With Science based lifting trending to less sets and reps, when will someone figure out 1 set 1 rep workouts? 2032?

>>76329438 (OP)
The current studies point towards a positive correlation between volume and gains.

>>76329443
Yes, less volume more gains

>>76329444
that would be a negative correlation thoughever

>>76329444
That's not what a positive correlation means, retard.
If you want to get educated, you can read https://www.strongerbyscience.com/volume/

>>76329452
>>76329450
it's positive correlation with negative volume

>>76329453
Read the link that I gave you, it's a review on the current literature about the correlation of training volume with strength and hypertrophy.
You can just go read the link and stop being uneducated and looking like a retard.

>>76329458
Not gullible enough to read whatever ur shilling

>>76329462
He says after posting a pic of Jeff Nippard while endorsing his claims

>>76329438 (OP)
Mike Mentzer already figured out how to make gains with only 1 set. I think the bottom line is you've gotta try really hard and get as close to or at failure. The exact number of sets and reps matters less.

>>76329438 (OP)
PO is the main driver of hypertrophy, so just do the minimum effective dose and you fine

>>76329453
>>76329450
BTFO'D
>>76329453
You got it bud don't let them tell you otherwise

>>76329521
This is true but you literally will get more gains if you fail multiple times. It's just more stimulus and it's that simple. It's diminishing returns of course, but 1 set is stupid, and 50 sets is stupid. But 10 sets per muscle twice a week is proven to work really well for just about everyone.

>>76329925
>PO is the main driver of hypertrophy
What the fuck is PO you abbreviating fucking retard faggot, fuck you so much and so hard and so long with your "PO" the fuck does that mean? Penis Orange? Poop Onion? WHAT THE FUCK IS PO YOU FUCKING NIGGER JESUS CHRIST IS IT THAT HARD TO JUST SPELL IT OUT, WE DON'T ALL LIVE INSIDE YOUR MIND YOU COMPLETE ASSHOLE!!!!!!!!!!

>>76329438 (OP)
I stopped listening to science based faggotry and started ego lifting and got way more gains.
Every single science based lifter got their body by ego lifting and roiding

>>76330083
For sure for sure, it seems difficult to truly reach failure on lower set counts. I think 10 sets per week per muscle is pretty safe but I think you can get away with like 6-8 sets per week so long as you are really driving the intensity. I only do shrugs and neck curls twice a week 3 sets per session for 6sets/week, but im still progressing them well because my 2nd and 3rd sets go til 1-0 RIR

>>76329438 (OP)
>Powershitting but gayer
That would be extremely impressive if Nipples pulls it off considering how homoerotic powershart is in essence already

>>76330087
Progressive Overload

>>76329438 (OP)
science based lifting was cool 4 years ago when it had actual new ground breakjng informaiton
now all science based lifting is just the same thing from 4 years ago rehashed

>>76329462
that link is from one of the only good soience enthusiasts in fitness newfag

tl;dr: more is more

Wouldn't all lifting that isn't just brainlessly picking up weights and doing whatever technically be "science based" ?

>>76330711
science based is using actual scientific studies to inform the choices you make in an attempt to optimize the results you get for the time and effort you are willing to put in

>>76330672
more fatigue and damage

>>76330757
>he's not eating 5000 calories and sleeping 12 hours a day
not my problem

>>76330746
That's the thing tho. wouldn't it be retarded to not do that? maybe I'm just too optimistic and most gym goers are challenged.

>>76330761
good old milos "you cant over train you can under eat and under sleep" sarcev. you so badass bro!

>>76329443
It's been a downward trend for volume for about 20 years now. Do you not remember all the ridiculous stuff all the le science people like schoenfeld and israetel came up with? The stuff that is generally recommended today was considered low volume 20 years ago and would have been considered in the realm of HIT in the 70s and 80s. Even those two names I mentioned have drastically reduced their volume recommendations.

You don't need science to understand that the less intensity you train with the more volume you need and vice versa. This is common sense.

>>76330757
I just skipped to the end of the article but he had this to say regarding adaptation to higher volume.

>>76330816
also he said not to try to increase volume on a cut

>>76330803
If you read the link on >>76329452 the author actually made a timeline of volume studies and the original studies done all found better hypertrophy or strength gains with more volume but the volume wasn't that big, something like 20 sets, and over time since the big majority of studies found a positive correlation between volume and gains, sport scientists started doing studies with more and more volume and found the higher volume to lead to higher gains regularly, so no, the science isn't pointing towards a lower volume approach.

>You don't need science to understand that the less intensity you train with the more volume you need and vice versa. This is common sense.
This is truth and common sense too, but it isn't the claim that is being made by so called big volume proponents.
The claim being made by "big volume" is that there's a positive dose-response relationship between volume and hypertrophy, more volume tends to lead to more gains on average, which seems to be truth and is also very much common sense.

>>76330834
"common sense" for the average broscientist is that more volume will lead to overtraining and worse results

>>76330816
20-30 sets with 3-4rir and you will look like mike israel and brad schoenfeld, 20-30 sets with 0-2rir is unsustainable.

>>76330838
more volume doesn't allow for PO to occur and its as simple as that.

>>76330843
I don't think you understand what progressive overload means.

>>76330843
He addressed this. He said if you are responding well to higher volume then you should expect to be getting stronger after about 4 weeks despite the increase in volume.

>>76330672
>HYPERtrophy chart
>only goes up
wow dude it's almost as if the scientific meaning of HYPER means more

>>76330862
>t. 85 IQ
the point of the chart is not that it's going up, it's that it is still clearly going up at 30 sets/week/muscle

>>76330869
is doing 30 sets a week realistic tho?
Also the chart doesn't give any indication of what kind of sets you're doing. to failure? 2RIR? 4???

>>76330869
wow dude it's almost as if HYPERTROPHY means to GAIN MORE muscle
wow no wonder the HYPERTROPHY chart is going down
that would make it HYPOTROPHY

>>76330883
>is
isnt*

>>76330882
yeah sorry I tried to fit the entire 30,000 word article into that 1200x800 pixel image but it didn't work
>>76330883
(You)

>>76330850
>>76330860
>half of the protein goes to muscle repair instead of actual hypertrophy
Untrained individuals blablabla. Make a 315 bencher do 20-30 sets and just watch his number go down. But fuck yea dude just do superslow eccentrics with a pause at the stretch, also make sure to arch your back in every single exercise

>>76330886
>30,000 word article
>>76330887
I don't know why the fuck you are arguing about this shit as if you know everything. The article doesn't even claim it will work for everyone.

>>76330886
no (You) are a retard for being surprised when you do a routine that encourages hypertrophy and then you gain more muscle.
as if you can lose muscle from doing resistance training and eating correctly. Shit like this is why roiders think science based lifting is a meme.
You posted a chart about a routine that show muscles hypertrophy for said routine that touts being able to cause hypertrophy as if it is something surprising or ground breaking.
>i did 30 sets and gained more muscle
wow how surprising you worked harder and got better results
who could have seen that coming?

>>76330895
You are arguing against a strawman. Maybe try reading the article you fucking braindead nigger.

>>76330892
I never claimed to know much, but like the other guy said its common sense, if you increase intensity volume has to come down. It only works with steroid abusers and beginners wow

>>76330896
no, im not reading shit it doesnt take a genius to figure this shit out. The fact that we have a wholde field of science for something that was solve before WW1 is hilarious

>>76330902
Wow I guess that settles it then. Someone tell the soientists this guy's common sense is all we need.

>>76330903
fucking delusional retard

>>76330746
>optimize
how about instead of trying to minmax your lifting, you go to the gym, lift a heavy weight until failure whether that's 2 reps or 15 reps and stop being a fucking baby?

>>76330087
thank you

>>76330905
what we really need is brads lab getting different results (2-4x) than every other lab in the entire world.

>>76330912
sure let me just waste my time for no reason

>>76330911
oh ok. so going to failure a decent amount and taking rest days when you need to like they said before WW1 is no and esoteric information because youtuber said so?
amazing

>>76330924
Is that what the article said?

>>76330886
So I looked at your link. Honestly if you look at this chart. the correlation between volume and hypertrophy seems very weak.

There is truly nothing gayer in this world than science-based lifting.

>>76330920
>using your muscles is a waste of time
lol. you're so dumb. farmers don't optimize shit, and they're built like trucks. same thing with furniture movers. they use their muscles, blow up in size and strength. no "science based" lifting or mixmaxing shit. they have a job, and they do it. stay weak, bitch

>>76330940
ok boomer

>>76330943
i accept your concession, weakling

>>76330927
yes

>>76329521
So what if I just push something i can't actually lift?

What if all my sets are just failure?

>>76330950
then you need to do meth like mentzer

Mechanical tension is the only thing that matters, keep doing high volume and reaping your muscle apart and stay forever small.

>>76330950
your muscle works differently on the eccentric and concentric parts of the lift. if you don't lift the weight you miss out on this

>>76330948
oh. I wouldn't know I didn't read it.

>>76329521
Mentzer was a high volume guy then started selling courses. Yes low volume is better but not generating enough stimulus (1 set), PO wont occur.

>>76329452
i'm stronger than those fags and i don't follow any program

>Arnold was doing high volume
>Mentzer was doing 1 set per week
stop using the best genetics in the world mixed with PEDs and thinking it means something

>>76330968
you workout like that homeless man in new york just doing pull ups randomly

>>76330974
somewhat yes. i have a pullup bar at home and do it when i'm bored. i use my ab wheeler when i am bored, sometimes multiple times a day. this isn't even counting the time i spend in the gym. i just go to failure in different ways depending on how i feel. it's that simple.

>>76329443
>muh studies
Are you also a beginner and/or on steroids and/or 40+ (and/or in your 20s) and/or using machines and/or free-weights and/or maintaining calorie surplus and/or eating enough protein? And/or is the sample size large enough to be statistically significant and/or are the results consistent and repeatable?

We'll be lucky to get a decent study on this shit by 2032, in the meantime n=1 worry about your own shit find what works for you.

>>76331003
kek

>>76331003
imbecile

>>76331018
im starting to understand why roiders shit in science based lifting so much.
you make it sound over complicated

>>76331019
>I insult people how I imagine smart people do
Fucking pathetic

>>76330950
Another anon sort of said what I'm going to say but the type of exercise you are describing would be isometric. Muscle length remains the same and internal force=external force. This does not cause enough muscular damage to stimulate adaptation and growth as moving through an eccentric and concentric motion does. Isometrics are commonly used in therapy to teach people to activate specific muscles, which is way below our level of function as weightlifters.

>>76330968
Stronger than who? Post body/lifts.

>>76331003
>Are you also a beginner and/or on steroids and/or 40+ (and/or in your 20s) and/or using machines and/or free-weights and/or maintaining calorie surplus and/or eating enough protein?
So by this what are you trying to say? That if a study isn't done in a person with exactly your same conditions the study is invalid?
The fact that you listed a few, opposite situations if anything says that you believe that studies use different populations from each other, which would mean that if a large sample of studies with different populations obtain similar results that would mean that then the studies are showing that the things being studied apply to everyone equally.
Also, luckily I'm still in my 20s, not for long but I'm not a boomer yet, I also have an almost full head of hair, had some recession of my hairline compared to younger but still have what most people would consider a full head of hair.
>And/or is the sample size large enough to be statistically significant
The samples sadly aren't as large as the studies in other fields like medicine because sport science doesn't get as much funding.
>and/or are the results consistent and repeatable?
The results are consistent and repeatable for volume in particular, in fact there was a study that was a bit of a stand out and had statical anomalies so Greg Nuckols, the guy who published the volume article linked before, reported it to the publisher and the study was retired, showing that the studies have a considerable amount of rigor put to them because the fakes are found out.

>>76331022
>>76331031
if its so simples then why so few turn into advanced? Why so many are stuck in the early intermediate hole?
I dont want you to understand how motor unit recruitment works, but if you come to a thread where the main discussion is exercise science and think we are the wrong for trying to optimize something we are deeply invested then kys

>>76330087
Based and blessed, hate that shit
Didnt evenread the original post kek

>>76331061
maybe you should do lat pull down at 44.5 degrees to increase your hypertrophy

>>76331061
Again just look at the retards that dont even know what PO means

>>76330087
Dumbledore said calmly

>>76331061
The science of lifting is actually really easy, and people who find the science of lifting hard to understand are legit low IQ, at least 1 SD below average, the reason why people don't get to advanced is that they just don't put in the work, they aren't consistent, don't eat anywhere close to optimal and don't try hard when lifting.

>>76331053

>>76331061
i love how it's never crossed your mind that not everyone has the genetics to get into the elite category.
Your parents told you that you can be whatever you want in life. No two people are the same unless they're twins down to a T.
Your parents lied to you man.

>>76331061
see here
>>76331084
i'm advanced. i don't follow this stronger by science horseshit. just go to the gym and push yourself to failure. it's not hard.

You are so fucking stupid, advancement is relative, not everyone will be mr olympia but sure as fuck can build an impressive physique especially to the untrained eyes
>I didnt follow science
I didnt say you have to, but again why not optimize something we are deeply invested in? if you are satisfied with your results ok

>uga buga just lift bro
you are not tough you just stupid

>>76331111
it sounds like my bro-science tier fuck around and get strong has provided better results than your strongerbyscience hyper-optimized strategy. you know what? i concede - you're just a low-T pansy lmao

>>76331122
i row your deadlift bro

>>76331127
i sincerely doubt that. i weigh 140lbs and deadlift 425lbs. no, it's not that sumo shit either.

>>76331137
140LBS AND THINKG YOU ARE TOGUH HRKEJWHRQWK FUCK MAN I WAS THINKING YOU WERE AT LEAST 200LBS OH FUCK OFF MAN GO EAT A BURGER OR SOEMTHING LMAO

>>76331141
how's it feel to be weaker than someone who weighs 140 lbs

a 140lbs male calling me a low t, what has the world come to

>>76331148
280kg @ 93kg

>>76331153
bad enough to lie. gotcha.

>>76331158
>hes stronger and bigger than me ofc he is lying
just bulk for the love of god unless youre like 160cm or something

>>76331053
>So by this what are you trying to say?
That studies(plural) are useless because you can support any argument for how to train with some study or another even though the circumstances of the trainees are completely different, to the point it's almost useless information, and a TON of studies are done on untrained subjects who literally grow just from touching a barbell. If you can't deduce why, from a scientific standpoint, as in the scientific method we were all taught in school, exercise studies that get thrown around on /fit/ all the time are nigh useless, then idk what to tell you.

> I also have an almost full head of hair, had some recession of my hairline compared to younger but still have what most people would consider a full head of hair.
Weird flex, but okay.

>because sport science doesn't get as much funding.
because it's a joke and it's full of people who get a kinesiology degree and think they're a foremost leading authority in any field tangentially related to working out, see Dr. Mike "Rows work the tricep" Israetel. If they could design a decent study between them, they might get a grant, instead they project personal definitions on vague shit like "failure" and expect everyone to believe beginners/early intermediates totally did an RPE0 set, bro.

>The results are consistent and repeatable for volume in particular
Yes, doing more means more results, typically, but you can't just blanket apply "more is more" when talking about, say, max effort compound lifts where you'll damage more tissue than you can recover doing high volume. This is assuming the trainee is natty, there again a lot of these studies don't even differentiate.

As for "considerable rigor" applied to these studies, I've read enough to know it's a low bar when compared to basically any medical journal. Just because they don't let chimps write them doesn't mean they're good.

>>76331061
>why so few turn into advanced?
Same reason so few are doctors, so few are millionaires, so few are "advanced" in other areas of life. They literally just don't have what it takes.
>>76331079
They want to optimize the hard work out of lifting, that's literally all it is. It's shortcut seeking for people afraid of roids.

>>76331208
this is a good insight. that they don't want to put in the hard work. which is why they consistently perform worse than bros who ignore science

>>76331254
I started ignoring the science too after spinning my wheels for 2 years. Big surprise, I started doing 5/3/1 fullbody fullboring and started growing again AND getting much stronger too.

>>76331177
>That studies(plural) are useless because you can support any argument for how to train with some study or another even though the circumstances of the trainees are completely different, to the point it's almost useless information,
That's why metastudies exists, to analyze all studies and find commonalities, see pic related, for example, for a recent metaregression.
>and a TON of studies are done on untrained subjects who literally grow just from touching a barbell.
If you do a study on beginners and the study show better result in a group than other, then it doesn't matter if the beginners grow with any training because it's still showing a difference.
>If you can't deduce why, from a scientific standpoint, as in the scientific method we were all taught in school, exercise studies that get thrown around on /fit/ all the time are nigh useless, then idk what to tell you.
The studies have limitations and using a single study to change your whole training is retarded, but that's not what I'm saying to do.
>If they could design a decent study between them, they might get a grant, instead they project personal definitions on vague shit like "failure" and expect everyone to believe beginners/early intermediates totally did an RPE0 set, bro.
RPE0 is easy, it's RIR 0 what you were trying to say.
Also, many studies go to failure when the lifter can't lift any more, going to failure isn't complicated to do, really.
>Yes, doing more means more results, typically, but you can't just blanket apply "more is more" when talking about, say, max effort compound lifts where you'll damage more tissue than you can recover doing high volume.
I agree with you here, and basically everyone else does, that's why nobody recommend to do as many sets as physically possible, but the point of overtraining is higher than what the low volume crowd says.

>>76331208
All the studies point toward more and harder work being better for gains so science isn't providing a shortcut.

>>76331291
You sound like you have a bad looking body and a weak powerlifting record.

>>76331208
just do whatever with your training bro! so tough!! dumb fucking take. Those who become advanced are usually the ones obsessed with it, people who try and tweak their programs, always trying to learn more, not the 'bro' that just lifts. Lifting per say is easy, pick a barbell do some reps go home and eat healthy, but knowing how to program and deal with plateus is not.

>>76329438 (OP)
It's literally just contratianism at this point. It's because certain clowns got BTFO'd on stretch-mediated hypertrophy, and those same clowns tend to also advocate ultra-high volume (20+ sets).
So people see that and go to the opposite extreme with sub-10 sets.
But anyone whose not retarded knows what we've already known for decades: that the optimal range is 10-20.

The existence of science based lifting implies that there are people lifting based on faith or the occult

>>76331319
>10 sets of blood sacrafice

>>76331302
>Those who become advanced are usually the ones obsessed with it, people who try and tweak their programs, always trying to learn more
Through trial and error, not the latest soience, you absolute retard.
>per say
lol
>knowing how to program and deal with plateus is not.
Doesn't need a million studies, we already know how to deal with plateaus and how to program, but people follow the grifter-of-the-week training programs thinking they're gonna get as big and shredded as their favorite fake natty influencer.
>the optimal range is 10-20
You're so fucking gay you shit rainbow marshmallows

>>76330672
How about muscle growth on the y-axis dumb fuck. Get your retarded graph out of here. And how the fuck did someone decide non-linear? Ridiculous, fuck you.

>>76330930
Now that's more like it. A clear, linear, small effect size correlation

>>76331291
>If you do a study on beginners and the study show better result in a group than other, then it doesn't matter if the beginners grow with any training because it's still showing a difference.
Missing the forest for the trees, bud. The point is that the info is ONLY good for absolute beginners, but it's extrapolated to apply to everyone else as well.
>The studies have limitations and using a single study to change your whole training is retarded, but that's not what I'm saying to do.
Obviously, and you're not everyone on /fit/, I'm talking about people who base their influence (jeff nipples, ect.) on the "science" and make a living doing it, on top of everyone who just parrots the same info.
>RPE0 is easy, it's RIR 0 what you were trying to say.
I was actually trying to say RPE10, but I made a typo
>Also, many studies go to failure when the lifter can't lift any more, going to failure isn't complicated to do, really.
picrel
>All the studies point toward more and harder work being better for gains so science isn't providing a shortcut.
No, it's providing hope for an "optimal" way, and people will invest to the point of leaving gains on the table if they were just consistently training with tried-and-true methods instead of chasing these optimal training techniques and exercises that their favorite science based influencers tout.

>>76331554
the biggest irony of this all is that i can see science-based lifting working AFTER YOU'RE ALREADY ADVANCED and you need to squeeze out every bit of progress that you can. but when you apply this as a beginner/intermediate, you're just shooting yourself in the foot.

>>76331908
Pretty much, and I don't think that's a bad thing to try out optimizing the minutia when you've made 99% of the gains you'll ever make in your life, but beginners/intermediates are wasting their time if they're not doing the basics with progressive overload over the course of several years.

>>76329438 (OP)
The human body does not allow you to activate all your muscle at once. Even pro powerlifters are only using ~30%, and that's with a warmup beforehand.

>>76329458
>it's a review on the current literature
Niggas will do absolutely anything but train, it's fascinating.

>>76331137
>Your average jeff niggard enjoyer

>>76332571
i'm the one saying don't follow him tho