Lyle Mcdonald VS Mike Israetel Debate

[Clearwater47]

Not going to watch...what's wrong with 10-20?

Yeah, I don't blame you. I could only sit through part of it and don't necessarily recommend anyone watch it.

It's basically Lyle saying 'I was right and you're a big dumb-dumb' to a bunch of people. His contention seems to be that 12-15 sets is the correct range and that doing anything other than that is stupid.

[dw]

Not going to watch...what's wrong with 10-20?

Yeah, I don't blame you. I could only sit through part of it and don't necessarily recommend anyone watch it.

It's basically Lyle saying 'I was right and you're a big dumb-dumb' to a bunch of people. His contention seems to be that 12-15 sets is the correct range and that doing anything other than that is stupid.

Thanks for the summary.

[DCR]

Not going to watch...what's wrong with 10-20?

Yeah, I don't blame you. I could only sit through part of it and don't necessarily recommend anyone watch it.

It's basically Lyle saying 'I was right and you're a big dumb-dumb' to a bunch of people. His contention seems to be that 12-15 sets is the correct range and that doing anything other than that is stupid.

Thanks for the summary.

I actually watched it, in one of many efforts to procrastinate from doing work. Slightly more detailed: he's pissed that a bunch of folks - including Israetel - now are recommending the same thing that he's been recommending for two decades in terms of weekly volume, without acknowledging that they spent several years recommending otherwise based on some of Brad Schoenfeld's nonsense because Brad's dick was on their tonsils.

Tbh, everything that he said made sense, assuming the truth of all statements, but I have no idea if that's a reasonable assumption because I know little about the guy. I certainly don't expect every knowledgeable individual to squat 600 or look like Ronnie Coleman, depending on one's aims, but he's pretty damn DYEL. What's up with that?

[dw]

There's all kinds of craziness about Lyle, including a gigantomachy between Lyle and Rippetoe from decades ago. Back then Lyle was the crazy one. (That's how the whole "Meet Zach" bit started.)

Judging from my N=1 10-20 is more accurate than 12-15. Although with the exception of upper back volume it may be that 12-15 is right for most people.

Admittedly it's all complicated by RiR and rest times and also what time frame we're considering (i.e. if X is your ideal volume, maybe X+1 will cause faster progress early on but then force you to deload early.)

[CheekiBreekiFitness]

My personal belief is that this set counting business needs to stop, because it's complete nonsense.

[CheekiBreekiFitness]

Not going to watch...what's wrong with 10-20?

Yeah, I don't blame you. I could only sit through part of it and don't necessarily recommend anyone watch it.

It's basically Lyle saying 'I was right and you're a big dumb-dumb' to a bunch of people. His contention seems to be that 12-15 sets is the correct range and that doing anything other than that is stupid.

Thanks for the summary.

I actually watched it, in one of many efforts to procrastinate from doing work. Slightly more detailed: he's pissed that a bunch of folks - including Israetel - now are recommending the same thing that he's been recommending for two decades in terms of weekly volume, without acknowledging that they spent several years recommending otherwise based on some of Brad Schoenfeld's nonsense because Brad's dick was on their tonsils.

Tbh, everything that he said made sense, assuming the truth of all statements, but I have no idea if that's a reasonable assumption because I know little about the guy. I certainly don't expect every knowledgeable individual to squat 600 or look like Ronnie Coleman, depending on one's aims, but he's pretty damn DYEL. What's up with that?

Yes.

[mbasic]

Oh you, the fitness industry....So 5 years after Brad Schoenfeld published his paper that would "Blow current hypertrophy volumes out of the water" (it did not), it's time to look at optimal training volumes for hypertrophy again.

This was all stimulated by "Doctor" @drmikeisraetel doing his typical backpedal about volume, solving the problem he created in the first place.

Because, having defended MOAR VOLUME, more or less the entire (supposed) "evidence based fitness industry" has gradually walked it back to,
surprise surprise, recommend what I was saying all along.

And have been saying for oh....about 20 years or so.

Guys, guys, seriously. Just save yourself some time when you do these videos and say "Yeah, Lyle was right." It's so much faster on top of saving everybody who listens to you give them terrible advice so much time. It would keep them from wasting 5 years of their training time for sure.

The fitness industry is a f****g joke.

(only watched the very beginning .... and couldn't stand to listen to the insignificant turd with personality disorder with an obvious attempt to draw Mike into a back n forth on YT for clicks/attention)

Is this new or something?

and/or is Lyle's premise we are just fine with 3 sets of volume per body part/muscle group now?

The reason I ask, is I've watched several old (not that old, maybe 2 years old?) videos of Mike Israetel's "hypertrophy guides" of different muscle groups. He would cover optimal weekly sets and give a range. They always seemed ..... NOT crazy high/quite practical.
Especially given the context we would typically prescribe high rep ranges, that would come with lower loads, which a LITTLE more sets/volume would not be overly tasking.

Maybe I' not up to date on this most recent fashion/trend of over-volumizing one's training program.
I'd agree with the gereral premise the volume needs to go up long term with an advanced trainee,
but I didn't see/catch that some of the more credible "fitness experts" over Rx'ing volume.



Especially since

[5hout]

12 2, 3, 4, 6
14 2, 7
15 3, 5
16 2, 4, 8
18 2, 3, 6
20 2, 4, 5, 10

Jokingly: Pretty sure 12-20 was a rec'd b/c the divide out easily allowing for a huge range in #s of sessions (vs say 13-19, which gut check seems better if you get over the terrible #s, 20 sets is a lot).

Serious: I thought we were moving past thinking these rec'ds meant anything. It's tradeoffs mofos, if you want some extra GPP snuck in then getting 18-20 sets at moderate rest times. If you have all the free time in the world than higher sets/longer rest times. If you're cruising (say) upper body lower and blasting legs than play with the sets to balance systemic fatigue. How are people still worked up over a slight shift in general guidelines? Go fishing.

[KyleSchuant]

My personal belief is that this set counting business needs to stop, because it's complete nonsense.

Seems reasonable to me. If nothing else, by itself it means nothing. I mean, 12-15 sets at 90% 1RM are a bit different to 12-15 sets at 50%. So you'd have to have all this other stuff added to it for it to make any sense. It's almost like programming can't be fit into a snappy sentence or two.

[James]

It's not like the RP hypertrophy guides are just "weekly MRV for chest is 30 sets go to town" there's a bunch of stuff in there about rep ranges, frequency, rest times, variation and periodization.

[CheekiBreekiFitness]

Yes indeed, If we're talking about RP-style set counting yes there are qualifiers, the main idea is that you count sets of 6-30 reps, with an RPE from 6 to 10, with "normal rest times". For myo-reps and super sets there are some additional rules.

But there's just so many problems with those calculations that the number that you get at the end of your calculations is pretty worthless in my opinion.

[James]

I got curious about how general RTS volume stacked up to RP's set count recommendation and they're pretty close.

The RTS program I'm looking at has 25 sets of bench a week over four sessions in the first week not counting 1@8 singles. Which is in line with RP's triceps guideline and a little under for chest. Same with quads/hamstrings/glutes. With hamstrings being spot on at 12 twice a week and both quads and glutes being lower probably due to being both a focus in squat and deadlifts instead of letting one run at maintenance. The wrinkle being most of sets are either triples or sets of ten and counting deadlift sets as half quad sets and squat sets as half glute sets. Which kind of works for squats but probably not equally for deadlifts.

[Cellist]

Not going to watch...what's wrong with 10-20?

Yeah, I don't blame you. I could only sit through part of it and don't necessarily recommend anyone watch it.

It's basically Lyle saying 'I was right and you're a big dumb-dumb' to a bunch of people. His contention seems to be that 12-15 sets is the correct range and that doing anything other than that is stupid.

Thanks for the summary.

I actually watched it, in one of many efforts to procrastinate from doing work. Slightly more detailed: he's pissed that a bunch of folks - including Israetel - now are recommending the same thing that he's been recommending for two decades in terms of weekly volume, without acknowledging that they spent several years recommending otherwise based on some of Brad Schoenfeld's nonsense because Brad's dick was on their tonsils.

Tbh, everything that he said made sense, assuming the truth of all statements, but I have no idea if that's a reasonable assumption because I know little about the guy. I certainly don't expect every knowledgeable individual to squat 600 or look like Ronnie Coleman, depending on one's aims, but he's pretty damn DYEL. What's up with that?

He's quite bitter and not at all jacked like Mike (if you like that sort of 5'5" roided BB thing), but the guys mentioned (LM, MI, GN, BS, Nippard, EH, etc...) are, afik, the biggest academic hypertrophy nerds on the internet. I don't think Lyle has a graduate degree or has done research, but wants us to think he has read and understood everything ever written, makes his own conclusions and is not shy to challenge any of the fizX doctors on the scientific merits. Mike seems like he is out for the money and is pushing his new app so he's fair game. He has every right to adapt to whatever he finds to be supported by the available evidence. If he can defend his current position, good for him.

He doesn't seem to be at all concerned with the SS folks though, but I think they could use the traffic: https://www.andybaker.com/why-some-peop ... -training/

[DCR]

Not going to watch...what's wrong with 10-20?

Yeah, I don't blame you. I could only sit through part of it and don't necessarily recommend anyone watch it.

It's basically Lyle saying 'I was right and you're a big dumb-dumb' to a bunch of people. His contention seems to be that 12-15 sets is the correct range and that doing anything other than that is stupid.

Thanks for the summary.

I actually watched it, in one of many efforts to procrastinate from doing work. Slightly more detailed: he's pissed that a bunch of folks - including Israetel - now are recommending the same thing that he's been recommending for two decades in terms of weekly volume, without acknowledging that they spent several years recommending otherwise based on some of Brad Schoenfeld's nonsense because Brad's dick was on their tonsils.

Tbh, everything that he said made sense, assuming the truth of all statements, but I have no idea if that's a reasonable assumption because I know little about the guy. I certainly don't expect every knowledgeable individual to squat 600 or look like Ronnie Coleman, depending on one's aims, but he's pretty damn DYEL. What's up with that?

He's quite bitter and not at all jacked like Mike (if you like that sort of 5'5" roided BB thing), but the guys mentioned (LM, MI, GN, BS, Nippard, EH, etc...) are, afik, the biggest academic hypertrophy nerds on the internet. I don't think Lyle has a graduate degree or has done research, but wants us to think he has read and understood everything ever written, makes his own conclusions and is not shy to challenge any of the fizX doctors on the scientific merits. Mike seems like he is out for the money and is pushing his new app so he's fair game. He has every right to adapt to whatever he finds to be supported by the available evidence. If he can defend his current position, good for him.

He doesn't seem to be at all concerned with the SS folks though, but I think they could use the traffic: https://www.andybaker.com/why-some-peop ... -training/

Despite that I got good procrastination out of Lyle’s video, I’ve been annoyed with myself for commenting in this thread. I feel better now that you shared that valuable little piece by Andy. (Is he even still SS adjacent?) Nothing new if one has read any number of interviews with particular bodybuilders, but nicely distilled.

One of these days I’ll fully commit to the style of training that he describes, without being derailed in two weeks by ego.

[CaptainAwesome]

My personal belief is that this set counting business needs to stop, because it's complete nonsense.

Yeah, that's where I'm at with it. I guess it can be helpful as a guideline, but I feel like there's so much variability between individuals, between exercises, and between body parts. For example, if I try to train my legs with the same kind of volume I can effectively train my upper body muscles with, I will really fuck myself up. And what does an exercise that kind of uses a certain muscle group count as? Does the small use of quads in the deadlift make it count as half a set of quads? It certainly isn't the same kind of work for the quads that something like a front squat would do.

[quikky]

My personal belief is that this set counting business needs to stop, because it's complete nonsense.

Yeah, that's where I'm at with it. I guess it can be helpful as a guideline, but I feel like there's so much variability between individuals, between exercises, and between body parts. For example, if I try to train my legs with the same kind of volume I can effectively train my upper body muscles with, I will really fuck myself up. And what does an exercise that kind of uses a certain muscle group count as? Does the small use of quads in the deadlift make it count as half a set of quads? It certainly isn't the same kind of work for the quads that something like a front squat would do.

I think volume as a whole is a nearly useless metric, and I wish people would stop focusing on it as the end all be all of muscle growth. It's the "just add fahve pounds" of the "evidence based" community. I think Andy's article captures most of the flaws in it, especially the think “better” not “more" part.

[CaptainAwesome]

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"?

[dw]

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".

[5hout]

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.

[dw]

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