Should we keep trusting exercise science?

>>76269038 (OP)
No but what does your picture mean? Differences between training protocols used in studies?

>>76269335
>Anonymous 06/17/25(Tue)06:04:00 No.76269335▶
>>>76269038 (OP) (OP)
>No but what does your picture mean? Differences between training protocols used in studies?
prolly if u're versed in this shit u will notice immediately glaring mistake/lie in it, not in a mood to dig out what bullshit is it now

u said bot that walking uphill does calves and i didn't believe u one bit
after many iterations of calf raises i tried i have stumbled upon heelhook movement in climbing and my calves never stopped growing ever since - i hook powerband on toes and corss my legs standing and bend back knee while ankle is already fully bent - cause gastrocnemius bends ankle AND KNEE at the same time, it doesn't extend knee like in calf raises

so would u believe that i overdid this isometric hold yesterday? takes trial and error to dial down intensity, there's also ankle sideways movement i am experimenting, but alas - amred with doms on gastrocnemius/calves i have started my day as usual and would u believe this shit? calves hurt ONLY when walking down stairs, not up, not on flat down stairs lol

why is that? no, u can't dispute anything u're only allowed to provide viable explanation as to why walking down stairs DOES CALF and walking up stairs DOESN'T

>>76269335
Its a screenshot from Faz' latest video where he talks about some of the science based lifters.

This picture is taken from Schoenfeld's research, in his studies it shows that his test subjects get a lot more gains then what test subjects in other people's studies gains. The grapth with his name shows a 9% increase in muscle hypertrohpy while the graph of the others shows 5-2%. Why is Schoefields results so much higher?

This can indicate that there is something wrong in the way that Schoenfeld measure muscle hypertrophy. Which means that the research he has done on the subject might be very flawed. Its a legitimate criticism that should be investigated further. And if Schoefield him self was serious about this he would comment on it and explain why there could be a difference, and if not then why the hell does his studies show people get more gains cosntently? Does he train his subjects better then the other researchers? Or does he do something wrong? Or even worse does he fake it on purpose.

Fazlifts vid: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=USrH-28N9Eo

>>76270352
>This picture is taken from Schoenfeld's research, in his studies it shows that his test subjects get a lot more gains then what test subjects in other people's studies gains.
Actually only in 2015.

Should be this study here?
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25853914/

>Eighteen young men experienced in RT were matched according to baseline strength and then randomly assigned to 1 of 2 experimental groups: a low-load RT routine (LL) where 25-35 repetitions were performed per set per exercise (n = 9) or a high-load RT routine (HL) where 8-12 repetitions were performed per set per exercise (n = 9). During each session, subjects in both groups performed 3 sets of 7 different exercises representing all major muscles. Training was performed 3 times per week on nonconsecutive days, for a total of 8 weeks.
So classical bodybuilding routines. The LL group was doing stuff like 90s MMA fighters eg. Bas Rutten, around 30 reps, still works for hypertrophy, while the HL group was doing normal bodybuilding.

Now compare the 2016 study where they made much less gains, which could be this one, but it's a metastudy?
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27102172/

So the answer may simply be that the high gain study is classic hypertrophy bodybuilding training while the other studies have different training modalities.

>>76270387
Look at Morton 2016:
>Subjects were randomly allocated into a higher-repetition (HR) group who lifted loads of ∼30-50% of their maximal strength (1RM) for 20-25 repetitions/set (n = 24) or a lower-repetition (LR) group (∼75-90% 1RM, 8-12 repetitions/set, n = 25), with all sets being performed to volitional failure.
>to volitional failure
So they trained differently and got different results. Duh.

>>76270387
>>76270398
Thank you anon. This makes Fazlifts critique less valid and he should have looked in to it more then just comparing the pictures?

if you spent as much time lifting heavy ass weights as you do reading some retarded ass publications from weak onions faggots who never lifted a weight you'd probably look like you lift