I'd argue it's more like mma where each fighter specializes in one martial art and it's a battle to see which art is best. The donkeys that are coaching strength and Olympic lifters are in a completely different paradigm and they're not actually speaking the same language lol. Of course you're rarely if ever training 90-100% RM to failure. That's insane and should only happen on competition days and very rarely in training. When loads are lighter and hypertrophy is the goal, progressing to failure slowly over a meso just makes sense and the risk of injury is much lower. So rir progression for hypertrophy makes sense. Static rir for power and Olympic lifting makes sense. And the argument they're having makes 0 sense.
Thank's for this long and detailed convo. It was awesome! I think an interesting lesson from this is that it's really tough to have a simple debate over Mike's set progression method, asi it's built on an entire model, which has at least 3-4 pillars which warrant a separate discussion on its own. (the concept of fatigue accumulation, progressing RIR, the resensitization effect after a deload, the inverted U of volume and hypertrophy and the grey zone between MAV and MRV, etc etc) There is some mild disagreement on most of these points, so 2 hours was a good minimum duration for this! :D
Greta point Abel,. I train in accordance with RP principles, after a couple years of doing this and making gradual chances, I realized how different the whole paradigm is compared to other methods or periodization styles
3dmj, posed some good points as to why you don't HAVE to progress Through a meso by lowering RIR, but certainly gave no compelling reasons why you shouldn't, nor any concrete examples of how you might progress.
weightology.net/the-members-area/evidence-based-guides/set-volume-for-muscle-size-the-ultimate-evidence-based-bible/#problems I think this article in Weightology may respond to some aspects
I love it when you pitch Eric Helms against Mike Israetel. So high level discussion. You can't not learn when listening them trade arguments. This was awesome.
Listening to both videos makes me very appreciative that there are governing bodies within medicine who love not only discussing the nuances within a topic, but will then come to a consensus and create some real take-home points / best practice guidelines based on review of the literature. I tried to give these videos a fair shake and thorough listen Steve!
@@dylansevitt Yea, as in, this was a lot of discussion but with clear disagreements and without complete outcomes for people to apply. I think it's a start, Sport Science is still a low-priority baby science in the real world
Free and open discussion of ideas without ego attachment is necessary for all scientific fields and most of the time you will find it to a good degree, but this isn't medicine
Mike did another RS podcast in which he presented the possibility that a meso that exhibits no preparedness rise at all while increasing sets, and decreasing RIR, might be the most optimal progression method as volume addition in almost every analysis leads to greater hypertrophy. Great discussion!!
I can't believe I listened to these guys have a discussion for 2 hours. The main thing I got was, Mike prefers to push closer to failure where Eric and his colleague thinks that it's not necessary for muscle gain. I think both their merits. Eric's philosophy is great if you have been training for a while and have a good sense of knowing your limits where Mike is good if you are trying to find your limits. I think Mike has great land makers and a systematic way to push yourself, especially if you are beginner. Where with Eric method you can potentially train for longer in a meso and not feel like shit but either way you would probably reach the same point in couple years.
They agree on way more things than they disagree on that's for sure, and both approaches definitely have their upsides and downsides :) Thanks for watching! - Coach Jess
"You can't have it both ways. If we don't think we can see these objective performance increases week-to-week, then we can't pin everything on hitting MRV which is based on whether you improved performance. Those are contrary concepts. If we can't expect to be relying on performance week-to-week that also means we can't expect to be relying on a lack of performance, or a dip in performance, week-to-week and then just assume that it has to do with fatigue rather than something else, an error in estimation. Those two arguments can't coexist." That was a good one around 17:00
Eric and Brian's points sound better on paper, Mike's ideas align closer with my experiences and preferences. Would definitely like to hear more people discuss particularly the major topic of significantly progressing volume within a mesocycle.
1:10:36 This question is classic because Mike regularly uses this type of hyperbole to make points if you watch enough of his debates. Having to contend with it is pretty ironic.
I think it was still a good question to clarify what the claim really was about and what it was based on, because the quote didn't explain it too well - what it was implying and why.
Interesting to see RIR talked about. Am presently running a Hypertrophy Specific Program HST and the same principle is there. Though in the initial stages the RIR is greater. But given that you are training 3 times a week and adding weight (not sets) with each workout that hardly matters. Crazy to think that holding reps back and building up to 0 RIR and working out multiple times a week was being talked about 20 years ago!
Now i may be bias in saying this, but i feel like dr mike has a far more practical approach to his methods while the other 2 are more hypothetical and like to talk in perfect scenarios with the ability to control certain aspects. It also seems to me that mike is trying to min max his programs to squeeze out all that can be. While the other 2 are more just good with some increase in performance.
I think it's a bit more nuanced than that and both approaches aren't about right or wrong and would yield optimal results depending on a lot of factors! Thanks for watching! - Coach Jess
Man I gotta say Mike really moved the goalposts around a lot in this discussion. I mean he stated that low reps were more fatiguing, Eric said he was contradicting a lot of evidence, then Mike said "oh but low reps are fatiguing for your joints". Come on now, we all know he originally meant systemic fatigue. This is just one example of many from this discussion.
If you mean 27:30 and for mikes response after, he's simply pointing out a valid accurate side comment (that Eric actually mentioned prior) about undetectable fatigue types such as joint and connective tissue requiring a pre planned deload. Even if the subject stayed on whether preparedness rising through meso is a good idea (Eric and Brian) or not (sort of Mike), it still makes sense that fatigue does accumulate through a meso if your training dosage is applied optimally. Seems Mike made some greater points and responses than Eric/Brian to me.
I like a lot most of what Mike has to say, I mean he got me into an evidence based aproach how could I not haha. But I feel like he has idealized so much his progression model that he has fallen into dogma. And I get it, I mean when he first created it, it seemed like the solution to everything hypertrophy related, sadly it wasn't. And now that some smart guys on the field (Eric, Brian, Menno) have indicated some of its faults, he kinda doesn't want to let go, even with evidence going against with what he is saying. Like the estimation of rir part, my reaction was the same to Eric's, it has been shown that trained individuals are pretty damn accurate with it. Also if what he said was true, his model would be victim of the same or worse since his first week in the meso consists of 4 rir meaning that it could even get to the point of not offering a stimulus (but as I said, that most probably wouldn't be the case since most people are really accurate).
@George Reed oh yes, I absolutely agree with the latter. I don't think what I perceive as dogma comes from arrogance, and I applaud RPs aproach to constructive criticism.
How would 4rir not offer any stimulus? Load it properly, with progression and fatigue management in mind. Eric and Brian don’t believe in higher load being more fatiguing and less stimulating. Flawed argument.
Or one method may be better for some, and not for others. Give each a shot. I’ve been lifting for 20+ years and I absolutely suck at estimating anything greater than 1 RIR. I did a program a while back where the first set of an exercise was supposed to be 3 RIR and gradually go to 1 RIR for the last set. For example, on Flyes, each week I was getting roughly 10 - 12 reps on my first set at a specific weight. For shits and giggles one week, I went all out on the first set. I got 26 reps lol. I suck. I’m currently trying Mike’s methods, but RIRs are roughly based off the PRs from the end of the previous meso. Only difference is I’m still using static sets. Next meso I’ll start adding sets each week as he does. Never hurts to experiment. Looking forward to seeing how it goes. May work, may not.
In some sense he has internal pressure to not exhibit any type of cognitive dissonance. RP sells templated training that progress via the model he is proposing. If he were to change his mind about the optimality, then there might be damage control.
Hey Steve, fantastic work getting all these experts together in one forum. I see great point from all sides, however the argument between how you construct your Mesocycle becomes awash over time...one Mesocycle does not make the perfect storm for hypertrophic gains, it's how you view your entire Macrocycle, then years and years of training. Cheers, greetings from NZ 💪👍🤩
TLDL: We are still not sure exactly how to completely grow optimally. Keep training real hard, have some markers to improve, probably keep reps in the tank and deload on a regular basis so that you don't fuck yourself. Get into the real nuance here is only really pertinent to advanced trainees who as naturals might hope to gain 1kg/year
I mean, some people have been growing well without knowing 99% of the things discussed here, well before many of the terms used were even invented (or the internet for that matter). By having non-shit genetics, training hard and eating enough, you check so many more boxes than the differences between the two here discussed paradigms. So your last sentence is exactly on point.
I'm with Mike on this one. I think the "concerns" presented by Brian/Eric are not really founded in data, but rather, a lack of data. Hence their skepticism. Intuitively, it makes sense to increase volume (via sets) as increases are made in Strength, which then allows for a smoother transition into the Hypertrophy phase without switching to a separate (possibly inferior) weight resistance. *Strength > Hypertrophy > Deload x Repeat.* Is this Optimal? Who knows. I guess vwe could try it out and see what happens ...
However it was a scientifical debate where you can't claim something to be true if there's no evidence or if the evidence is contrary. Intuition can't be held as proof or evidence. You can hypothesize and make theories, but it's not obvious that you can then make a claim for it to be optimal. That's the fascinating part of this debate, to find what the claims are and if there's alternatives, and how much the evidence points to one or the other direction. It wasn't a debate if the method works, it obviously works, but if it's optimal and based on what. But I didn't notice any part where they claimed there was a strength phase included for this hypertrophy training method. The increase in strength was a byproduct of using the tools of progressive overload and increasing muscle size in this context, not a goal or planned. Just a byproduct of pure hypertrophy training. And to be fair I don't know of hypertrophy training methods that aim to increase strength at first without being in the hypertrophy range of training, they all advice to start in the hypertrophy ranges and consequentially you also increase strength which allows you to perhaps have wider options for your hypertrophy training.
The first set RPE which Eric Helms and Andy Morgan propose solves the RPE/RIR estimation problem. If you do 3x8 at first set RPE 8 and you match reps while resting properly, first set is RPE 8, next is probably 9, and last will be at failure or very close, so you know you started at 8. Also, I tried Mike's RP novice/intermediate template with not much success. As Eric says, when you change too many variables you introduce a lot of noise and you can't judge performance, especially if volume jumps are extreme such as in the RP Male Physique template. I like Mike a lot and I think he puts out quality content. I was introduced to science-based fitness through him.But for me, the volume and RPE ramping method did not work. I am able to assess my performance better with static volume and RPE and then diagnose from there.
I think Mike really overestimates how much extra volume increases muscle growth. As long as youre not doing some retarded HIT one set per week routine or something you dont really need to worry about doing enough volume. His idea of ramping volume is very bad because best case scenario you are getting a little bit more growth, but worst case scenario you do too much and you cannot progress. Its always better to undertrain because slow progress is still progress, but if you overtrain you make ZERO progress.
@@simranbiryani3068 Jordan Feigenbaum disagrees with that since he thinks most people are undertraining AND he also doesn't really believe in overtraining to begin with.
@@ProphetFear I agree that most people are undertraining, but that's because they don't push themselves hard enough on their sets to progress. Not because they aren't doing enough volume. Also how can you not believe in overtraining ? Our bodies clearly have a limited ability to recover. That's why athletes train in blocks/cycles and ramp up intensity/volume/frequency and then deload. If there was no overtraining you could just train with everything at maximum all of the time.
@@ProphetFear Most people do too much volume and not enough intensity in my opinion. I'm not advocating either ends of the spectrum -- very high volume low intensity or very high intensity low volume. I think moderate volume, with moderate intensity ( start first set with something like RPE 8 and take last set to failure) is the best approach for majority of people.
So I've watched the entire two hours of this thing now and a lot of the respect I used to have for Eric Helms really dropped. It seems as if he is actively and desperately looking for flaws in Israetels principles and logic without ever really finding valid critique points. Throughout the debate Helms continuously attack different arguments which Israetel in turn defend with logic, leading Helms to move on to the next thing he can attack - rinse and repeat for Israetel who seems very, very patient when dealing with Helms bruised ego. Israetel and RP are not making any unscientific claims, they simply work with the variables we know as well as the ones we do not know as best as possible. There is no reason that one should not increase volume over a mesocycle until unable to recover - there is no downside to it as long as one follows basic autoregulation principles as laid out in their more in depth guide to progression. Equally, as demonstrated in this debate which looks rather embarrasing for Helms, there is no reason what so ever to NOT push overload each week in a mesocycle instead of trying to hit the same RIR everytime. Helms even admitted this and couldn't really argue against Israetels logic (at other points he'd just get quiet when corrected) and then had to say "well uh yeah, I can maybe agree with that if we are purely talking hypertrophy" - well you have been talking purely hypertrophy for the past hour and a half dummy. Way to try to save face. Here in Demark we have a term 'actively looking for the hair in the soup' - when someone is dead set on proving someone or something wrong out of spite or personal issues rather than for the sake of reaching a solution for the common good. Helms is obviously butthurt by the fact that Israetel is becoming an increasingly respected voice within the community of science based fitness and all around has better communication, better content and more structured and succesful approaches to training athletes at all levels. Israetel just read, understand and - this is the core - practically apply the current fitness litterature way better than anyone else within the community including helms
What I gather is that mike is providing some metrics to use for judging things and eric is just bashing him while not providing better alternatives. Personally I'd rather use those "subpar" metrics instead of using nothing and using static everything(sets,rir) and hoping an increase in load will take care of everything.
I mean Eric and Brian are not using nothing as there is still some overload happening, it's just two different methods. Whatever you feel more comfortable and easy to use for yourself is best anyway. What you can sustain and progress with :) - Coach Jess
No, basically they're debating if there's evidence to suggest one is better than the other and if all the claims hold scrutiny. That's the difference in academic debate versus people arguing about opinions on training. They're not discussing if it's a working method, they agree that most of it is based on good principles, but if all said is based on evidence and if there's not evidence suggesting something different. Eric is not bashing Mike, Eric is argumenting in a debate, referencing to studies and Mike is defending his paper's claims.
Ok. I have some questions and comments with regards of each side. 1. How is mike so sure that if your performance doesnt match the expected weight this week is the result of acummulated fatigue and not the fact that maybe the picked weight was too much. Maybe you increased your performance for 2.5lb instead of 5lb and I think it wouldnt be wise to atribute it to fatigue and deload inmediately. 2. Mike disregarded this too quickly but RPs mesocycles tend to be really short. They are 4-5 weeks on average and because they purposely undershoot in the first week, you have 1 easy week, 2 good weeks and then 1 deload, so basically half of your year is spent training too easy and the other half training too hard. Its like sprinting in the first part of the marathon and then slowly walking the rest. I think it may be better to pick a good pace that you can sustain for a litttle longer and you will arrive there more quickly, in this case in essence, you could made more adaptions simply because of the fact of training 80 or 90% percent of the time in a good intensity compared to 50% 3. The point from autoregulation it seems to me that RP has already built in a good mix of feet-foward approach and autoregulation based on RIR because you do have a RIR target its just different each week. I have both increased weight and added reps in good weeks and just maintained in bad weeks but I personally never shoot for less than last week's reps and if I get there with more in me or I feel I haven't reached the target RIR I just keep doing more reps so I think this method does combine itself good with the RP templates so I'm not sure if Mike did himself a favor by arguing against it. Overall I think Mike's perceptions of rate of progress could be biased because his own experience with PEDs. Advanced naturals on average don't expect that weekly increases in weight and don't rush to deload if they don't. Otherwise I like RPs aggresive volume progression better but up to MAV and just going to MRV on some very concrete ocasions like when you want figure out how much can you handle or if you have a predicted deload coming up because of lifes circumstances.
You bring up some excellent points. For #1 I’d say some movements my performance no matter what are a little less consistent no matter what I do. For example, pull-ups, and squats always seem to be a little harder or a little easier week to week without any rhyme or reason. And if I were doing mikes method I’d be deloading literally every other week almost which obviously isn’t correct. For other movements, like bench, myself performance is pretty consistent and if it starts regressing I know I probably need to deload and not just ride it out. 2. Yeah that frequency of deloading is way too high for most people. The only reason I could see someone deloading that often is if they were really strong and being too aggressive in their progression. I wouldn’t recommend most people deload any more than about 8 weeks. I’m more of a fan of the auto regulated deload.
I don't fully agree with your point 2 and will discuss it :) Starting a mesocycle at 3/4RIR doesn't mean your training is easy or not inducing hypertrophy. I start my mesos around 3RIR for isolations and 4 for compounds and usually run 5:1, that first week is still hard training. It's not 0RIR, but it's not 10RIR either. I think a lot of people have a misconception of what 3/4RIR actually is. I don't think it's fair to say half the meso is useless is what I mean xD Now if you've found a method that works better for you, that's what we're all chasing after all :) Thanks for listening! - Coach Jess
@@ReviveStronger I did not say it was "easy" just not optimal, which is the whole discussion. I think his whole concept of acumulated fatigue its based on the fact of aggresive ramping of volume which is the thing we are trying to argue in the first place, but I dont think Eric Helms and Brian Minor did a good job of highlithing that. And you are right we really never know if we are actually doing all the we can actually do we can just know that we are progressing, so chasing optimality its more of a direction rather than a clear destination as we dont have reliable proxys to know if we are progressing as much as we can
Majority of lifters who train heavy and get injured do so with out any proper loading progression to prepare them for the rep range that they are training in. Eric eluded to the fact that sets of 30 are more fatiguing when compared to sets of 6. We also know that CNS fatigue occurs to a much greater degree in endurance exercise and in presence of significant muscle damage. While PNS fatigue is higher with more metabolite accumulation. Add in the Schoenfeld study showing similar hypertrophy between heavy and light loads and I think a case can be made that moderately heavy loads (3-6 reps) can very easily be implemented into a hypertrophy program. All while limiting the effects of local fatigue. I'm personally of the opinion that a wide variety of rep ranges should be used throughout a macrocycle of training to avoid staleness since we know that virtually all reps to a certain threshold are hypertrophic.
I am not sure if I got Eric's and Brian's approach right. Basically they suggest to keep volume static, stay on rir 2 all the time in your meso and when your performance decreases(two sessions in a row or two weeks) then they do deload? Did I get it right?
More or less I think, basically they are closer to doing mostly the same stuff and watching how you adapt, and RP is more on the side of assuming the progress is occurring and increasing volume/intensity/RIR as that happens.
Confusing for me too, since Eric’s book has you starting at an RPE of 8 for the first set and keeping the reps static. So, basically by the third set, you’d be going to failure. They didn’t mention any of that in any debate. If anything, they talked down on training to failure.
I would like to emphasize Schoenfeld and Krieger's study (Resistance Training Volume Enhances Muscle Hypertrophy but Not Strength in Trained Men) dind't use that quantity of volume and I quote: "a total weekly number of sets per muscle group of 6 and 9 sets for 1SET, 18 and 27 sets for 3SET, and 30 and 45 sets for 5SET in the upper and lower limbs, respectively". So, the low volume group didn't perform 15 sets, in fact they perform lower sets than MEV. And also, the medium volume group perform 18 sets for the upper body... I think it's important to consider that at the Israetel's claims. I think the study is misinterpreted. Maybe it could be because the 6 and 9 sets (low volume) is not even effectly (MEV) (that's why they don't get more muscle gains), while 18 and 27 sets (medium volume) and 30 and 45 sets (high volumen) they had a minimum effectly stimulus to get hypertophy, but doing more than necessary.
I know I am 3 years late to the party but I actually think that Mike's concept of RIR progression is kinda misunderstood. I think it's just a very good way of ensuring progression and not cheating yourself.
I'm not sure I understand your question ? Pop it in the facebook group (facebook.com/revivestronger/) for the next Improvement Season podcast and we'll answer it there :) - Coach Jess
@@ReviveStronger I don't have a Facebook, but this is what I meant: When an individual is performing at a certain level, and stalls... de-training is similar to deloading but maybe even 1 step further by purposely letting a muscle group(s) recover by not training them for an extended period of time (not training for an entire month as an example). This then (according to limited research) allows those lifts that were previously stalled or unable to advance progress, whereas they wouldn't have with a traditional deload.
regarding the RIR study group mentioned, i can’t help but wonder if the the fact they were saying what RIR they were at in fact screwed what RIR they were really at. I know for myself if i say i can only do (this many) reps on a given lift, it psychologically turns into a self fulfilling prophecy and pushing past that seems much more difficult than it does when i go into it without a rep count mindset at all.
What i think is missing from the discussion is subject of exercise selection. Can you do 20 sets of biceps curls or leg extensions? Probably yes. Can you do 20 sets of squats? R.I.P
@@ReviveStronger i know, that's exactly my point. Exercise selection plays a big role in volume progression. Some people say high volume is crap, but they only do exercises which SFR is shitty, like deadlifts fg. Im just saying it is worth mentioning.
I don’t think RPE and RIR in their strict definitions are the same. Yes, in general RPE 8 equates to 2 RIR, but.....they are not the same. It would be interesting to hear someone like Eric/Brian/Mike explain the nuanced difference(s) between RPE and RIR, or, tell me I’m just totally wrong.
I don't think we did, but I think JPS has on their educational page :) But as long as you stick with the same I don't think it's worth stressing over! - Coach Jess
Revive Stronger Thanks Jess. It’s not a big deal at all - more just an academic question and would be interested in someone knowledgeable explaining their view on how RPE and RIR are different.
i think that the example of 6 sets of 8 with no pump meaning adding sets being pointless is directly countered by RIR because if you’re training close to failure surely the sets would then be stimulative and adding sets would be useful
Well losing the pump during an exercise (after having had it at the beginning) would probably mean you're doing too much more than not enough, so it depends. If you've reached your MRV for that muscle group for that session, adding sets wouldn't necessarily be the answer. No matter how close to failure you're training, if I'm getting that right. - Coach Jess
57:20 Pretty much sums it up. Studies only matter when they fit Mike's agenda, if not then they don't matter. Lyle Mcdonald said it best " You should be a politician".
but if the amount of reps in total are matched using heavier weight that would cause much more fatigue wouldn't it? but if the amount of sets are the same then the amount of reps done would go down in the heavier group meaning that overall the fatigue would probably go down (depending on a few other factors as well) but you'd be missing out of extra growth from having more volume in total is that the argument that mike is trying to make here? BTW these podcasts are full of golden information imo keep them coming!!!
More probably, I wouldn't say MUCH more. I think you still get a decent amount of fatigue with both methods, Mike's approach has deloads more often so you do have a bit more recovery which allows you to do more volume within a mesocycle and potentially get that extra bit of hypertrophy. Thanks for listening! - Coach Jess
Seems pretty clear to me that we have to start from 5 then add reps through the mesocycle, then if you can push it for 12 reps 3x youve got your ideal time to raise the weight. Why bother with anything else? Unless you dont have 3 month cycles, i believe you shouldnt worry about starting at sets of 8. Ofcourse, if you plan your mesocycle to be 1 month, then yeah, go forth, start from sets of 8 to 12 and then raise the weights at 12 12 12. Thats for coumpound movements i say. Other than that, ofcourse a more isolated movement should be between 15 to 20 or sometimes 15 to 30 rep range but thats a totally different topic. Why bother with all this when all youve got to do is mesure 3RM then divide by 70%, start at sets of 8 then go to 12. Easy easy for meso to meso. But the 3month meso is way better at hyperthrophy for intermediate to advanced. You can only do much. I start 5 sets of 5, work up 6 sets of 5, then add reps. If you reach a point where you get 6 sets of 8, you should be able to add weight and manage to check if you can do 5 or 6 reps within the next workout. It just keeps adding up to a certain point where it becomes the reps per sets that defines the hypethrophy range thus making rir pretty much just an addition to the last extra set or rep thats added. Levels of systemic fatigue, like eric sais, arent not thesame for everyone. Some work with different systems predominently. ie: someone who has higher adrenal reponse can have more rir than someone who doesnt, or maybe the tyroid responds differently, dude could even need glasses (points at me) for cns fatigue to be less of a toll. If that can affect your workout, why even gage on rir in the first place? You could have a good or a bad day, that being told, all will depend. Its a fun topic but also, its a complicated matter and if it feels more confusing than anything to count the rir, just go with your progressive overload. Mike said it himself; you have to set a goal before you hit the gym Thats the most important part of this video and pretty much answers everyrhing thats been told from the veginning to the end. Good thing he didnt repeat it too often kuz damn, the only conclusion i had out of all this is that id have to keep in mind my goal for the next training session. Simple but efficient.
"is way better" "all you've gotta do", those are pretty solid statements that are completely individual. What works for you might not be optimal for someone else and vice versa. It's not a black and white answer. Some people tried both and find one better than the other. But I don't like plain statements haha. Again, it's individual. If you found what works best for you and are enjoying it, that's all I need to hear :) - Coach Jess
So from what I have read and watched. Mike’s way of progressing is to start a meso at 3 or 4 RIR and progress by adding weight and/or reps until you reach 0 or 1 RIR and then you have to deload. After that you start again maybe a little stronger than before? Eric likes to keep RIR static and work within a rep range and progress by adding weight and reducing reps. You do this until you feel like you need to deload? Is that right? Because I quite like the idea of both, but could both progression schemes be done at the same time?
It's about right from what I remember from it, and both at the same time would be pretty impractical as one has static RIR and the other moving RIR huh? - Coach Jess
@Tim Morrison i haven't seen a decline in hypertrophy, in fact it helped me to keep lifting heavy for a longer amount of time due to reduced knee tension, allowing me to perform better for far longer
@@dr.christle he's training volume progression, thinking that that's the primer drive for hypertrophy, how he program deloads every 4 weeks, how he talks about avoiding intensity yet him and his pals end up throwing up after a leg session, how he doesn't care about anecdotes and real life experience and relys only on "wHaT tHe LitErAtUrE says"...
@@Croissantrophy.meme.channel I have noted that bit about the leg days... I think it might more of a personal preference but it is definitely not optimal. If he has to use that much volume to progress on his legs should spread his volume more so his intrasesion fatigue wont become that high
@@Croissantrophy.meme.channel I think that when he talks about avoiding intensity, he is talking about high % of a one rep max (triples, singles etc), which he has no reason to do as a bodybuilder. like you said, he throws up after leg sessions, but i don't that's the case throughout his entire mesocycle, only in the last week or two when "intensity" (RIR, not % of 1RM) is at its highest
It's better to sleep when you can versus not sleeping, but I would definitely focus on figuring out why you're not sleeping at night and fix that! - Coach Jess
I love listening Mike, he's so knowledgeable but Greg D. is actually right - Jesus, why overcomplicate it so much? Meso and macrocycles designed and described by Mike sound like science nightmare, almost impossible to even understand, and there is still their execution in every day conditions, when a lot of things can affect our training, performance etc - like crowdy gym and necessity to improvise. When I see this maximum focus on faces of other podcast guys I realise this is not approachable, easy way. Maybe it's best possible way for maximum gains in minimum time span but I would rather do it longer and easier, funnier, more affordable, "normal" way :) This is why I'm personally advocate of training to failure or almost to (1RIR) - yes, it's not the most effective for maximum in time gains, but, after all, when we match volume and it's progressiion in time we will eventually reach our natural potential. Maybe it will take a bit longer, but - you go to the gym, keep matched volume, train as heavy as you can this particular day and you go home to eat, sleep and recover for next session. Simple as it is. Eric is definitely my real superhero of industry - ultimate combination of science based knowledge and realities. Most trainings are not performed in lab, strict conditions, with no every day variables. Let's train as simple as possible, of course properly and HARDER THAN LAST TIME! :)
Hey that's all good, no one is saying you have to follow Mike's progression if you don't want to, I agree with you, you should give the investment that you can and want to :) - Coach Jess
10:00 you have to do a lot of mental gymnastics to think that your relative exertion on a given day has anything to do with how good a stimulus it is. Simply take this line of thinking to its logical conclusion. If you are highly impaired on drugs, have just broken a leg, or are in a coma and perform an AMRAP of squats then this line of reasoning would say that it's just as effective as an AMRAP at your strongest with no fatigue. It makes no sense.
You're coming from the membersite, correct? These have been recorded just two days ago but we wanted to get them out as quickly as possible. Thus we switched other planned episodes around and part 1 will already be out tomorrow.
Can't wait for part one 😂😂😂 but this sure was heated and the end 🤣🤣. None the less loved it. Slight different views everyone has about going about it. None the less they all get good results. Just goes to show for now more than one way to the top of the mountain
I don't think there are rights and wrong on this topic... They generally agree that you have to train in the 0-3 RIR range, just the way to get there and progress would be different from person to person depends on their lifestyle ,adherence and preference... If you like mike's approach more, and it's applicable to your lifestyle and you can adhere to it by all means do it it's a really good approach
Nah. Eric and Brian are more pushing back / pointing out flaws in Mike's approach. Even if it's nit picking it's important because it's a stress test for the integrity of Mike's position. It's really healthy
What I gather is that mike is providing some metrics to use for judging things and eric is just bashing him while not providing better alternatives. Personally I'd rather use those subpar metrics instead of using nothing and using static everything(sets,rir) and hoping an increase in load will take care of everything.
vieri864 They must have said that they recommend keeping the same RIR throughout the progression a million times. How is that not a recommendation? The entire premise was that increasing beyond that arbitrarily induces fatigue which is an inevitability over the mesocycle
I don't think they're not putting anything better forward, they're actually agreeing on most things, you can read the papers to get a better understanding as well :) - Coach Jess
That's wildly inaccurate depiction of it. The whole debate started by introducing the paper RP guys did, and the critique (which included alternative methods based on literature evidence) released in response by Eric and Brian. As said in the episode, they didn't just want to critique without including possible alternative ideas. Furthermore they're also trainers who indeed do program and share knowledge, and academics as well. This is how academic scene works, you present an idea and you WISH for it to be critiqued by other academics to possibly get new ideas or fine tune your existing ideas further, or to be proven wrong by your peers. The point of this is to promote good science and theories to succeed and expose holes in the ones that don't stand firmly against critique. To try the idea to see how strong it holds. It's not about "but Mike and Jared get bullied by nobodies for doing something". The whole point of the debate was to put Mike and Jared there to defend their paper and ideas. This was all but fantastic debate and quite frankly progressed very successfully.
Did anyone notice that Mike kept using a 300 pound working weight as an example? Until a person can get to those kind of weights, the amount of sets probably doesn't matter.
Hey, Kids! I present to you some of "The Masters of The Universe". From left to right... We have.. MER-MAN. MEKANECK. The Hero no one knows. CLAWFUL. RAM MAN and as an honorable mention Brad Schoenfeld as ORKO. lol.
I will be "that guy" and say this entire subject is bottom line nuanced guesswork of something that's "pie in the sky".... Numbers don't count... In the words of Greg Doucette, and I agree with them, "work harder than last time"... Every time.... Then deload and work a bit less harder than last time, but not by much....
Definitely a lot of nuances, and if you found what works for you that's great :) We're all after the same thing after all. Thanks for listening! - Coach Jess
![HIWWHEE | OHM [Official MV]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/OJJLtTLqLag/mqdefault.jpg)
This is like an intellectual pay-per-view event for hypertrophy nerds...loved it :)
Thanks for listening!
- Coach Jess
I'd argue it's more like mma where each fighter specializes in one martial art and it's a battle to see which art is best. The donkeys that are coaching strength and Olympic lifters are in a completely different paradigm and they're not actually speaking the same language lol. Of course you're rarely if ever training 90-100% RM to failure. That's insane and should only happen on competition days and very rarely in training. When loads are lighter and hypertrophy is the goal, progressing to failure slowly over a meso just makes sense and the risk of injury is much lower. So rir progression for hypertrophy makes sense. Static rir for power and Olympic lifting makes sense. And the argument they're having makes 0 sense.
i guess it is quite off topic but does anybody know of a good website to watch new movies online?
@Reece Aldo Try Flixzone. You can find it by googling :)
@Reece Aldo i would suggest flixzone. Just search on google for it =)
I wish Jared would have cut everyone off in the middle of the pod to chime in with some forearm training trips
🤣🤣🤣 Brilliant. Nice interlude xD
- Coach Jess
Thank's for this long and detailed convo. It was awesome! I think an interesting lesson from this is that it's really tough to have a simple debate over Mike's set progression method, asi it's built on an entire model, which has at least 3-4 pillars which warrant a separate discussion on its own. (the concept of fatigue accumulation, progressing RIR, the resensitization effect after a deload, the inverted U of volume and hypertrophy and the grey zone between MAV and MRV, etc etc) There is some mild disagreement on most of these points, so 2 hours was a good minimum duration for this! :D
Greta point Abel,. I train in accordance with RP principles, after a couple years of doing this and making gradual chances, I realized how different the whole paradigm is compared to other methods or periodization styles
3dmj, posed some good points as to why you don't HAVE to progress Through a meso by lowering RIR, but certainly gave no compelling reasons why you shouldn't, nor any concrete examples of how you might progress.
Thanks for listening, Abel. And yes it would definitely need to be a much longer and in depth conversation xD
- Coach Jess
It would be interesting to hear Brad Schoenfeld or James Krieger’s views on these topics
Yeah!! It would've been awesome having James here since I think his programming aligns more with what Mike says.
And Menno. Let's get them all 🤣
They're probably so sad watching their kids fight :P
weightology.net/the-members-area/evidence-based-guides/set-volume-for-muscle-size-the-ultimate-evidence-based-bible/#problems
I think this article in Weightology may respond to some aspects
Yeah I think he recommends like 20% increase in volume when needed.
I love it when you pitch Eric Helms against Mike Israetel. So high level discussion. You can't not learn when listening them trade arguments. This was awesome.
Glad you think so, thanks for tuning in!
- Coach Jess
Listening to both videos makes me very appreciative that there are governing bodies within medicine who love not only discussing the nuances within a topic, but will then come to a consensus and create some real take-home points / best practice guidelines based on review of the literature. I tried to give these videos a fair shake and thorough listen Steve!
medicine?
@@dylansevitt Yea, as in, this was a lot of discussion but with clear disagreements and without complete outcomes for people to apply. I think it's a start, Sport Science is still a low-priority baby science in the real world
(Not Steve but) thank you for listening :) I agree. It was a great discussion.
- Coach Jess
Free and open discussion of ideas without ego attachment is necessary for all scientific fields and most of the time you will find it to a good degree, but this isn't medicine
Finally! I haven’t slept since part 1! 😜
Hope you enjoyed it, thanks for listening!
- Coach Jess
Mike did another RS podcast in which he presented the possibility that a meso that exhibits no preparedness rise at all while increasing sets, and decreasing RIR, might be the most optimal progression method as volume addition in almost every analysis leads to greater hypertrophy.
Great discussion!!
I can't believe I listened to these guys have a discussion for 2 hours. The main thing I got was, Mike prefers to push closer to failure where Eric and his colleague thinks that it's not necessary for muscle gain. I think both their merits. Eric's philosophy is great if you have been training for a while and have a good sense of knowing your limits where Mike is good if you are trying to find your limits. I think Mike has great land makers and a systematic way to push yourself, especially if you are beginner. Where with Eric method you can potentially train for longer in a meso and not feel like shit but either way you would probably reach the same point in couple years.
They agree on way more things than they disagree on that's for sure, and both approaches definitely have their upsides and downsides :) Thanks for watching!
- Coach Jess
Technicality purifies/weeds out the egos. Thank you for this podcast, and all the podcasts you; it makes me better listening to them.
Our pleasure, thanks for listening!
- Coach Jess
Steve looking like he's cutting a kilo of creatine after the podcast 🤣
I'm sure the rolling stones is playing but he has it muted
🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣 to be fair it was late for him xD
- Coach Jess
This was a fantastic debate. You don't get many like this where they are actually exchanging ideas, and open minded.
Glad you think so and thanks for listening!
- Coach Jess
Mike looks like Jared's Dad!
Or daddy
I cannot unsee that, thank you xD
- Coach Jess
"You can't have it both ways. If we don't think we can see these objective performance increases week-to-week, then we can't pin everything on hitting MRV which is based on whether you improved performance. Those are contrary concepts. If we can't expect to be relying on performance week-to-week that also means we can't expect to be relying on a lack of performance, or a dip in performance, week-to-week and then just assume that it has to do with fatigue rather than something else, an error in estimation. Those two arguments can't coexist." That was a good one around 17:00
It was definitely food for thought. Thanks for sharing and listening!
- Coach Jess
It was a really intuitive point, but one Mikes very accurate response dismissed. At least it seemed to me
Awesome content! Steve’s words at the end sum up how I feel, keep up the great work man.
Thanks! Will do!
- Coach Jess
So if I'm getting all this correctly, all you gotta do is 3 sets to failure once per week with bcaas, glutamine and arginine
You got it right, don't forget to scream during the sets or it doesn't count!
- Coach Jess
Eric and Brian's points sound better on paper, Mike's ideas align closer with my experiences and preferences. Would definitely like to hear more people discuss particularly the major topic of significantly progressing volume within a mesocycle.
Noted! Thanks for listening!
- Coach Jess
@@ReviveStronger just realized I made a typo. I meant to say Mike's views align more with my experiences and preferences. Edited.
Dr mike and Jared points are superior and actually make logical sense when it comes to the differences
We need to see more of Brian 🙌🙌
I agree, he's very good, calm, great guest! Thanks for listening!
- Coach Jess
1:10:36 This question is classic because Mike regularly uses this type of hyperbole to make points if you watch enough of his debates. Having to contend with it is pretty ironic.
Even though Eric Helms agrees with it?
I think it was still a good question to clarify what the claim really was about and what it was based on, because the quote didn't explain it too well - what it was implying and why.
Interesting to see RIR talked about. Am presently running a Hypertrophy Specific Program HST and the same principle is there. Though in the initial stages the RIR is greater. But given that you are training 3 times a week and adding weight (not sets) with each workout that hardly matters. Crazy to think that holding reps back and building up to 0 RIR and working out multiple times a week was being talked about 20 years ago!
I didn't know that and that's super cool indeed!! Thanks for listening!
- Coach Jess
I appreciate Eric's practical safe progress, but going a tiny bit harder to be certain of progress could be useful I guess.
Yeah I don't think there is a true right or wrong way here, and definitely nuances! Thanks for watching!
- Coach Jess
Flipping loved this
Thanks for listening!
- Coach Jess
Now i may be bias in saying this, but i feel like dr mike has a far more practical approach to his methods while the other 2 are more hypothetical and like to talk in perfect scenarios with the ability to control certain aspects.
It also seems to me that mike is trying to min max his programs to squeeze out all that can be. While the other 2 are more just good with some increase in performance.
I think it's a bit more nuanced than that and both approaches aren't about right or wrong and would yield optimal results depending on a lot of factors! Thanks for watching!
- Coach Jess
Thank you for putting this together. I don't I've ever been so hyped for a debate. I didn't think I'd ever say that either.
Thank you for listening, and thanks for the kind words, we appreciate it!
- Coach Jess
Man I gotta say Mike really moved the goalposts around a lot in this discussion. I mean he stated that low reps were more fatiguing, Eric said he was contradicting a lot of evidence, then Mike said "oh but low reps are fatiguing for your joints". Come on now, we all know he originally meant systemic fatigue. This is just one example of many from this discussion.
Timestamp?
If you mean 27:30 and for mikes response after, he's simply pointing out a valid accurate side comment (that Eric actually mentioned prior) about undetectable fatigue types such as joint and connective tissue requiring a pre planned deload. Even if the subject stayed on whether preparedness rising through meso is a good idea (Eric and Brian) or not (sort of Mike), it still makes sense that fatigue does accumulate through a meso if your training dosage is applied optimally. Seems Mike made some greater points and responses than Eric/Brian to me.
I like a lot most of what Mike has to say, I mean he got me into an evidence based aproach how could I not haha. But I feel like he has idealized so much his progression model that he has fallen into dogma. And I get it, I mean when he first created it, it seemed like the solution to everything hypertrophy related, sadly it wasn't. And now that some smart guys on the field (Eric, Brian, Menno) have indicated some of its faults, he kinda doesn't want to let go, even with evidence going against with what he is saying. Like the estimation of rir part, my reaction was the same to Eric's, it has been shown that trained individuals are pretty damn accurate with it. Also if what he said was true, his model would be victim of the same or worse since his first week in the meso consists of 4 rir meaning that it could even get to the point of not offering a stimulus (but as I said, that most probably wouldn't be the case since most people are really accurate).
@George Reed oh yes, I absolutely agree with the latter. I don't think what I perceive as dogma comes from arrogance, and I applaud RPs aproach to constructive criticism.
How would 4rir not offer any stimulus? Load it properly, with progression and fatigue management in mind. Eric and Brian don’t believe in higher load being more fatiguing and less stimulating. Flawed argument.
@@Zilla9k dude read my comment again, you clearly misunderstood what I was saying.
Or one method may be better for some, and not for others. Give each a shot. I’ve been lifting for 20+ years and I absolutely suck at estimating anything greater than 1 RIR. I did a program a while back where the first set of an exercise was supposed to be 3 RIR and gradually go to 1 RIR for the last set. For example, on Flyes, each week I was getting roughly 10 - 12 reps on my first set at a specific weight. For shits and giggles one week, I went all out on the first set. I got 26 reps lol. I suck. I’m currently trying Mike’s methods, but RIRs are roughly based off the PRs from the end of the previous meso. Only difference is I’m still using static sets. Next meso I’ll start adding sets each week as he does. Never hurts to experiment. Looking forward to seeing how it goes. May work, may not.
In some sense he has internal pressure to not exhibit any type of cognitive dissonance. RP sells templated training that progress via the model he is proposing. If he were to change his mind about the optimality, then there might be damage control.
Hey Steve, fantastic work getting all these experts together in one forum. I see great point from all sides, however the argument between how you construct your Mesocycle becomes awash over time...one Mesocycle does not make the perfect storm for hypertrophic gains, it's how you view your entire Macrocycle, then years and years of training. Cheers, greetings from NZ 💪👍🤩
You're very welcome, thanks for listening!
- Coach Jess
Love this - looking forward to listening
Hope you enjoyed!
- Coach Jess
TLDL: We are still not sure exactly how to completely grow optimally. Keep training real hard, have some markers to improve, probably keep reps in the tank and deload on a regular basis so that you don't fuck yourself.
Get into the real nuance here is only really pertinent to advanced trainees who as naturals might hope to gain 1kg/year
I mean, some people have been growing well without knowing 99% of the things discussed here, well before many of the terms used were even invented (or the internet for that matter). By having non-shit genetics, training hard and eating enough, you check so many more boxes than the differences between the two here discussed paradigms. So your last sentence is exactly on point.
But is training 4 weeks and then deloading and repeating a bad approach for gainz?
Evidence based training/science will never be exact that's why people use reason and logic to see what is more likely it be more effective
Excellent video with excellent content providing invaluable information!!!!!👍👌👏💪😎💯
Glad you enjoyed it! Thanks for listening!
- Coach Jess
@@ReviveStronger Coach Jess it really was my pleasure to listen keep up the great content!!👍👌👏💪😎
I'm with Mike on this one. I think the "concerns" presented by Brian/Eric are not really founded in data, but rather, a lack of data. Hence their skepticism. Intuitively, it makes sense to increase volume (via sets) as increases are made in Strength, which then allows for a smoother transition into the Hypertrophy phase without switching to a separate (possibly inferior) weight resistance. *Strength > Hypertrophy > Deload x Repeat.* Is this Optimal? Who knows. I guess vwe could try it out and see what happens ...
I think we mostly come down to that conclusion of trying and seeing what happens haha. Thanks for listening!
- Coach Jess
However it was a scientifical debate where you can't claim something to be true if there's no evidence or if the evidence is contrary. Intuition can't be held as proof or evidence. You can hypothesize and make theories, but it's not obvious that you can then make a claim for it to be optimal. That's the fascinating part of this debate, to find what the claims are and if there's alternatives, and how much the evidence points to one or the other direction. It wasn't a debate if the method works, it obviously works, but if it's optimal and based on what.
But I didn't notice any part where they claimed there was a strength phase included for this hypertrophy training method. The increase in strength was a byproduct of using the tools of progressive overload and increasing muscle size in this context, not a goal or planned. Just a byproduct of pure hypertrophy training. And to be fair I don't know of hypertrophy training methods that aim to increase strength at first without being in the hypertrophy range of training, they all advice to start in the hypertrophy ranges and consequentially you also increase strength which allows you to perhaps have wider options for your hypertrophy training.
The first set RPE which Eric Helms and Andy Morgan propose solves the RPE/RIR estimation problem. If you do 3x8 at first set RPE 8 and you match reps while resting properly, first set is RPE 8, next is probably 9, and last will be at failure or very close, so you know you started at 8.
Also, I tried Mike's RP novice/intermediate template with not much success. As Eric says, when you change too many variables you introduce a lot of noise and you can't judge performance, especially if volume jumps are extreme such as in the RP Male Physique template.
I like Mike a lot and I think he puts out quality content. I was introduced to science-based fitness through him.But for me, the volume and RPE ramping method did not work. I am able to assess my performance better with static volume and RPE and then diagnose from there.
I think Mike really overestimates how much extra volume increases muscle growth. As long as youre not doing some retarded HIT one set per week routine or something you dont really need to worry about doing enough volume. His idea of ramping volume is very bad because best case scenario you are getting a little bit more growth, but worst case scenario you do too much and you cannot progress. Its always better to undertrain because slow progress is still progress, but if you overtrain you make ZERO progress.
@@simranbiryani3068 Completely agree
@@simranbiryani3068 Jordan Feigenbaum disagrees with that since he thinks most people are undertraining AND he also doesn't really believe in overtraining to begin with.
@@ProphetFear I agree that most people are undertraining, but that's because they don't push themselves hard enough on their sets to progress. Not because they aren't doing enough volume. Also how can you not believe in overtraining ? Our bodies clearly have a limited ability to recover. That's why athletes train in blocks/cycles and ramp up intensity/volume/frequency and then deload. If there was no overtraining you could just train with everything at maximum all of the time.
@@ProphetFear Most people do too much volume and not enough intensity in my opinion. I'm not advocating either ends of the spectrum -- very high volume low intensity or very high intensity low volume. I think moderate volume, with moderate intensity ( start first set with something like RPE 8 and take last set to failure) is the best approach for majority of people.
FINALLY 🙌 Here we go again ❤
Thanks for listening!
- Coach Jess
So I've watched the entire two hours of this thing now and a lot of the respect I used to have for Eric Helms really dropped. It seems as if he is actively and desperately looking for flaws in Israetels principles and logic without ever really finding valid critique points.
Throughout the debate Helms continuously attack different arguments which Israetel in turn defend with logic, leading Helms to move on to the next thing he can attack - rinse and repeat for Israetel who seems very, very patient when dealing with Helms bruised ego.
Israetel and RP are not making any unscientific claims, they simply work with the variables we know as well as the ones we do not know as best as possible. There is no reason that one should not increase volume over a mesocycle until unable to recover - there is no downside to it as long as one follows basic autoregulation principles as laid out in their more in depth guide to progression. Equally, as demonstrated in this debate which looks rather embarrasing for Helms, there is no reason what so ever to NOT push overload each week in a mesocycle instead of trying to hit the same RIR everytime. Helms even admitted this and couldn't really argue against Israetels logic (at other points he'd just get quiet when corrected) and then had to say "well uh yeah, I can maybe agree with that if we are purely talking hypertrophy" - well you have been talking purely hypertrophy for the past hour and a half dummy. Way to try to save face.
Here in Demark we have a term 'actively looking for the hair in the soup' - when someone is dead set on proving someone or something wrong out of spite or personal issues rather than for the sake of reaching a solution for the common good. Helms is obviously butthurt by the fact that Israetel is becoming an increasingly respected voice within the community of science based fitness and all around has better communication, better content and more structured and succesful approaches to training athletes at all levels. Israetel just read, understand and - this is the core - practically apply the current fitness litterature way better than anyone else within the community including helms
Amazing podcast
Much appreciated!
Every time I hear “REP TARgets” I can’t help but think of Rugrats.
Brian Minor recaps at 1:12:09
Sorry how is this comment 3 days old? This was uploaded like 1 minute ago 😂😂
Colin - ohhh I see...fairs 👍
The debate in a nutshell xD
- Coach Jess
What I gather is that mike is providing some metrics to use for judging things and eric is just bashing him while not providing better alternatives. Personally I'd rather use those "subpar" metrics instead of using nothing and using static everything(sets,rir) and hoping an increase in load will take care of everything.
Right, it's not perfect, but it is useful
I mean Eric and Brian are not using nothing as there is still some overload happening, it's just two different methods. Whatever you feel more comfortable and easy to use for yourself is best anyway. What you can sustain and progress with :)
- Coach Jess
No, basically they're debating if there's evidence to suggest one is better than the other and if all the claims hold scrutiny. That's the difference in academic debate versus people arguing about opinions on training. They're not discussing if it's a working method, they agree that most of it is based on good principles, but if all said is based on evidence and if there's not evidence suggesting something different. Eric is not bashing Mike, Eric is argumenting in a debate, referencing to studies and Mike is defending his paper's claims.
Ok. I have some questions and comments with regards of each side.
1. How is mike so sure that if your performance doesnt match the expected weight this week is the result of acummulated fatigue and not the fact that maybe the picked weight was too much. Maybe you increased your performance for 2.5lb instead of 5lb and I think it wouldnt be wise to atribute it to fatigue and deload inmediately.
2. Mike disregarded this too quickly but RPs mesocycles tend to be really short. They are 4-5 weeks on average and because they purposely undershoot in the first week, you have 1 easy week, 2 good weeks and then 1 deload, so basically half of your year is spent training too easy and the other half training too hard. Its like sprinting in the first part of the marathon and then slowly walking the rest. I think it may be better to pick a good pace that you can sustain for a litttle longer and you will arrive there more quickly, in this case in essence, you could made more adaptions simply because of the fact of training 80 or 90% percent of the time in a good intensity compared to 50%
3. The point from autoregulation it seems to me that RP has already built in a good mix of feet-foward approach and autoregulation based on RIR because you do have a RIR target its just different each week. I have both increased weight and added reps in good weeks and just maintained in bad weeks but I personally never shoot for less than last week's reps and if I get there with more in me or I feel I haven't reached the target RIR I just keep doing more reps so I think this method does combine itself good with the RP templates so I'm not sure if Mike did himself a favor by arguing against it.
Overall I think Mike's perceptions of rate of progress could be biased because his own experience with PEDs. Advanced naturals on average don't expect that weekly increases in weight and don't rush to deload if they don't. Otherwise I like RPs aggresive volume progression better but up to MAV and just going to MRV on some very concrete ocasions like when you want figure out how much can you handle or if you have a predicted deload coming up because of lifes circumstances.
You bring up some excellent points.
For #1 I’d say some movements my performance no matter what are a little less consistent no matter what I do. For example, pull-ups, and squats always seem to be a little harder or a little easier week to week without any rhyme or reason. And if I were doing mikes method I’d be deloading literally every other week almost which obviously isn’t correct. For other movements, like bench, myself performance is pretty consistent and if it starts regressing I know I probably need to deload and not just ride it out.
2. Yeah that frequency of deloading is way too high for most people. The only reason I could see someone deloading that often is if they were really strong and being too aggressive in their progression. I wouldn’t recommend most people deload any more than about 8 weeks. I’m more of a fan of the auto regulated deload.
@@Soccasteve He answered my first question in the last RP webinar, the time stamps have my name on it
I don't fully agree with your point 2 and will discuss it :) Starting a mesocycle at 3/4RIR doesn't mean your training is easy or not inducing hypertrophy. I start my mesos around 3RIR for isolations and 4 for compounds and usually run 5:1, that first week is still hard training. It's not 0RIR, but it's not 10RIR either. I think a lot of people have a misconception of what 3/4RIR actually is. I don't think it's fair to say half the meso is useless is what I mean xD Now if you've found a method that works better for you, that's what we're all chasing after all :) Thanks for listening!
- Coach Jess
@@ReviveStronger I did not say it was "easy" just not optimal, which is the whole discussion. I think his whole concept of acumulated fatigue its based on the fact of aggresive ramping of volume which is the thing we are trying to argue in the first place, but I dont think Eric Helms and Brian Minor did a good job of highlithing that. And you are right we really never know if we are actually doing all the we can actually do we can just know that we are progressing, so chasing optimality its more of a direction rather than a clear destination as we dont have reliable proxys to know if we are progressing as much as we can
Majority of lifters who train heavy and get injured do so with out any proper loading progression to prepare them for the rep range that they are training in. Eric eluded to the fact that sets of 30 are more fatiguing when compared to sets of 6. We also know that CNS fatigue occurs to a much greater degree in endurance exercise and in presence of significant muscle damage. While PNS fatigue is higher with more metabolite accumulation. Add in the Schoenfeld study showing similar hypertrophy between heavy and light loads and I think a case can be made that moderately heavy loads (3-6 reps) can very easily be implemented into a hypertrophy program. All while limiting the effects of local fatigue. I'm personally of the opinion that a wide variety of rep ranges should be used throughout a macrocycle of training to avoid staleness since we know that virtually all reps to a certain threshold are hypertrophic.
Thanks for your input and thanks for listening!
- Coach Jess
The answer is simple. Measure fatigue quantitatively with a fatigue machine.
Amazon link please. Thank you.
J R it’ll be the next big trend of QVC. Just 5 easy payments of $299.99
🤣😂🤣😂
Thank you for that simple answer, maybe next podcast will be much shorter thanks to you xD Thanks for listening :)
- Coach Jess
I am not sure if I got Eric's and Brian's approach right. Basically they suggest to keep volume static, stay on rir 2 all the time in your meso and when your performance decreases(two sessions in a row or two weeks) then they do deload? Did I get it right?
More or less I think, basically they are closer to doing mostly the same stuff and watching how you adapt, and RP is more on the side of assuming the progress is occurring and increasing volume/intensity/RIR as that happens.
@@shoqed thanks dude.
Absolutely, that just results in being able to do longer mesocycles. Thanks for listening!
- Coach Jess
Confusing for me too, since Eric’s book has you starting at an RPE of 8 for the first set and keeping the reps static. So, basically by the third set, you’d be going to failure. They didn’t mention any of that in any debate. If anything, they talked down on training to failure.
this is why i subscribed
Thanks for listening :)
- Coach Jess
THANKS!! 💪💪❤️❤️‼️
Thanks!
- Coach Jess
I would like to emphasize Schoenfeld and Krieger's study (Resistance Training Volume Enhances Muscle Hypertrophy but Not Strength in Trained Men) dind't use that quantity of volume and I quote: "a total weekly number of sets per muscle group of 6 and 9 sets for 1SET, 18 and 27 sets for 3SET, and 30 and 45 sets for 5SET in the upper and lower limbs, respectively". So, the low volume group didn't perform 15 sets, in fact they perform lower sets than MEV. And also, the medium volume group perform 18 sets for the upper body... I think it's important to consider that at the Israetel's claims.
I think the study is misinterpreted. Maybe it could be because the 6 and 9 sets (low volume) is not even effectly (MEV) (that's why they don't get more muscle gains), while 18 and 27 sets (medium volume) and 30 and 45 sets (high volumen) they had a minimum effectly stimulus to get hypertophy, but doing more than necessary.
But maybe 6 and 9 sets were the subjects' MEV, or at least some of them ?
- Coach Jess
Wow thanks so much
You're very welcome, hope you enjoyed :)
- Coach Jess
I know I am 3 years late to the party but I actually think that Mike's concept of RIR progression is kinda misunderstood. I think it's just a very good way of ensuring progression and not cheating yourself.
I'd like to hear more about de-training and the benefits it brings to hypertrophy.
I'm not sure I understand your question ? Pop it in the facebook group (facebook.com/revivestronger/) for the next Improvement Season podcast and we'll answer it there :)
- Coach Jess
@@ReviveStronger I don't have a Facebook, but this is what I meant:
When an individual is performing at a certain level, and stalls... de-training is similar to deloading but maybe even 1 step further by purposely letting a muscle group(s) recover by not training them for an extended period of time (not training for an entire month as an example).
This then (according to limited research) allows those lifts that were previously stalled or unable to advance progress, whereas they wouldn't have with a traditional deload.
regarding the RIR study group mentioned, i can’t help but wonder if the the fact they were saying what RIR they were at in fact screwed what RIR they were really at. I know for myself if i say i can only do (this many) reps on a given lift, it psychologically turns into a self fulfilling prophecy and pushing past that seems much more difficult than it does when i go into it without a rep count mindset at all.
What i think is missing from the discussion is subject of exercise selection. Can you do 20 sets of biceps curls or leg extensions? Probably yes. Can you do 20 sets of squats? R.I.P
20 sets of quad doesn't necessarily mean 20 sets of only squats though!
- Coach Jess
@@ReviveStronger i know, that's exactly my point. Exercise selection plays a big role in volume progression. Some people say high volume is crap, but they only do exercises which SFR is shitty, like deadlifts fg. Im just saying it is worth mentioning.
I don’t think RPE and RIR in their strict definitions are the same. Yes, in general RPE 8 equates to 2 RIR, but.....they are not the same. It would be interesting to hear someone like Eric/Brian/Mike explain the nuanced difference(s) between RPE and RIR, or, tell me I’m just totally wrong.
steve made a post about this on instagram i think it has answers for what you need
Ahmad Rawwas sweet, thank you. I’ll take a look!
@@serpentking8503 you're welcome bro!
I don't think we did, but I think JPS has on their educational page :)
But as long as you stick with the same I don't think it's worth stressing over!
- Coach Jess
Revive Stronger Thanks Jess. It’s not a big deal at all - more just an academic question and would be interested in someone knowledgeable explaining their view on how RPE and RIR are different.
i think that the example of 6 sets of 8 with no pump meaning adding sets being pointless is directly countered by RIR because if you’re training close to failure surely the sets would then be stimulative and adding sets would be useful
Well losing the pump during an exercise (after having had it at the beginning) would probably mean you're doing too much more than not enough, so it depends. If you've reached your MRV for that muscle group for that session, adding sets wouldn't necessarily be the answer. No matter how close to failure you're training, if I'm getting that right.
- Coach Jess
Love Steve’s shades!
Fashion harder than Steve :p Thanks for listening!
- Coach Jess
So both sides are right!! Just stick with one method and be very precise if u are advance athletes!! Of course u can try both lol
Absolutely!! The goal is to do what works for you and is enjoyable :)
- Coach Jess
57:20 Pretty much sums it up. Studies only matter when they fit Mike's agenda, if not then they don't matter. Lyle Mcdonald said it best " You should be a politician".
but if the amount of reps in total are matched using heavier weight that would cause much more fatigue wouldn't it? but if the amount of sets are the same then the amount of reps done would go down in the heavier group meaning that overall the fatigue would probably go down (depending on a few other factors as well) but you'd be missing out of extra growth from having more volume in total is that the argument that mike is trying to make here?
BTW these podcasts are full of golden information imo keep them coming!!!
More probably, I wouldn't say MUCH more. I think you still get a decent amount of fatigue with both methods, Mike's approach has deloads more often so you do have a bit more recovery which allows you to do more volume within a mesocycle and potentially get that extra bit of hypertrophy.
Thanks for listening!
- Coach Jess
2:15-20:15
Check mate in the last question asked by Brian, which is actually quite ironic as to what Dr.mike says in a whole multitude of his videos.
Not sure what the point is, but thanks for listening :)
- Coach Jess
Seems pretty clear to me that we have to start from 5 then add reps through the mesocycle, then if you can push it for 12 reps 3x youve got your ideal time to raise the weight. Why bother with anything else? Unless you dont have 3 month cycles, i believe you shouldnt worry about starting at sets of 8. Ofcourse, if you plan your mesocycle to be 1 month, then yeah, go forth, start from sets of 8 to 12 and then raise the weights at 12 12 12.
Thats for coumpound movements i say.
Other than that, ofcourse a more isolated movement should be between 15 to 20 or sometimes 15 to 30 rep range but thats a totally different topic. Why bother with all this when all youve got to do is mesure 3RM then divide by 70%, start at sets of 8 then go to 12. Easy easy for meso to meso.
But the 3month meso is way better at hyperthrophy for intermediate to advanced. You can only do much. I start 5 sets of 5, work up 6 sets of 5, then add reps. If you reach a point where you get 6 sets of 8, you should be able to add weight and manage to check if you can do 5 or 6 reps within the next workout. It just keeps adding up to a certain point where it becomes the reps per sets that defines the hypethrophy range thus making rir pretty much just an addition to the last extra set or rep thats added. Levels of systemic fatigue, like eric sais, arent not thesame for everyone.
Some work with different systems predominently. ie: someone who has higher adrenal reponse can have more rir than someone who doesnt, or maybe the tyroid responds differently, dude could even need glasses (points at me) for cns fatigue to be less of a toll. If that can affect your workout, why even gage on rir in the first place? You could have a good or a bad day, that being told, all will depend. Its a fun topic but also, its a complicated matter and if it feels more confusing than anything to count the rir, just go with your progressive overload.
Mike said it himself; you have to set a goal before you hit the gym
Thats the most important part of this video and pretty much answers everyrhing thats been told from the veginning to the end. Good thing he didnt repeat it too often kuz damn, the only conclusion i had out of all this is that id have to keep in mind my goal for the next training session.
Simple but efficient.
"is way better" "all you've gotta do", those are pretty solid statements that are completely individual. What works for you might not be optimal for someone else and vice versa. It's not a black and white answer. Some people tried both and find one better than the other. But I don't like plain statements haha. Again, it's individual. If you found what works best for you and are enjoying it, that's all I need to hear :)
- Coach Jess
So from what I have read and watched.
Mike’s way of progressing is to start a meso at 3 or 4 RIR and progress by adding weight and/or reps until you reach 0 or 1 RIR and then you have to deload. After that you start again maybe a little stronger than before?
Eric likes to keep RIR static and work within a rep range and progress by adding weight and reducing reps. You do this until you feel like you need to deload?
Is that right? Because I quite like the idea of both, but could both progression schemes be done at the same time?
It's about right from what I remember from it, and both at the same time would be pretty impractical as one has static RIR and the other moving RIR huh?
- Coach Jess
So could I stay at 2-1 RIR for an entire block, I prefer a longer meso, so would 2-1 be too fatiguing or would you recommend 2 RIR?
I think if you like a longer block, then it makes more sense to start at a higher RIR that's still in the effective range aka 3/4 - Steve
Love shit like this
Thanks for tuning in!
- Coach Jess
Does using knee wraps take away some hypertrophy from the quads while doing squats
Obviously. Their whole purpose is to aritficially increase knee extension force
If you’re going to failure and progressing probably not .
@Tim Morrison i haven't seen a decline in hypertrophy, in fact it helped me to keep lifting heavy for a longer amount of time due to reduced knee tension, allowing me to perform better for far longer
@Tim Morrison shit, my bad i swore i read knee sleves haha
I think it's the first time I'm listening to Mike and he makes believe he is in defence mode not making much sense.
I still hope you got something out of the whole discussion regarding of that :) Thanks for listening!
- Coach Jess
The more I listen to Mike, the more I disagree with him.
That's great. What parts do you disagree with and why?
@@dr.christle he's training volume progression, thinking that that's the primer drive for hypertrophy, how he program deloads every 4 weeks, how he talks about avoiding intensity yet him and his pals end up throwing up after a leg session, how he doesn't care about anecdotes and real life experience and relys only on "wHaT tHe LitErAtUrE says"...
@@Croissantrophy.meme.channel I gotcha. I am not so sure about the last bit about not caring necessarily about real life experiences, though.
@@Croissantrophy.meme.channel I have noted that bit about the leg days... I think it might more of a personal preference but it is definitely not optimal. If he has to use that much volume to progress on his legs should spread his volume more so his intrasesion fatigue wont become that high
@@Croissantrophy.meme.channel I think that when he talks about avoiding intensity, he is talking about high % of a one rep max (triples, singles etc), which he has no reason to do as a bodybuilder. like you said, he throws up after leg sessions, but i don't that's the case throughout his entire mesocycle, only in the last week or two when "intensity" (RIR, not % of 1RM) is at its highest
Like then listen.
I hope you enjoyed it anyway haha! Thanks for listening!
- Coach Jess
If your sleep at night is terrible but you take naps or sleep during day does it effect recovery?
It's better to sleep when you can versus not sleeping, but I would definitely focus on figuring out why you're not sleeping at night and fix that!
- Coach Jess
Btw who won ?
STEVE. ALWAYS STEVE.
- Coach Jess
Gee. Pissed off Eric is scary.
Thanks for watching!
- Coach Jess
This is fuckin crazy, theres so much room for error with this RIR shit, just hit failure, do less sets.deload when u feel fucked up. Repeat
I love listening Mike, he's so knowledgeable but Greg D. is actually right - Jesus, why overcomplicate it so much? Meso and macrocycles designed and described by Mike sound like science nightmare, almost impossible to even understand, and there is still their execution in every day conditions, when a lot of things can affect our training, performance etc - like crowdy gym and necessity to improvise. When I see this maximum focus on faces of other podcast guys I realise this is not approachable, easy way. Maybe it's best possible way for maximum gains in minimum time span but I would rather do it longer and easier, funnier, more affordable, "normal" way :)
This is why I'm personally advocate of training to failure or almost to (1RIR) - yes, it's not the most effective for maximum in time gains, but, after all, when we match volume and it's progressiion in time we will eventually reach our natural potential. Maybe it will take a bit longer, but - you go to the gym, keep matched volume, train as heavy as you can this particular day and you go home to eat, sleep and recover for next session. Simple as it is.
Eric is definitely my real superhero of industry - ultimate combination of science based knowledge and realities. Most trainings are not performed in lab, strict conditions, with no every day variables. Let's train as simple as possible, of course properly and HARDER THAN LAST TIME! :)
Hey that's all good, no one is saying you have to follow Mike's progression if you don't want to, I agree with you, you should give the investment that you can and want to :)
- Coach Jess
Harder than last time has me spinning my wheels in the mud for years. At a certain point you gotta look into the advanced stuff
steve was sleeping most of the time.
I'm sure he wasn't xD And it was past his bedtime to be fair haha
- Coach Jess
Eric definitely trolling with the lame hairstyle
Leave Captain America alone xD
- Coach Jess
10:00 you have to do a lot of mental gymnastics to think that your relative exertion on a given day has anything to do with how good a stimulus it is. Simply take this line of thinking to its logical conclusion. If you are highly impaired on drugs, have just broken a leg, or are in a coma and perform an AMRAP of squats then this line of reasoning would say that it's just as effective as an AMRAP at your strongest with no fatigue. It makes no sense.
Thanks for your input. And thanks for listening!
- Coach Jess
Part 1?
You're coming from the membersite, correct? These have been recorded just two days ago but we wanted to get them out as quickly as possible. Thus we switched other planned episodes around and part 1 will already be out tomorrow.
Revive Stronger yup! From the site! Downloaded part 2 just in case it was a mistake 😂. Excited for the part 1 episode tomorrow! What a weekend 😂
@@wrxdrunkie haha, sneaky you ;P
Yeah, again, we wanted to pump it out super quickly and had no chance in giving the pre-release on the website :)
Can't wait for part one 😂😂😂 but this sure was heated and the end 🤣🤣.
None the less loved it. Slight different views everyone has about going about it. None the less they all get good results.
Just goes to show for now more than one way to the top of the mountain
What I'm gathering from this is that Mike is right and Brian and Eric are arguing semantics
I don't think there are rights and wrong on this topic... They generally agree that you have to train in the 0-3 RIR range, just the way to get there and progress would be different from person to person depends on their lifestyle ,adherence and preference... If you like mike's approach more, and it's applicable to your lifestyle and you can adhere to it by all means do it it's a really good approach
don't pursue a career in science
Nah.
Eric and Brian are more pushing back / pointing out flaws in Mike's approach. Even if it's nit picking it's important because it's a stress test for the integrity of Mike's position.
It's really healthy
What I gather is that mike is providing some metrics to use for judging things and eric is just bashing him while not providing better alternatives. Personally I'd rather use those subpar metrics instead of using nothing and using static everything(sets,rir) and hoping an increase in load will take care of everything.
vieri864 They must have said that they recommend keeping the same RIR throughout the progression a million times. How is that not a recommendation? The entire premise was that increasing beyond that arbitrarily induces fatigue which is an inevitability over the mesocycle
Mike has put forward a logical progressions scheme and the others just sit there critiquing without putting anything better forward.
I don't think they're not putting anything better forward, they're actually agreeing on most things, you can read the papers to get a better understanding as well :)
- Coach Jess
That's wildly inaccurate depiction of it. The whole debate started by introducing the paper RP guys did, and the critique (which included alternative methods based on literature evidence) released in response by Eric and Brian. As said in the episode, they didn't just want to critique without including possible alternative ideas. Furthermore they're also trainers who indeed do program and share knowledge, and academics as well.
This is how academic scene works, you present an idea and you WISH for it to be critiqued by other academics to possibly get new ideas or fine tune your existing ideas further, or to be proven wrong by your peers. The point of this is to promote good science and theories to succeed and expose holes in the ones that don't stand firmly against critique. To try the idea to see how strong it holds.
It's not about "but Mike and Jared get bullied by nobodies for doing something". The whole point of the debate was to put Mike and Jared there to defend their paper and ideas. This was all but fantastic debate and quite frankly progressed very successfully.
Did anyone notice that Mike kept using a 300 pound working weight as an example? Until a person can get to those kind of weights, the amount of sets probably doesn't matter.
I actually think it does, both until you reach 300lbs and after!
- Coach Jess
The amount of skepticism on the left side of the screen is shocking.
Skepticism is required in critical analysis of research review
They’re laying it on pretty thick, but fair enough
I don't think skepticism is a bad thing :) Thanks for listening
- Coach Jess
Hey, Kids! I present to you some of "The Masters of The Universe". From left to right... We have.. MER-MAN. MEKANECK. The Hero no one knows. CLAWFUL. RAM MAN and as an honorable mention Brad Schoenfeld as ORKO. lol.
I will be "that guy" and say this entire subject is bottom line nuanced guesswork of something that's "pie in the sky".... Numbers don't count... In the words of Greg Doucette, and I agree with them, "work harder than last time"... Every time.... Then deload and work a bit less harder than last time, but not by much....
Definitely a lot of nuances, and if you found what works for you that's great :) We're all after the same thing after all. Thanks for listening!
- Coach Jess