more than once a week".

Wasn't Coan's typical squat day like eight sets of competition squat, four sets of leg press and then a couple sets leg extensions and curls each?

Edit: forgot calf raises.

I have no idea, I was just using him as a stand-in for a freakishly high responder.

[CaptainAwesome]

I saw a video of Tom Platz the other day where he straight said that he only did squats every two weeks, it took him that long to recover and he seemed pretty sure the guys doing multiple sessions a week are just doing it wrong. LOL.

The level of intensity Tom Platz trained at, I wouldn't be surprised if he only did leg extensions every two weeks.

Start off with a few years of bodybuilding, then do lots of hypertrophy, then add in sport specific linear periodization and you'll probably be set.

I see this sentiment a lot, telling people they should start with the bodybuilding stuff and leave the low rep heavy stuff out to begin with. I don't know that this is necessarily the best way to go for everyone, and honestly I don't think the low rep heavy stuff doesn't grow muscular size. I don't have amazing numbers, but I can outlift most people at the commercial gyms I train at, and mostly got that way on the simpler, lower-rep Aasgard programming, namely SS and a 4-day TM. I didn't get here from being untrained and a lifelong un-gifted athlete just on neurological adaptations. The process made my body look different and more muscular for sure. The bulking added some fat, but even at 310 I LOOKED less fat than I did at 280 before I'd done any real training at all.

I'm trying an approach that relies a lot more on the bodybuilding stuff now, largely because I want to gain a more whole understanding of training. I also don't want to leave something potentially useful that I have thus far missed out on by the wayside just for the sake of falling in line with a particular philosophy. I will say, I feel like getting started pushing heavy weights around has given me the ability to bring a lot more intensity to these hypertrophy type workouts that most gym-goers who perform them don't seem to be able to. I would say the work these people do seems to legitimately be junk volume.

[5hout]

I saw a video of Tom Platz the other day where he straight said that he only did squats every two weeks, it took him that long to recover and he seemed pretty sure the guys doing multiple sessions a week are just doing it wrong. LOL.

The level of intensity Tom Platz trained at, I wouldn't be surprised if he only did leg extensions every two weeks.

Start off with a few years of bodybuilding, then do lots of hypertrophy, then add in sport specific linear periodization and you'll probably be set.

I see this sentiment a lot, telling people they should start with the bodybuilding stuff and leave the low rep heavy stuff out to begin with. I don't know that this is necessarily the best way to go for everyone, and honestly I don't think the low rep heavy stuff doesn't grow muscular size. I don't have amazing numbers, but I can outlift most people at the commercial gyms I train at, and mostly got that way on the simpler, lower-rep Aasgard programming, namely SS and a 4-day TM. I didn't get here from being untrained and a lifelong un-gifted athlete just on neurological adaptations. The process made my body look different and more muscular for sure. The bulking added some fat, but even at 310 I LOOKED less fat than I did at 280 before I'd done any real training at all.

I'm trying an approach that relies a lot more on the bodybuilding stuff now, largely because I want to gain a more whole understanding of training. I also don't want to leave something potentially useful that I have thus far missed out on by the wayside just for the sake of falling in line with a particular philosophy. I will say, I feel like getting started pushing heavy weights around has given me the ability to bring a lot more intensity to these hypertrophy type workouts that most gym-goers who perform them don't seem to be able to. I would say the work these people do seems to legitimately be junk volume.

I should have clarified, that is what Ed Coan did. Not my general model for training (although one I think is fairly reasomable). It's important (imo) to remember/note that was his path bc the linear periodization is often what people think of, forgetting all the other stuff plus a bunch of bro time.

[dw]

@CaptainAwesome

Of course you can in general get hypertrophy from strength work. That is in fact the whole justification for SS mandating a large caloric surplus, although they ignorantly say it's for "recovery".

The question is how efficiently (with respect to time or bodyfat increase, they come out to the same in the end). And that will vary greatly with the individual.

Also imo the phenomenon of casual gym goers not going hard enough has something to do with not understanding (or just not caring) how any of this works, not that they literally can't go hard.

[CaptainAwesome]

@CaptainAwesome

Of course you can in general get hypertrophy from strength work. That is in fact the whole justification for SS mandating a large caloric surplus, although they ignorantly say it's for "recovery".

The question is how efficiently (with respect to time or bodyfat increase, they come out to the same in the end). And that will vary greatly with the individual.

Also imo the phenomenon of casual gym goers not going hard enough has something to do with not understanding (or just not caring) how any of this works, not that they literally can't go hard.

I think a lot of them bastardize snippets of things they hear or read and end up with that kind of a training approach. They hear someone say "volume is the primary driver of hypertrophy" and assume it means they need to do lots of sets and reps to grow. They hear "you don't need to train to failure" and they assume they don't need to really push themselves very hard, and so on. End result is a guy who makes me wait a half hour for the lat pulldown machine while he completes a workout that is doing nothing for him.

I've already put the more food=more recovery thing to the test and it didn't pan out. I do think undereating can negatively impact recovery, but everyone's body is only able to recover so much, and throwing more and more food at the problem as the heavier weights require more recovery doesn't make it go faster. The training did matter for the muscle growth though, I wouldn't have gotten much if I had just done the eating and none of the training. I think SS (and similar programs) make a good start for beginners for a lot of reasons. My big disagreement with Rippetoe seems to be how much can be expected from novice training and when it's time to move on from it. I keep seeing him tell guys who are clearly intermediates to keep going with the novice training and refer them to the same autopilot shit like that 3 questions article. Those articles are not brilliant, they are the strength training equivalent of asking someone if they've tried turning their router off and on again. I think THIS is where the reputation for SS churning out fatties really kicks in, because this is what leads them to try and just eat their way into that mythical 405 LP squat that's never gonna happen.

[augeleven]

that mythical 405 LP squat that's never gonna happen.

Someday…

[dw]

@CaptainAwesome

I agree that is where the, as the saying goes, fat fuckery really comes into play.

As far as casual gym goers. I don't know for sure but I think there is a dichotomy between people who go to the gym with the firm expectation of making progress over time and people who go "to stay in shape".

I've seen fairly athletic looking guys who I'm sure have more potential than I do who use ridiculously low loads on the machines (and not as some rehab or prehab thing... that's just what they do). I don't believe they're getting this from fitness influencers, I think they just don't really know or care that they could be making steady progress with about the same time commitment.

But honestly idk I never talk to anyone.

[KyleSchuant]

I've seen fairly athletic looking guys who I'm sure have more potential than I do who use ridiculously low loads on the machines (and not as some rehab or prehab thing... that's just what they do). I don't believe they're getting this from fitness influencers, I think they just don't really know or care that they could be making steady progress with about the same time commitment.

From the Stronger by Science newsletter, Most People Probably Train Too Light. Short version: left to themselves, most people float around 50% 1RM. It'd be the same for endurance stuff.

I think it's instinctive, from evolution. Same as our gluttony. Way back 100,000 years ago on the east African savannah, food was unreliable, maybe you had one gazelle a week for the tribe, maybe six weeks between gazelles. If you were Mr I'll Just Have The Salad, you might have looked good and all the ladies were into you, but when it was six weeks between the gazelles you dropped dead. Meanwhile the fat bastard leaned out a bit, still wasn't too sexy, but he was still around. So the Aesthetic gene dies out, and the Gluttony gene lives on.

Same for exertion. If you like running up rocky hills you might break an ankle, and for most of human history that was a possible death sentence. So the Active gene didn't get passed on, but the Lazy Fuck gene did.

And so most people never train at all, if they do it's 50% of max, and then they go home and eat a packet of chocolate biscuits. I've recently returned to a globogym to train and it's really obvious. And the gym encourages this - they've got recumbent bikes with touchscreens where you can play solitaire.

[CheekiBreekiFitness]

@KyleSchuant I saw that article and I was waiting for somebody to bring it up on the forum. I think the article is pretty good but with a huge caveat: the conclusions apply only when you consider the population of gym goers in general, because most people who hit the gym don't really train seriously and are just messing around, but it does not apply to people who are somehow dedicated to become at least decent lifters. Most people are mediocre, are fine with being mediocre, and are not looking to make any effort to stop being mediocre.

If you post regularly on a strength forum for instance (or if you read Greg Nuckols articles ...), there is an overwhelming probability that you are a dedicated lifter and (at least in my opinion) you are not training too light, and in fact sometimes the opposite. It is very hard for me mentally to remove weight on the bar and/or do less sets (I am not even particularly strong or super muscular), and if left to my own devices without things like RPE and percentages and rest days and such I will absolutely grind myself to a paste and make zero progress. Now I'm an idiot when it comes to training so the above might only apply to myself but I feel that when you are dedicated it is somehow instinctive to always try to add weight and add sets at all costs.

Amongst those people who do 5x10 with 50% of e1RM, how many of them are avid readers of stronger by science ? Probably none. So the article is in my opinion a little misleading if trying to apply it to the person reading it. Now it could be useful if you're a coach, and you are mostly coaching rank beginners who are just not very engaged in the training process. Those people should just try trying. Or quit. Quitting is fine as well.

[Hardartery]

I've seen fairly athletic looking guys who I'm sure have more potential than I do who use ridiculously low loads on the machines (and not as some rehab or prehab thing... that's just what they do). I don't believe they're getting this from fitness influencers, I think they just don't really know or care that they could be making steady progress with about the same time commitment.

From the Stronger by Science newsletter, Most People Probably Train Too Light. Short version: left to themselves, most people float around 50% 1RM. It'd be the same for endurance stuff.

I think it's instinctive, from evolution. Same as our gluttony. Way back 100,000 years ago on the east African savannah, food was unreliable, maybe you had one gazelle a week for the tribe, maybe six weeks between gazelles. If you were Mr I'll Just Have The Salad, you might have looked good and all the ladies were into you, but when it was six weeks between the gazelles you dropped dead. Meanwhile the fat bastard leaned out a bit, still wasn't too sexy, but he was still around. So the Aesthetic gene dies out, and the Gluttony gene lives on.

Same for exertion. If you like running up rocky hills you might break an ankle, and for most of human history that was a possible death sentence. So the Active gene didn't get passed on, but the Lazy Fuck gene did.

And so most people never train at all, if they do it's 50% of max, and then they go home and eat a packet of chocolate biscuits. I've recently returned to a globogym to train and it's really obvious. And the gym encourages this - they've got recumbent bikes with touchscreens where you can play solitaire.

Sounds like utter bullshit to me. And an argument disproving the theory of evolution frankly. People train like that because their goal is simply to burn calories and maybe "Tone" a little combined with the fact that they have no idea what they are doing. This forum has a fair number of people that train using programs written only by other people and spend a lot of time researching and trying to understand training - some body that does no research and equally isn't invested enough to find a program to follow to make up for their lack of knowledge is going to train the way you see most people train. They are mostly there for social reason anyway, lifting with some friends or ogling women in minimal clothing (Discreetly or not). They don't care and don't have a particular goal, they believe that they aren't going to get anywhere without the investment of drugs and serious time so they have a "Meh" approach.

[DCR]

If one goes to the gym to get big and/or strong, one probably errs on the side of going too heavy and progressing too quickly, i.e. chasing numbers.

If one goes to the gym for * hand wave * primarily health conscious related reasons, one probably errs on the side of going too light and not pursuing progression, at least not adequately to accomplish much.

Exceptions exist, but generally that's the story.

[janoycresva]

were the subjects asked to state their 10RM weight, or a weight they would use for a set of 10 in their training program? those are completely different things, and the abstract seems to imply the latter

it says most subjects were able to rep that weight for 13-15 reps, which doesn’t seem too far off of somewhat effective training if they would have been doing sets of 10 across in their program - a 3x10 at that weight probably would have been RPE 6,7,8 ish

[KyleSchuant]

I think the article is pretty good but with a huge caveat: the conclusions apply only when you consider the population of gym goers in general, because most people who hit the gym don't really train seriously and are just messing around, but it does not apply to people who are somehow dedicated to become at least decent lifters.

Sure. But I was replying to DW's comment,

I've seen fairly athletic looking guys who I'm sure have more potential than I do who use ridiculously low loads on the machines (and not as some rehab or prehab thing... that's just what they do). I don't believe they're getting this from fitness influencers, I think they just don't really know or care that they could be making steady progress with about the same time commitment.

which was about the population of gym-goers in general, not about supposedly-dedicated lifters.

And remember that gym-goers are a small fraction of the population in general. According to this,

In 2019, the International Health, Racquet & Sportsclub Association (IHRSA) reported that approximately 1 in 4 Americans frequented a gym or fitness center. [...] Despite 6.3% of Americans never using their gym memberships, the number of people visiting gyms at least twice a week is an impressive 49.9%.

I think we can agree that 2pw is the minimum for results. So if 1/4 of Americans go to the gym at all, and 1/2 of them go 2+pw, that's 1/8th of Americans going often enough to get some results. Now look around at your globogym and see how many have some kind of programme where they're progressing the effort over time - forget about whether you think it's a good programme or not, just some sort of plan.

Obviously a lot of the time it's not their fault. The other day at the globogym I was pounding away on the treadmill and saw this new kid, young, skinny, Asian, glasses - all things which, unfortunately, tend to make a person self-conscious in a gym in Melbourne - squatting 40kg and asking the trainer on duty for a spot. She said, "we're not allowed to", and walked away without even showing him the safety arms he could have used instead. He left quickly after before I had a chance to go and say hi. So even if the person has some idea of what a productive workout is, they're not necessarily supported in the gym environment they go to. Which made me fucking angry, to be honest.

The 50% effort thing now starts to look pretty reasonable.

the abstract

Read beyond that.

[DCR]

Obviously a lot of the time it's not their fault. The other day at the globogym I was pounding away on the treadmill and saw this new kid, young, skinny, Asian, glasses - all things which, unfortunately, tend to make a person self-conscious in a gym in Melbourne - squatting 40kg and asking the trainer on duty for a spot. She said, "we're not allowed to", and walked away without even showing him the safety arms he could have used instead. He left quickly after before I had a chance to go and say hi. So even if the person has some idea of what a productive workout is, they're not necessarily supported in the gym environment they go to. Which made me fucking angry, to be honest.

Reading that made me angry. I hope you run into the kid again and have an opportunity to offer some help.

[janoycresva]

I think the article is pretty good but with a huge caveat: the conclusions apply only when you consider the population of gym goers in general, because most people who hit the gym don't really train seriously and are just messing around, but it does not apply to people who are somehow dedicated to become at least decent lifters.

Sure. But I was replying to DW's comment,

I've seen fairly athletic looking guys who I'm sure have more potential than I do who use ridiculously low loads on the machines (and not as some rehab or prehab thing... that's just what they do). I don't believe they're getting this from fitness influencers, I think they just don't really know or care that they could be making steady progress with about the same time commitment.

which was about the population of gym-goers in general, not about supposedly-dedicated lifters.

And remember that gym-goers are a small fraction of the population in general. According to this,

In 2019, the International Health, Racquet & Sportsclub Association (IHRSA) reported that approximately 1 in 4 Americans frequented a gym or fitness center. [...] Despite 6.3% of Americans never using their gym memberships, the number of people visiting gyms at least twice a week is an impressive 49.9%.

I think we can agree that 2pw is the minimum for results. So if 1/4 of Americans go to the gym at all, and 1/2 of them go 2+pw, that's 1/8th of Americans going often enough to get some results. Now look around at your globogym and see how many have some kind of programme where they're progressing the effort over time - forget about whether you think it's a good programme or not, just some sort of plan.

Obviously a lot of the time it's not their fault. The other day at the globogym I was pounding away on the treadmill and saw this new kid, young, skinny, Asian, glasses - all things which, unfortunately, tend to make a person self-conscious in a gym in Melbourne - squatting 40kg and asking the trainer on duty for a spot. She said, "we're not allowed to", and walked away without even showing him the safety arms he could have used instead. He left quickly after before I had a chance to go and say hi. So even if the person has some idea of what a productive workout is, they're not necessarily supported in the gym environment they go to. Which made me fucking angry, to be honest.

The 50% effort thing now starts to look pretty reasonable.

the abstract

Read beyond that.

found the full text and read it, here is the relevant portion w.r.t study design

"The procedure consisted of performing a single bout of free-weight bench press. At first, the following question was performed: “What weight do you usually lift for 10 repetitions on free-weight bench press exercise?” The answer was considered the S10RL. After the answer, the individual performed a specific warm-up with the same free-weight bar and bench, which consisted of a 10-repetition bout with 50% of S10RL and 1 minute later, a second 5-repetition bout with 70% of S10RL (35). After a 2-minute recovery interval, the individual was instructed to perform as many repetitions as possible at S10RL (Figure 1). One repetition was considered if the subject lowers the bar to touch his chest, and then press it upward by fully extending his forearms. Barbell velocity was not controlled to simulate daily strength practice routines. All procedures were monitored by a single and experienced examiner."

essentially this means that someone could have been using that S10RL for sets of 10 across in their training (and likely would have been given how common rep schemes like 3x10 are in bro routines), which would make the later sets a reasonable RPE/RIR for hypertrophy especially with shorter rest times (again, super common in bro routines to do something like 3x10 bench with 2-3 min rests)

i think stating that "most lifters train too light" based on this is a stretch, and the study design should have specifically asked for a self-estimated 10 rep max

[CheekiBreekiFitness]

@KyleSchuant I'm not familiar with Melbourne so I might be missing something but why would being Asian make somebody feel self conscious in the gym ?