BodyRecomposition Support Forums  

Go Back   BodyRecomposition Support Forums > General information > General training questions
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Reply
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Unread 01-04-2019, 01:35 PM
AlphaOmega AlphaOmega is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 234
Default Lyles Remathing of Brad's Study Pool

Lyle, you're obviously busy but would reworking the data on the 10 sets meta that Brad made famous a few years ago be something you'd consider writing an article about?

Or even an estimate if you're familiar with his data set.

Would love to know if the delineation between above 10 sets and below 10 sets would actually become closer to 6-8 when removing the 1:1 assumption.

Thanks
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Unread 01-05-2019, 07:39 AM
lylemcdonald lylemcdonald is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Posts: 1,292
Default

It would sadly entail looking at every study he included in the meta and I'm ot sure I have th eenergy. And honestly whether it's 8 or 10 is not that important in the big picture so far as I'm concerned. It's 2 sets.

Now 45 vs. 12...
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Unread 01-05-2019, 03:23 PM
AlphaOmega AlphaOmega is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 234
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by lylemcdonald View Post
It would sadly entail looking at every study he included in the meta and I'm ot sure I have th eenergy. And honestly whether it's 8 or 10 is not that important in the big picture so far as I'm concerned. It's 2 sets.

Now 45 vs. 12...
Understood.

Recently Greg Nuckols and James Kreiger have mentioned a per session volume per muscle group limit (as to maximized MPS (myofib, actually). Kreiger thanks it may be @ 8-10 sets.

Could you offer any thoughts on this?
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Unread 01-05-2019, 03:48 PM
w1cked w1cked is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 2,005
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by AlphaOmega View Post
Understood.

Recently Greg Nuckols and James Kreiger have mentioned a per session volume per muscle group limit (as to maximized MPS (myofib, actually). Kreiger thanks it may be @ 8-10 sets.

Could you offer any thoughts on this?
Funny enough gbr and spec cycles work out to be 7 to 10 sets/session, hmm
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Unread 01-05-2019, 07:40 PM
AlphaOmega AlphaOmega is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 234
Default

Imdeed. And John Christy said years ago that 3-5 sets done 2x per week was usually best. Go with the higher end (so 10 sets) if advanced.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Unread 01-05-2019, 11:16 PM
lylemcdonald lylemcdonald is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Posts: 1,292
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by AlphaOmega View Post
Understood.

Recently Greg Nuckols and James Kreiger have mentioned a per session volume per muscle group limit (as to maximized MPS (myofib, actually). Kreiger thanks it may be @ 8-10 sets.

Could you offer any thoughts on this?
Yes, I believe there is a limit of some sort. It desperately needs to be systematically studied before any more of these idiot volume papers are done. There's just no point picking random volumes per workout or per week until this value is pinned down to one degree or another.

So take some folks, give them different volumes and look at MPS and MPB. Find out what the dose response is per workout, this per week stuff is crap. It only takes one set of measurements and a couple of different stints in the lab

Bring 'em in, 1 vs. 3 sets for biceps the first day. 6 vs 9 on the second, 12 vs 15 on the third.

And you have to look at breakdown too which is methdologically a pain in the butt.

I would predict that up to a point you might get increasing (but unlikely to be linearly increasing) MPS but at some point the balance will switch. But you might get asyptotically increasing MPS with volume. Just like every paper ever done, a few sets gets you most of the work and you have to put in double the work for half the results.

Either MPS won't go up any higher beyond a certain point AND/OR protein breakdown will increase to a greater degree so that the benefit goes from positive to negative and you're just doing junk volume.

I will say that, practically, if you can't train a muscle sufficiently in 8-10 hard sets in a workout, doing more sets wont get it done because you are the problem. Your focus, intensity or technique sucks if you only feel like you got a workout with 20 sets.

Of note, go back to Wernbom's meta-review. 40-70 reps per workout for optimal results. No math that out to sets.

10 reps a set = 4-7 sets
8 reps a set = 5-8 ish sets per workout.

So already we're right in that range again. If you wanna argue that advanced need more, fine go up to 80-100 reps per workout and you get 8-10 sets of 8-10. Boom, done. This isn't even complicated.

So yeah, Krieger right on the cutting edge of 15 years ago or whenever that thing came out. And of course 8-10 sets per workout twice a week comes out to, da da 16-20 sets/week. Same thing I mathed out in my series on the topic as far as a potential per week MAXIMUM.

So yeah, super cutting edge stuff from those two. But I never liked Nuckols and Krieger showed his hand as a conman guru with the Schoenfeld crap. I'm not done with either of them, for the record.

NB: I find it HILARIOUS that Krieger spent so much energy defending an indefensible paper that used FIFTEEN SETS PER MUSCLE PER WORKOUT to now say "Oh, 8-10 is the limit." But he's just another scumbag conman who gets to contradict himself until the cows come home and hope that nobody notices. Like all the others he'll just change his tune whenever it's convenient to do so.

When it was convenient to defend his/Brad's crapshow of a paper, he played all the guru games to do so including his bs statistical blathering. Now he'll look all amazing by changing his tune, relying on the fact that nobody has a long-term memory and make the same training recommendations I was more or less making before he hit puberty.

Hooray.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Unread 01-06-2019, 04:49 PM
AlphaOmega AlphaOmega is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 234
Default

Of note, recently I looked back through about 15 years of training logs. Yeah, got bored after Christmas.

There were two things that really stood out. First, during periods where I would try to up the volume and "get serious" about driving gains for a period of time, I had ended up offsetting myself with do2n time. I had a bit of a shock when I took an average volume per muscle for the year. A macro view of sorts.

Every time I hit more than about 9-12 sets per muscle per week, I would end up offsetting this high volume phase by becoming less consistent due to burnout or more frequent illness. Either the mind or the body would balk if I exceeded this for very long. So no matter how many "get serious" runs I made, it always, always averaged back out to 8-12 sets / muscle / week when I zoomed out to longer macro cycles.

Second, my average per year, each year, over a decade and a half was...6-12 direct sets / muscle / week. No joke.

It was a shock because I would have guessed it was higher but I had underestimated how I would just "happen" to balance the higher volume phases with inadvertent back offs or time off.

Imagine my face when I thought "I should have just stayed moderate and drove 55mph the whole time. I offset my periods of gunning the gas with periods of riding the brakes". I laughed out loud at myself.

This year...no more erratic attempts.

And for context, I've done well as far as gains. I seem to be an above average responder from all the comments from random folks, coworkers, etc. But you know, a Bro always wants more. A 15 year personal meta analysis (N=1) brought reality back home. Maybe this will be instructional for others here.

Last edited by AlphaOmega : 01-06-2019 at 04:56 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Unread 01-06-2019, 06:33 PM
lylemcdonald lylemcdonald is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Posts: 1,292
Default

45 sets/week per muscle group dadoi
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Unread 01-07-2019, 11:40 AM
AlphaOmega AlphaOmega is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 234
Default

As an aside, the apologism continues
https://www.strongerbyscience.com/ex...mpression=true
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 06:38 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.