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
  #11  
Unread 09-07-2019, 01:00 PM
AlphaBettor AlphaBettor is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 668
Default

The rest period issue makes me wonder why the DC/rest-pause guys are doing so well. Figure that is 20-25 seconds between mini-sets (I think Dante has said about 22 seconds on average.. round that up to 25 to give a few seconds to get back in position) and it works great.

Why does 3 minutes between sets work, and 25 seconds between mini-sets work, but 1 minute between sets doesn't? It makes me wonder whether the original 1 vs 3 minute study was tainted by the same issue-- the 1 minute group staying further away from failure on the earlier sets. Does anyone know for sure? Or maybe in this case it just happens to be a lousy middle ground, or the DC stretching is adding more than we think, or who knows.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Unread 09-07-2019, 01:40 PM
lylemcdonald lylemcdonald is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Posts: 1,364
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by AlphaBettor View Post
The rest period issue makes me wonder why the DC/rest-pause guys are doing so well. Figure that is 20-25 seconds between mini-sets (I think Dante has said about 22 seconds on average.. round that up to 25 to give a few seconds to get back in position) and it works great.

Why does 3 minutes between sets work, and 25 seconds between mini-sets work, but 1 minute between sets doesn't? It makes me wonder whether the original 1 vs 3 minute study was tainted by the same issue-- the 1 minute group staying further away from failure on the earlier sets. Does anyone know for sure? Or maybe in this case it just happens to be a lousy middle ground, or the DC stretching is adding more than we think, or who knows.
You can't compare rest pause to straight sets. It's a worthless comparison.

The POINT of rest pause is to get activation and then accumulate fatigue without full recovery. And you don't drop weight. And you're not trying to repeat the number of activation set reps. It's like 8,3,2,1. Or 12,5,3,2 or whatever.

Tension stays high and you accumulate fatigue under those conditions.

Now do a straight set to failure on 1' and do it again. The second set will suck in quality. You have to drop weight enormously to even attempt to get the same number of reps. If you take 100 lbs to a 12RM to failure and go again on 1' you'll either get 100X6 or 50X12. Quality suffers.

Beyond that, I want to see one of those workouts on video. Nobody takes sets to failure. NOBODY. At least this one defined it as technical failure. But true failure on squats. I can count maybe 4-5 people I've seen do it and I or someone I trained were 4 of them. And I don't mean missed max singlest that went awry. I mean squatting to voluntary failure, descent and get stuck at hte bottom and dump the bar. Nobody does that and nobody is doing that for multipe sets in any of these studies.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Unread 09-07-2019, 05:54 PM
AlphaBettor AlphaBettor is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 668
Default

People aren't training squats to failure. Not in the research studies, not in real gyms (at least not the kind the vast majority of people train in.)

I agree that video would be useful. Honestly it would be vastly more useful than some stats geek rambling about effect sizes. The approach to the literature is archaic and we end up with these short-term studies full of fluff work that leads people to believe that volume is the key driver for growth. From the cardio side of things, short-term studies that lead people to believe that intensity is the key driver for building aerobic adaptations... pretty much the exact opposite of how things really are.

From another thread

Quote:
In may types of science, you can actually do decently cnotroled studies. When you're studying cell lines, or biochemical pathways. Only so many ways to set it up. and you tend to see researchers being much more systematic with it. So we established X. Now let's expand on that to the nexts step.

In the case of exercise science, you have researchers who often don't have a clue (some of the workout setups are bafflingly stupid to me), with a bunch of different variables that give essentially unlimited combinations,s tudying humans taht cant' be controled, who have a 10 fold variation in response.

I men, think of training, workout setups. It's not infinite but it might as well be infinite in terms of the number of variations on splits, sets, reps, volume, rest intervals taht can be set up. Not that some aren't less stupid than others. But the number of permutations are effectively endless.

And you don't ever seem to see systematic approaches to research. It's like they throw darts at a training variable dartboard and there's no rhyme or reason to any of it.
I've thought this way for a long time but I swear, some others get so stuck in the "but this is what a study says!" that they lose all logical thinking faculties. I'm not saying I complete discount the research. It's more like a well-done study of a relevant population (and here I'm assuming it was done on humans in the first place... yikes) adds to the overall knowledge, but it's still not the be-all and end-all.

A poorly done study on an irrelevant population (or species) is practically useless. In fact it might be worse than useless, because it can lead people to bizarre ideas of what is actually happening.
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Unread 09-07-2019, 06:45 PM
loc loc is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 633
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by lylemcdonald View Post
I could be wrong but this seems to be a current trend in science. I mean publish or perish has always been a thing. years ago I contacted kraemer about a paper his name was on and he told me he didn't have much to do with it.

Turns out EVERY paper that came out of his lab, whether he had anything to do with it, got his name stamped on it.
Yeah, you can't really pay too much attention to names on papers many times, unfortunately, unless it's the first author listed. Not always the case though.
I admit I have my name on a couple of papers that I worked on but wouldn't be the best person to ask detailed questions about the study. I was not first author on those studies.
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Unread 09-08-2019, 09:09 AM
lylemcdonald lylemcdonald is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Posts: 1,364
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by loc View Post
Yeah, you can't really pay too much attention to names on papers many times, unfortunately, unless it's the first author listed. Not always the case though.
I admit I have my name on a couple of papers that I worked on but wouldn't be the best person to ask detailed questions about the study. I was not first author on those studies.
Maybe not intense details but when I see a paper with 14 authors and at the end it says taht 3 bascially did all the work. Well, the rest are just pumping up their numbers with bs
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Unread 09-08-2019, 09:39 AM
loc loc is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 633
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by lylemcdonald View Post
Maybe not intense details but when I see a paper with 14 authors and at the end it says taht 3 bascially did all the work. Well, the rest are just pumping up their numbers with bs
Yeah it's unfortunate. Which is why I'm getting out of academics when I can.
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Unread 09-08-2019, 11:39 AM
lylemcdonald lylemcdonald is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Posts: 1,364
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by loc View Post
Yeah it's unfortunate. Which is why I'm getting out of academics when I can.
I saw some article recently where some absurd percentage of researchers get their names on some truly ludicrous number of papers per year. But I guess that's the danger of publish or perish. Between that and the predatory journals publishing garbage without peer review, science is in for smoe hard times.

This was teh paper by the way

Robert W Morton,1 Kevin T Murphy,1 Sean R McKellar,1 Brad J Schoenfeld,2 Menno Henselmans,3 Eric Helms,4 Alan A Aragon,5 Michaela C Devries,6 Laura Banfield,7 James W Krieger,8 and Stuart M Phillips1. A systematic review, meta-analysis and meta-regression of the effect of protein supplementation on resistance training-induced gains in muscle mass and strength in healthy adults Br J Sports Med. 2018 Mar; 52(6): 376384.

***
Quote:
Contributors: RWM, BJS, MH, EH, AAA, MCD, JWK and SMP contributed to the conception and design of the study. RWM, BJS, MH, EH, AAA, MCD, LB, JWK and SMP contributed to the development of the search strategy. LB conducted the systematic search. RWM, KTM and SRM completed the acquisition of data. RWM and SMP performed the data analysis. All authors assisted with the interpretation. RWM and SMP were the principal writers of the manuscript. All authors contributed to the drafting and revision of the final article. All authors approved the final submitted version of the manuscript.
I mean, what the hell else did the others do, add semi-colons?
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Unread 09-08-2019, 08:18 PM
AlphaOmega AlphaOmega is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 253
Default

Oh for the love of God...Brad using 24 sets / week on quads again...AND 1-2 minutes rest. It's another dumpster fire

https://content.sciendo.com/view/jou...ticle-p135.xml
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Unread 09-09-2019, 08:55 AM
lylemcdonald lylemcdonald is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Posts: 1,364
Default

Actually, it's 36 sets/week, no? 12 sets 3X/week or 18 2X/week. Which is stupid. 90s rest interval

And you can tell he didn't design it, it's got isolation arm work
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Unread 09-10-2019, 08:12 PM
AlphaOmega AlphaOmega is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 253
Default

You're right. The mobile version of the site on my android cut some of the table out. 36 sets! Idiotic. But he sure pimped it out on Twitter, so he's calling attention to it. I'd like to shake the hand of the dude that could exceed 10 sets of squats per week (sans AAS) to true failure and not die of rhabdo by week three.

Quote:
Originally Posted by lylemcdonald View Post
Actually, it's 36 sets/week, no? 12 sets 3X/week or 18 2X/week. Which is stupid. 90s rest interval

And you can tell he didn't design it, it's got isolation arm work

Last edited by AlphaOmega : 09-10-2019 at 08:17 PM.
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 08:52 PM.


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