Hey All! Feel free to check out the Alpha Progression App: alphaprogression.com/HouseofHypertrophy A few visual errors: - 3:10 the graph shows "elbow flexor 55%" twice, however the first one is suppose to be elbow flexor *65%*, while the one below that remains the same (55%) - 3:51 slight glitch with the cheating style text - 6:21 in the top middle you see it says volume load (sets x reps x lod), however it's meant to be sets x reps x *load* Timestamps: 0:00 Intro 0:30 Part I: The New Study 5:46 Part II: Does it Matter? 8:23: Part II: Final Thoughts
@ Note it's our partner (I don't directly own it). Nevertheless, you can add a custom exercise. Head to the exercise database and in the top corner you will see "create" - select that and you can add in machine dips. Hope this helps!
Did the study authors choose which arm would do the strict reps for each subject or were individuals allowed to choose themselves? If they were allowed to choose themselves then I'm guessing they would choose their dominant side to do the strict reps - I'm hoping that the arm used for the strict reps was assigned randomly throughout the population of trainees.
Hey Dr.Pak, thanks for the awesome paper! My takeaway is that to get the same growth, subjects had to do more volume (same reps, heavier weights) with cheat reps vs strict technique, and that hypertrophy is probably driven by training close to failure no matter if the excercise technique varies as long as the target muscle is the failure point. Would you agree?
Thank you for pushing the science forward, Dr. Pak! I couldn't quite glean this from the instructional videos, but were subjects instructed to control the eccentric for both the cheat & strict conditions? Also, do you know if you or any of your peers plan on following up with a study on the effects of using cheat reps as a method for increasing volume? (i.e. strict reps to technical failure followed by cheat reps to total muscular failure)
This is one of the conclusions the authors have. Do regular technique and then if you think your body can still handle it, hit a few last reps via "cheating" to go beyond that normal failure point.
As mentioned at 4:05 - this study wasn't focused on post "failure" cheating, rather just isolated cheat vs strict reps. As always, as the literature grows we'll get insight into a range of different scenarios :)
Yes, we are always stronger eccentrically, so cheating at the end skips the already tired concentric and lets you get closer to failure in the eccentric. You can even do isometry at the end by holding the weight at peak tension possible for even more failure
Pretty Much makes sense, muscles react to tension load and being taken close to failure so all the musccle fibers are forced into a depleted state. How you get there matters less. Now, cheat reps as an intensity technique may make a difference in trained individuals. In the untrained it doesnt matter, they can do anything and grow. A trained individual always needs to seek out an edge to give the body something to fight back against, thus progressive overload being the simplest form. A study on trained individuals, the group using cheat reps to extend a set should show a slight advantage.
Yeah, this is pretty much what I also got from the study. You can cheat, but you'll need more volume to get the same gains. Fatigue and injury probability is big ? For now
I love that you always cover potential confounding variables. I can usually think of a couple but you often note some that I never would have considered, like the momentum swing in a cheat curl potentially adding tension at the lengthened position. Thanks so much for the breakdown!
Very interesting study. I'm still waiting for a study that uses dropsets as a way to go beyond failure, using it as a technique to increase total tonnage, and not using dropsets to replace normal sets.
Great video! I think this continues to highlight just how forgiving hypertrophy can be where basically the most important factor is bringing the target muscle close to or hitting failure with enough sets, doesn't really matter how you get there (many roads to Rome). Though I do see this as some evidence that you can get the same growth using less weight and doing less mechanical work (i.e. volume-load) by having stricter form given the cheat group had around 2x the volume load! Plus, the energy required to move those heavier weights has to come from somewhere so probably a little more overall fatigue when cheating. On the other hand, since more muscles were involved there's a chance the cheat group also had hypertrophy in the non-target muscles that were aiding in generating the momentum to move the heavier weights so there's potentially pros & cons depending on your goals. Too bad no measurements were taken of these indirect synergists so it's just speculating. Though I'd be surprised if we saw growth in non-target muscles in more advanced lifters since intuitively it doesn't seem like it'd be enough stimulus to actually grow those muscles past the beginner stage since I doubt something like the hip extensors would be getting close to failure when aiding something like a bicep curl. Generally, I like to focus only on target muscles in an exercise rather than hypertrophy all over the body, I do dedicated exercises for each muscle I'm trying to grow so I think I lean towards stricter form with less weight, but I can see "cheating" as another viable strategy or something to incorporate for more intensity "past failure"!
Very true. The market for "magic pill" solutions is huge right now. Everyone is making videos that say there's only one way to succeed, and it's obviously BS. I'm a physician. Imagine if I told people there's only one diet they can follow to lose weight. Doesn't mean I'm recommending every diet, but if I said there's only one way, I'd be laughed at.
Personal Anecdote: I've been utilizing "cheating" in my training for a long while and I am still seeing growth. I've seen different variations of cheats, but the way I do it is this: YOu gotta have some control in your cheating. You use the momentum to not get stuck, but you still grind the top portion of the lift (utilize pure muscle work). This means that you use 10-20% (minimal) momentum to help you get past the sticking point of a lift. If you can no longer control the eccentric, it is over. If you're putting so much momentum that your muscles aren't working on the concentric portion, the weight is too heavy. P.S: I train with strength in mind, so this approached helped me a lot in breaking strength plateaues and increasing my 1 RM. In hypertrophy, I mainly use it as an intensity technique to go beyond failure when I am feeling especially energized (as mentioned in the video), just make sure to have some control, especially on the eccentric. If you can't use muscles on the way up or down, there's no point. This is not something I do all the time on all exercises, but its nice in exercises with lower loading potential. I wouldn't do it for a Deadllift aor a squat, but I would for a bent over row or an upright row.
Interesting study. Hope they're gonna do more, especially with exercises where breakdown in form can lead to injuries. Seems this is most important question to be answered if one is considering doing cheat reps.
They basically let the weight and rep volume change naturally to see what happens to each arm. The real takeaway is that "cheat reps" allow for heavier loading, higher total volume (reps), and likely a more dynamic motion that still trains the arm. All of these if you translated to "strict reps" would be "no sh-t" concepts. The one key thing that they note is that cheat reps may increase the risk of injury to soft tissues based on other research, though none were observed in the study in particular.
I think the safety point offers room for discussion. The way you use your body during cheats is often more natural than strict technique, so why should it be less safe as long as the weight is appropriate for the cheat style (no extreme ego lifting) and the style is controlled enough. One could also make the argument that forcing the body into an unnatural pattern might be more risky over time, especially when it comes to overuse injuries.
Kicking off the year with two studies that are _finally_ here. Thanks be to Exercise Science God (but can we please get more of these, perhaps on trained folk?).
I've been using cheat curls consistently after doing much stricter curls and had good results. The study is interesting, and IMO it makes perfect sense.
The point made at 7:25 is astute. This is so obvious with curls that I am surprised more people don't recognize it. Especially since people like Arnold and Sergio were all advocates of "cheat" reps on barbell curls, in one way ir another, that maximizes tension at the longer lengths. There is no tension on the biceps at the bottom of a strict curl. Training explosively increases the tension at the bottom while leaning slight back at the torso both offsets the effect of the weight pulling you forwaed and lengthens the bicep. Widening the grip on the bar while keeping the elbows in has a similar effect. As Haney said "barbell curls are not a pretty boy movement. Essplode means essplode!"
Yep! I noticed it prior to uploading and added a note about it in the pinned comment. The video took quite a while to export, so I did not bother fixing it as hopefully it's not a major problem :)
@Waseemmmm obviously we are not sure yet but i expected much worse hypetrophy from cheating. there is a russian powerlifter and bodybuilder who defends cheating as a superior technic to strict form. i guess hes euphoric now
A note on muscle lengths that people get wrong. Lengthened partials do not, generally, work best at the END of a set. Aside from some exceptions, such as calf raises, most movements are actually hardest in the lengthened position. For example, bench press, squats, prescher curls... it makes no sense to do full reps first in a set and finishing these sets off with partials in the lengthened position. Instead, doing the partials first and then when you're too tired to do more partials, following with reps that lockout works best. This is because the shorter range of motion or locking out in these and most exercises is relatively restful for the target muscle, and you can usually get at least a few more full reps on something like squats after you can no longer rep in the bottom half of the rep.
People have different distinctions for cheated reps, however when you’re doing solely negatives or in this example jumping negatives for pull ups I’ve always seen it too be the case that so long as the eccentric is being controlled there will always be a benefit. Jumping negatives are essentially cheated reps but people often don’t make that distinction
The thing is that exercising can be really hard sometimes, but it always makes me feel better about myself. I started six months ago, like I was really motivated and focused. Took meal plan on Onlymeal, started going to gym 4 times per week, fixed my sleep schedule, and honestly gains were massive. I gained like 40lbs in six months, most of it was muscle. I started out because of girls, but now I don't care about them. I do it for myself, to feel better physically and mentally.
Good sir you did not gain mostly 40lbs of muscle in 6 months unless you are on steroids. Just not physically possible, even for a noob, to gain even 25lbs of muscle in 6 months.
one concern i have is that this was only for pushdowns and curls, but, the real thing that matters is strict rows vs cheat rows, and strict overhead press vs the push-press. cheat rows are just utterly different exercises than regular rows, due to a much higher involvement of the hips. and the explosive nature of the push-press vs the overhead press almost turns it into a different exercise. so it'd be good to see more studies on this on exercises like those, before we can extrapolate this finding to all cheat reps vs all strict reps, this really only tells us about these two exercises. what i mean is, if a strict curl is 100% biceps, and a cheat curl is 20% hips, 80% biceps, either way it's still primarily biceps. but a cheat row vs a row might be the difference between a 100% back for the strict row, and a 50% hips, 50% back for the cheat row. it's normal to be able to cheat row twice as much as you can strict row, but that really isn't the case where you can cheat curl twice as much as you can strict curl.
In the last 5 years there have been a lot of unilateral single-joint exercises, and people are desparate to conclude that you can apply the same rules. Lengthened partials is a perfect example. One study shows a benefit in preacher curling with dumbbells, and all of a sudden everyone wants to say that you should pause 3 seconds in your bench press and pull-ups. The data just aren't there.
As long as your lower back is ready for that kind of pressure and as long as you control the eccentric, it should be fine. By controlling eccentric I mean just don’t drop the bar, no need to do the slow 2-8 seconds, 1 second is plenty. Arnold used to do pretty cool variation of barbell rows with a lot of momentum. The only concern I’d have is how much hips and lower back I can use before it becomes a full on deadlift, but in practice you can instantly feel which body part is the limiting factor and adjust the technique. As a rule of the thumb, cheat if the top part of the exercise is the hardest (almost all back exercises). Studies lean more and more in the direction of “just do a lot of hard stuff”
What about the fatigue? the hypertrophy stimuli from the set performed with cheating is the same to the set performed with strict form but wouldn't the cheating set couse more fatigue thus on a long run be less sustainable?
I'd be curious to know what the effect of cheat reps with much heavier weight that can't be done using strict motion has on muscle hypertrophy and strength
They should make the study like this: 1 Group who has always done strict reps 1 Group who has always done cheat reps 1 Group who has always strict reps but also done cheat reps at the last 1-2 reps when close to failure Each group does the same as in the experiment. This will show the following: Can pure cheat reps set another stimulus for muscle growth for strict reps group or do the groups always grow better with the opposite stimulus? Or will everyone benefit from only strict form or the last reps you normally couldn't do without cheating?
cheating for 3 post-failure reps. vs. resting 3 minutes and doing another set... once you get to that point though, you're getting 96% of the gains and debating the last 4%.
with some exercises like lateral raises, and some curls/pushdowns, i normally stick to strict reps until it gets too hard and that's when i'll bang out some cheat reps to failure. i have progressed a lot on my cable lateral raises because of it.
The text suggests both groups used a 2 second lowering duration, but I am not too sure based on the instructional videos provided. I would have prefered a little more clarity from the authors. Either way, based on other evidence, I don't think it's a major limitation. I may have content on this in the future, but I'm skeptical eccentric overload has any real advantage for hypertrophy :)
I think people should be careful about conflating slower eccentrics with "making the eccentric harder". If you lower a weight more quickly, that can means more tension is required in the lengthened/bottom position of many exercises to deccelerate it and reverse its direction in the concentric phase. In other words, lowering a weight more slowly can actually make the weight easier to handle on the eccentric and less intense. Say you are going down on the squat. If you go down faster on the first half, it is a lot harder to subsequently slow it down to a controlled position in the second half and come out if the hole.
Yep, as mentioned at 3:51 - it's likely not all subjects cheated identically. I think it would be interesting to standardize cheating to get a better insight here
its less so a study about lengthened partials (in disguise) id say, its more of a "is the (stronger) controlled eccentric with more weight enough to stimulate equal muscle growth"
Sorry for my english, but i'll try to do my best here So we can assume that train muscles at longer lengths not always grows more, it's just in certain cases like you mentioned in 8:03? Awesome video by the way, you are a masterclass
I would be interested to se what happens with drop sets. With them there is no need to cheat to gain true failure. Of course dropsets are time consuming so not that many people do them.
Not surprised at all , but i would love to see results of the 20-29 age group versus 40-49 , im 45 and over the last 10 years i did modify the routine to still give the body the impulse, but to totally avoid injuries and have no problems with regeneration and not to feel beaten up
you are my number one fitness youtuber, however i recently started to pick boxing as a hobby would you mind making videos about power, speed and agility on combat sports too?
I finally made it early so i will ask you, what is a rep range? Eg 8-12, do i pick a rep in that range for a workout and stick to it? Like say 5 sets of 12 reps, i have a problem performing the same number of reps set after set, so does it actually mean as long as i complete an amount of reps within my desired rep range of 8-12, im fine? Or if it does mean i need to do exactly 12 reps per set, that if i cannot complete it each time, i should actually do my first set at something like 16 reps till failure, so that if i reach failure by the 6th rep on the final set, there ive actually achieved an average of 12 reps? Which i wonder if thats the goal or not
Any given rep range should just serve as orientation for how heavy you personally want to load a given exercise. This can vary, however going below 5 reps and above 15 is probably not that ideal. Most people do pretty well with lower rep ranges of 4-8 on bench press for example. That means you pick a weight that would allow you to at least get 4 reps on the first set. If you manage to get 5 reps or more, you can stick to the same weight for your next set because you’d likely still manage to get at least 4 reps. If on the first set you barely managed 4 reps though, it might be wise to lower the weight for the next set so that you can stay in your rep range. Reps dropping off between sets is normal and good in a hypertrophy context because it means you created a good amount of stimulus in the previous set. If your rep range is a bit higher, say 8-12 for example, it should be totally fine to stick with the same weight for your second set, even if only managed 8 reps on your first because 4-7 reps is still on the safe side for hypertrophy. Most people do better with slightly higher rep ranges on isolation lifts like curls and Tricep pushdowns but it might vary for you. Aiming for an average of 12 reps across multiple sets isn’t a good idea because 1. your muscles don’t care about how many reps they do, they only care about stimulus which you create by training close to failure and 2. you would potentially go way above your rep range for no reason. Therefore it makes more sense to aim to hit the top of the rep range with your first set and then for the next session increase the weight to still stay in the rep range with your adapted strength. Then you just repeat the process to progress forever basically.
Interestingly, most studies have subjects adjust the weight across sets to stay within a certain rep range due to what you said (fatigue will mean you can't replicate your performance on subsequent sets). However, we know from the literature that provided you're training close to or close to failure (which is what will make the set as effective as possible), reps between 6 to 35 are pretty similar for stimulating hypertrophy. There are nuances related to fatigue and perception of effort (i.e. people find it harder to get to failure with higher reps, and they seem to take longer to recover from), but so long as you stay in that range, you should be good. There are multiple ways this can be done. For example, let's say you select a weight you can perform 12 reps on the first set with. So you hit 12 on the first set, perhaphs 9 on the second set, and let's say 6 on the final set. In my view, this should be perfectly fine. However, this is just an example and fatigue from set to set can vary from person to person. Alternatively, you can drop the load from set to set in attempt to try and maintain roughly 12 reps across all sets. Either method, or a combination of both, should work :)
My take is that it probably suggests that strict is better than cheat vut that as an intensity technique cheating may be useful The reason for that is that the proximity to failure is higher in the cheating since u can use whatever means u want to finish the rep while under strict technique there is more juice to squeeze if u just cheated at yhe end, so if they are similar despite the different proximity to failure its probably because per rep, strict technique is more hypertrophic However, using cheating as an intensity technique will probably have the best of both worlds and lead to better gaons, but we need more data to be definitive
I feel like cheating also trains other muscles than the muscle u are focusing on, getting stronger on the other musles makes you able to lift more weight, not the muscle you want to train. They should have checked how much they could lift in strict form on both arms, in the beginning and in the end.
The studie was done on untrained lifters. It tells me that new lifters can do almost whatever and still grow a lot. Advanced lifters need to do better.
In this study, it would be very very hard to find trained individuals willing to do this while not doing any other upperbody training. If they were also benching, for instance, that would mess with the results.
The replies to this highlight some of the potential benefits with data on untrained folks. - Larger magntiudes of gains, which under some circumstances could enhance the ability to detect differences - The ability to get them to train with a program that many trained individuals may not be willing to do Nevertheless, as mentioned in the video, we should be caution in extrapolating data on untrained folks to trained individuals. Luckily, it appears we have data on untrained individuals coming soon :)
It's not surprising if they are all going to FAILURE. Sort of like fad diets -- as long as the diet has calories out greater than calories in there should be weight loss. So, no matter how you are doing a rep, as long as you go to failure, you should get muscle growth.
Im just waiting for day when i see people actually working out hard, strict or cheating doesn't matter, I just want people to put out some effort. All the science, genetics, nutrition, and lifestyle can't compensate if your a lazy bumb.
did they perform cheat vs strict with the same weight? the goal of cheat reps is usually add more load, one that you can't perform strict, which could give cheat reps an edge. I mean, literally every high profile bodybuilder trains with cheat reps, and they are the ones which their careers depend on getting the maximum hypertrophy from the training
They adjusted the weight so the participants could do 4 sets 8-12 reps with failure within these reprange. So my guess would be that they increased the weight in the cheating.
Hi, I hope you read this comment, i´ve been seeing your videos for a long time and watched mostly all of your videos. but i nver seen a video about ISOMETRICS. i´ve been researching for a long time and haven´t found anything reliable. i think its a good idea for a video because its a topic with little info
Ok I will save everyone since I can't stand seeing the same mistake in trying to explain short reps, and why it works, this I haven't seen anywhere so this is an exclusive...ok let's go ! Do yoy know about isometrics? What is a partial rep that has muscle contraction even if it's not a full range, what is it?? IS AN ISOMETRIC!!! If you use a pulley with to much weight but still you try to make muscle contraction it becomes an isometric exercise, if you try to lift a deadweight and you can't move it, it becomes an isometric, so in conclusion to know why short reps works you have to first know about isometrics, the next video here has to be about isometrics! Done...(drop the mic)
@@HouseofHypertrophy the chapter "final thoughts" supposed to start at 8:23 is ignored and instead is overwritten by the "additional notes" message with the timestamp of 6:21 reading a very lengthy " in the top middle you see it says volume load (sets x reps x lod), however it's meant to be sets x reps x load"
Yet another study in the basket of "just train close to failure buddy". Also the the "training in the stretched position" argument doesn't make sense to me. The whole point of cheating is making it easier in the hardest portions of the lift, not making it even harder...
Literally no one does strict cheating reps. Everyone does normal reps until it gets too hard then cheats out a few extras. Again the science-based crowd lost the plot
Bro it kinda sounds like you didn't watch the video and don't understand the study design/purpose. I'm assuming your ideal study would say, "Yeah so we just told people to do the obvious thing when it suits them."
The point is to test if the cheat reps are effective at all. It wouldn't be a good way to study their effectiveness if you had them just do an overload because you now have to consider whether any difference is caused by additional damage to the muscle from higher reps. In more experienced lifters this could be beneficial while not the case for new lifters. There are times people do train with 100% "cheat" in the case of eccentric training (as in certain workouts that you only do heavier than you otherwise could normally).
Also you're training other muscles as well with cheat reps so it's time saving and makes it a little bit less likely that a specific muscle group will grow out of proportion to the rest.
In other news, I was right again on spot reduction. It turns out, if you do it correct the body draws resources from the closest energy store (fat) to perform the activity. I was right for the past 30 years.
Proverbs 4:26-27 "Give careful thought to the paths for your feet and be steadfast in all your ways. Do not turn to the right or the left; keep your foot from evil"
Hi, interesting study, but it was not peer reviewered. I think you should share just real peer reviwered published articles. Just a suggestion. Congratulations for the great animations you make!
Honestly, I just wanted to use that animation haha. But hopefully I made it clear that I was propsing the "hyperbole" question to then detail further nuances :)
@@HouseofHypertrophy yes you made it clear for most people that it was just a hyperbolic question to discussing the nuance but apparently not for this guy
No one who is reasonable is going to fully triple extend and power clean their curls. If they did though that's cool, that's called a power clean, very good exercise, but the point is they aren't going to do something that feels uncomfortable or that feels unsafe to them, i don't think cheating is more unsafe, I think being a dumbass trying to move too much weight without building into it is how people get hurt, maybe power cleans run a 2% more chance of getting injured just cuz it's more load than a strict curl but how many strict curls or preacher curls have you seen popping biceps on the internet. The anecdote outweighs the stupid superstition imo. I also don't buy into this warning of "progressive cheating" that people like basement bodybuilding espouse. There's only so much cheating you can do relatively speaking. Your back can only bend back so far to get a rep up, you run out of room eventually and then you have to actually get stronger at cheating, but like I said before people are going to be reasonable for the most part and if failure is the guide then consistency is guaranteed, but most people are going to be intelligent enough to cheat in the same way they always do because that's WHY they cheat they're strongest in these movements. Even disregarding consistency and failure you'll still eventually develop an understanding of how close you are to fatiguing the target muscle because they...holy fucking shocker still get fatigued when you do cheat reps, and amazingly, still grow. They should also when they do the study with experienced lifters, allow for a group that uses cheat reps to train beyond failure, because it's just logical that this group is going to be the closest to totally cooking the target muscle group. I don't think anyone can deny that going to rpe11 with momentum-induced forced eccentrics is going to produce more stimulus than rpe10 cyborg lifting. The only thing they'll argue is stimulus to fatigue but that's just pussies coping about not having the mentality to do something difficult, but that's a different argument, the layers that these weak willed individuals use to protect themselves from having to train hard is crazy. They're coddled by influencers always telling them to not do hard things but to do smart things and it's poisoning the well like crazy. It's smarter to just train hard.
Hey All! Feel free to check out the Alpha Progression App: alphaprogression.com/HouseofHypertrophy
A few visual errors:
- 3:10 the graph shows "elbow flexor 55%" twice, however the first one is suppose to be elbow flexor *65%*, while the one below that remains the same (55%)
- 3:51 slight glitch with the cheating style text
- 6:21 in the top middle you see it says volume load (sets x reps x lod), however it's meant to be sets x reps x *load*
Timestamps:
0:00 Intro
0:30 Part I: The New Study
5:46 Part II: Does it Matter?
8:23: Part II: Final Thoughts
Dude, your alpha progression app don't even have the machine Seated Dips... unusable
@@elriks2858 Just do regular dips
@ Note it's our partner (I don't directly own it). Nevertheless, you can add a custom exercise. Head to the exercise database and in the top corner you will see "create" - select that and you can add in machine dips. Hope this helps!
Did the study authors choose which arm would do the strict reps for each subject or were individuals allowed to choose themselves?
If they were allowed to choose themselves then I'm guessing they would choose their dominant side to do the strict reps - I'm hoping that the arm used for the strict reps was assigned randomly throughout the population of trainees.
@ 0:42 - one arm was *randomly assigned* - so no one selected which arm would train what, it was based on randomization :)
Thanks for covering our paper!
Hey Dr.Pak, thanks for the awesome paper!
My takeaway is that to get the same growth, subjects had to do more volume (same reps, heavier weights) with cheat reps vs strict technique, and that hypertrophy is probably driven by training close to failure no matter if the excercise technique varies as long as the target muscle is the failure point.
Would you agree?
Did they use the same weight cheating and "stricting"?
Thank you for pushing the science forward, Dr. Pak! I couldn't quite glean this from the instructional videos, but were subjects instructed to control the eccentric for both the cheat & strict conditions?
Also, do you know if you or any of your peers plan on following up with a study on the effects of using cheat reps as a method for increasing volume? (i.e. strict reps to technical failure followed by cheat reps to total muscular failure)
I love how every time jeff nippard is mentioned, its "none other than him"
😂 😂
None other than the short king himself 👑
The "cheat" animation in the beginning feels pretty smooth 🤯
Haha, thank you!
Your supposed to do normal reps and then twords then end do cheat reps to work the muscle even closer to failure.
This is one of the conclusions the authors have. Do regular technique and then if you think your body can still handle it, hit a few last reps via "cheating" to go beyond that normal failure point.
Exact same as the best way to apply lengthened partials lol
As mentioned at 4:05 - this study wasn't focused on post "failure" cheating, rather just isolated cheat vs strict reps. As always, as the literature grows we'll get insight into a range of different scenarios :)
Yes, we are always stronger eccentrically, so cheating at the end skips the already tired concentric and lets you get closer to failure in the eccentric. You can even do isometry at the end by holding the weight at peak tension possible for even more failure
🐎🐓
Pretty
Much makes sense, muscles react to tension load and being taken close to failure so all the musccle fibers are forced into a depleted state. How you get there matters less. Now, cheat reps as an intensity technique may make a difference in trained individuals. In the untrained it doesnt matter, they can do anything and grow. A trained individual always needs to seek out an edge to give the body something to fight back against, thus progressive overload being the simplest form. A study on trained individuals, the group using cheat reps to extend a set should show a slight advantage.
Yeah, this is pretty much what I also got from the study. You can cheat, but you'll need more volume to get the same gains.
Fatigue and injury probability is big ? For now
I love that you always cover potential confounding variables. I can usually think of a couple but you often note some that I never would have considered, like the momentum swing in a cheat curl potentially adding tension at the lengthened position. Thanks so much for the breakdown!
This has to be the best gym channel , thank you!!
Thank YOU for the kind words :)
Very interesting study. I'm still waiting for a study that uses dropsets as a way to go beyond failure, using it as a technique to increase total tonnage, and not using dropsets to replace normal sets.
Great video. Explains the results plus some limitations of the study in a non biased way.
Great video! I think this continues to highlight just how forgiving hypertrophy can be where basically the most important factor is bringing the target muscle close to or hitting failure with enough sets, doesn't really matter how you get there (many roads to Rome).
Though I do see this as some evidence that you can get the same growth using less weight and doing less mechanical work (i.e. volume-load) by having stricter form given the cheat group had around 2x the volume load!
Plus, the energy required to move those heavier weights has to come from somewhere so probably a little more overall fatigue when cheating.
On the other hand, since more muscles were involved there's a chance the cheat group also had hypertrophy in the non-target muscles that were aiding in generating the momentum to move the heavier weights so there's potentially pros & cons depending on your goals. Too bad no measurements were taken of these indirect synergists so it's just speculating.
Though I'd be surprised if we saw growth in non-target muscles in more advanced lifters since intuitively it doesn't seem like it'd be enough stimulus to actually grow those muscles past the beginner stage since I doubt something like the hip extensors would be getting close to failure when aiding something like a bicep curl.
Generally, I like to focus only on target muscles in an exercise rather than hypertrophy all over the body, I do dedicated exercises for each muscle I'm trying to grow so I think I lean towards stricter form with less weight, but I can see "cheating" as another viable strategy or something to incorporate for more intensity "past failure"!
Very true. The market for "magic pill" solutions is huge right now. Everyone is making videos that say there's only one way to succeed, and it's obviously BS. I'm a physician. Imagine if I told people there's only one diet they can follow to lose weight. Doesn't mean I'm recommending every diet, but if I said there's only one way, I'd be laughed at.
Personal Anecdote:
I've been utilizing "cheating" in my training for a long while and I am still seeing growth. I've seen different variations of cheats, but the way I do it is this: YOu gotta have some control in your cheating. You use the momentum to not get stuck, but you still grind the top portion of the lift (utilize pure muscle work).
This means that you use 10-20% (minimal) momentum to help you get past the sticking point of a lift. If you can no longer control the eccentric, it is over. If you're putting so much momentum that your muscles aren't working on the concentric portion, the weight is too heavy.
P.S: I train with strength in mind, so this approached helped me a lot in breaking strength plateaues and increasing my 1 RM. In hypertrophy, I mainly use it as an intensity technique to go beyond failure when I am feeling especially energized (as mentioned in the video), just make sure to have some control, especially on the eccentric. If you can't use muscles on the way up or down, there's no point.
This is not something I do all the time on all exercises, but its nice in exercises with lower loading potential. I wouldn't do it for a Deadllift aor a squat, but I would for a bent over row or an upright row.
Interesting study. Hope they're gonna do more, especially with exercises where breakdown in form can lead to injuries. Seems this is most important question to be answered if one is considering doing cheat reps.
Beautifully illustrated and to the point!
I’m curious, cheat reps would normally allow for heavier loads, did they use relative loading?
As mentioned in the video 6:10, they did train with heavier loads :)
They basically let the weight and rep volume change naturally to see what happens to each arm. The real takeaway is that "cheat reps" allow for heavier loading, higher total volume (reps), and likely a more dynamic motion that still trains the arm. All of these if you translated to "strict reps" would be "no sh-t" concepts. The one key thing that they note is that cheat reps may increase the risk of injury to soft tissues based on other research, though none were observed in the study in particular.
so in conclusion theyre same for muscle growth but strict is safer and easier to progress at
I think the safety point offers room for discussion. The way you use your body during cheats is often more natural than strict technique, so why should it be less safe as long as the weight is appropriate for the cheat style (no extreme ego lifting) and the style is controlled enough. One could also make the argument that forcing the body into an unnatural pattern might be more risky over time, especially when it comes to overuse injuries.
At the end of the day "good technique" only exists to prevent training injuries, not necessarily because it's better for muscle growth
One (important) thing is unclear: Did the cheating group just drop the weight, or did they benefit from the eccentric part of the exercise?
Kicking off the year with two studies that are _finally_ here. Thanks be to Exercise Science God (but can we please get more of these, perhaps on trained folk?).
I've been using cheat curls consistently after doing much stricter curls and had good results. The study is interesting, and IMO it makes perfect sense.
The point made at 7:25 is astute. This is so obvious with curls that I am surprised more people don't recognize it. Especially since people like Arnold and Sergio were all advocates of "cheat" reps on barbell curls, in one way ir another, that maximizes tension at the longer lengths. There is no tension on the biceps at the bottom of a strict curl. Training explosively increases the tension at the bottom while leaning slight back at the torso both offsets the effect of the weight pulling you forwaed and lengthens the bicep. Widening the grip on the bar while keeping the elbows in has a similar effect. As Haney said "barbell curls are not a pretty boy movement. Essplode means essplode!"
3:10 two times "elbow flexors 55%". Mistake?
Yep! I noticed it prior to uploading and added a note about it in the pinned comment. The video took quite a while to export, so I did not bother fixing it as hopefully it's not a major problem :)
For me this only confirms my current situation of being strict-ish.
Using subtle body English only.
going to same failure over the same range of motion within the same rep-range brings the same results...I am not that surprised.
damn, thats mindblowing
Not yet, we need more studies to back this up, but i agree with you nonetheless
@Waseemmmm obviously we are not sure yet but i expected much worse hypetrophy from cheating. there is a russian powerlifter and bodybuilder who defends cheating as a superior technic to strict form. i guess hes euphoric now
It was a pretty cool finding!
A note on muscle lengths that people get wrong. Lengthened partials do not, generally, work best at the END of a set. Aside from some exceptions, such as calf raises, most movements are actually hardest in the lengthened position. For example, bench press, squats, prescher curls... it makes no sense to do full reps first in a set and finishing these sets off with partials in the lengthened position. Instead, doing the partials first and then when you're too tired to do more partials, following with reps that lockout works best. This is because the shorter range of motion or locking out in these and most exercises is relatively restful for the target muscle, and you can usually get at least a few more full reps on something like squats after you can no longer rep in the bottom half of the rep.
People have different distinctions for cheated reps, however when you’re doing solely negatives or in this example jumping negatives for pull ups I’ve always seen it too be the case that so long as the eccentric is being controlled there will always be a benefit. Jumping negatives are essentially cheated reps but people often don’t make that distinction
Same with power shrugs, the benefit is there only if you're still able to slow the eccentric.
The thing is that exercising can be really hard sometimes, but it always makes me feel better about myself. I started six months ago, like I was really motivated and focused. Took meal plan on Onlymeal, started going to gym 4 times per week, fixed my sleep schedule, and honestly gains were massive. I gained like 40lbs in six months, most of it was muscle. I started out because of girls, but now I don't care about them. I do it for myself, to feel better physically and mentally.
Good sir you did not gain mostly 40lbs of muscle in 6 months unless you are on steroids. Just not physically possible, even for a noob, to gain even 25lbs of muscle in 6 months.
one concern i have is that this was only for pushdowns and curls, but, the real thing that matters is strict rows vs cheat rows, and strict overhead press vs the push-press. cheat rows are just utterly different exercises than regular rows, due to a much higher involvement of the hips. and the explosive nature of the push-press vs the overhead press almost turns it into a different exercise. so it'd be good to see more studies on this on exercises like those, before we can extrapolate this finding to all cheat reps vs all strict reps, this really only tells us about these two exercises.
what i mean is, if a strict curl is 100% biceps, and a cheat curl is 20% hips, 80% biceps, either way it's still primarily biceps. but a cheat row vs a row might be the difference between a 100% back for the strict row, and a 50% hips, 50% back for the cheat row. it's normal to be able to cheat row twice as much as you can strict row, but that really isn't the case where you can cheat curl twice as much as you can strict curl.
In the last 5 years there have been a lot of unilateral single-joint exercises, and people are desparate to conclude that you can apply the same rules. Lengthened partials is a perfect example. One study shows a benefit in preacher curling with dumbbells, and all of a sudden everyone wants to say that you should pause 3 seconds in your bench press and pull-ups. The data just aren't there.
As long as your lower back is ready for that kind of pressure and as long as you control the eccentric, it should be fine. By controlling eccentric I mean just don’t drop the bar, no need to do the slow 2-8 seconds, 1 second is plenty. Arnold used to do pretty cool variation of barbell rows with a lot of momentum.
The only concern I’d have is how much hips and lower back I can use before it becomes a full on deadlift, but in practice you can instantly feel which body part is the limiting factor and adjust the technique.
As a rule of the thumb, cheat if the top part of the exercise is the hardest (almost all back exercises). Studies lean more and more in the direction of “just do a lot of hard stuff”
Why would u even train other muscles besides your arms and chest?!?!?
@@andywilson8698real bro right here, do you at least train shoulders lol
Or Strict Shrugs vs Power Shrugs.
What about the fatigue? the hypertrophy stimuli from the set performed with cheating is the same to the set performed with strict form but wouldn't the cheating set couse more fatigue thus on a long run be less sustainable?
I'd be curious to know what the effect of cheat reps with much heavier weight that can't be done using strict motion has on muscle hypertrophy and strength
They should make the study like this:
1 Group who has always done strict reps
1 Group who has always done cheat reps
1 Group who has always strict reps but also done cheat reps at the last 1-2 reps when close to failure
Each group does the same as in the experiment.
This will show the following: Can pure cheat reps set another stimulus for muscle growth for strict reps group or do the groups always grow better with the opposite stimulus?
Or will everyone benefit from only strict form or the last reps you normally couldn't do without cheating?
basically ... Mentzer was right (again)
Yes...Mentzer knew how many suckers there are out there!
Solid video.
Post failure, cheating versus strict reps is really the more interesting question
cheating for 3 post-failure reps. vs. resting 3 minutes and doing another set... once you get to that point though, you're getting 96% of the gains and debating the last 4%.
with some exercises like lateral raises, and some curls/pushdowns, i normally stick to strict reps until it gets too hard and that's when i'll bang out some cheat reps to failure. i have progressed a lot on my cable lateral raises because of it.
was the cheat group instructed to do a slowed down eccentric?
The text suggests both groups used a 2 second lowering duration, but I am not too sure based on the instructional videos provided. I would have prefered a little more clarity from the authors. Either way, based on other evidence, I don't think it's a major limitation. I may have content on this in the future, but I'm skeptical eccentric overload has any real advantage for hypertrophy :)
I think people should be careful about conflating slower eccentrics with "making the eccentric harder". If you lower a weight more quickly, that can means more tension is required in the lengthened/bottom position of many exercises to deccelerate it and reverse its direction in the concentric phase. In other words, lowering a weight more slowly can actually make the weight easier to handle on the eccentric and less intense. Say you are going down on the squat. If you go down faster on the first half, it is a lot harder to subsequently slow it down to a controlled position in the second half and come out if the hole.
Theres a huge difference between a cheat rep of curls starting with the biceps vs starting with the glutes. How cheaty was it?
Yep, as mentioned at 3:51 - it's likely not all subjects cheated identically. I think it would be interesting to standardize cheating to get a better insight here
its less so a study about lengthened partials (in disguise) id say, its more of a "is the (stronger) controlled eccentric with more weight enough to stimulate equal muscle growth"
Sorry for my english, but i'll try to do my best here
So we can assume that train muscles at longer lengths not always grows more, it's just in certain cases like you mentioned in 8:03?
Awesome video by the way, you are a masterclass
Are you planning on making a video on the study done on the leg press with different range of motions?
I would be interested to se what happens with drop sets. With them there is no need to cheat to gain true failure. Of course dropsets are time consuming so not that many people do them.
So what I’m getting out of this is chest reps are compound workouts.
Not surprised at all , but i would love to see results of the 20-29 age group versus 40-49 , im 45 and over the last 10 years i did modify the routine to still give the body the impulse, but to totally avoid injuries and have no problems with regeneration and not to feel beaten up
Nice one
you are my number one fitness youtuber, however i recently started to pick boxing as a hobby would you mind making videos about power, speed and agility on combat sports too?
i kinda think for curls at least cheat reps might even cause less injury, idk about other people but my elbows kill if i curl too much weight strictly
Safety is important. If You don't train circa 3 or more months as injured Your progress won't be big.
I finally made it early so i will ask you, what is a rep range? Eg 8-12, do i pick a rep in that range for a workout and stick to it? Like say 5 sets of 12 reps, i have a problem performing the same number of reps set after set, so does it actually mean as long as i complete an amount of reps within my desired rep range of 8-12, im fine? Or if it does mean i need to do exactly 12 reps per set, that if i cannot complete it each time, i should actually do my first set at something like 16 reps till failure, so that if i reach failure by the 6th rep on the final set, there ive actually achieved an average of 12 reps? Which i wonder if thats the goal or not
Any given rep range should just serve as orientation for how heavy you personally want to load a given exercise. This can vary, however going below 5 reps and above 15 is probably not that ideal.
Most people do pretty well with lower rep ranges of 4-8 on bench press for example. That means you pick a weight that would allow you to at least get 4 reps on the first set. If you manage to get 5 reps or more, you can stick to the same weight for your next set because you’d likely still manage to get at least 4 reps. If on the first set you barely managed 4 reps though, it might be wise to lower the weight for the next set so that you can stay in your rep range. Reps dropping off between sets is normal and good in a hypertrophy context because it means you created a good amount of stimulus in the previous set.
If your rep range is a bit higher, say 8-12 for example, it should be totally fine to stick with the same weight for your second set, even if only managed 8 reps on your first because 4-7 reps is still on the safe side for hypertrophy. Most people do better with slightly higher rep ranges on isolation lifts like curls and Tricep pushdowns but it might vary for you.
Aiming for an average of 12 reps across multiple sets isn’t a good idea because 1. your muscles don’t care about how many reps they do, they only care about stimulus which you create by training close to failure and 2. you would potentially go way above your rep range for no reason. Therefore it makes more sense to aim to hit the top of the rep range with your first set and then for the next session increase the weight to still stay in the rep range with your adapted strength. Then you just repeat the process to progress forever basically.
Interestingly, most studies have subjects adjust the weight across sets to stay within a certain rep range due to what you said (fatigue will mean you can't replicate your performance on subsequent sets).
However, we know from the literature that provided you're training close to or close to failure (which is what will make the set as effective as possible), reps between 6 to 35 are pretty similar for stimulating hypertrophy. There are nuances related to fatigue and perception of effort (i.e. people find it harder to get to failure with higher reps, and they seem to take longer to recover from), but so long as you stay in that range, you should be good.
There are multiple ways this can be done.
For example, let's say you select a weight you can perform 12 reps on the first set with. So you hit 12 on the first set, perhaphs 9 on the second set, and let's say 6 on the final set. In my view, this should be perfectly fine. However, this is just an example and fatigue from set to set can vary from person to person.
Alternatively, you can drop the load from set to set in attempt to try and maintain roughly 12 reps across all sets.
Either method, or a combination of both, should work :)
@ Oh man, i did not expect this detailed of a reply, thanks so much
It really is a pointless study.
There's zero advantage to cheat reps. You may aswell just do a structured dropset instead.
My take is that it probably suggests that strict is better than cheat vut that as an intensity technique cheating may be useful
The reason for that is that the proximity to failure is higher in the cheating since u can use whatever means u want to finish the rep while under strict technique there is more juice to squeeze if u just cheated at yhe end, so if they are similar despite the different proximity to failure its probably because per rep, strict technique is more hypertrophic
However, using cheating as an intensity technique will probably have the best of both worlds and lead to better gaons, but we need more data to be definitive
I feel like cheating also trains other muscles than the muscle u are focusing on, getting stronger on the other musles makes you able to lift more weight, not the muscle you want to train. They should have checked how much they could lift in strict form on both arms, in the beginning and in the end.
Hi,what do you think about stretching between sets and combaning rep ranges?I watches older video but i want to know od there are new studies?
Go Beyond plus Ultra for All-Might physique
Why not strict reps, then once hitting technical failure, do cheat reps to go past failure
The studie was done on untrained lifters. It tells me that new lifters can do almost whatever and still grow a lot. Advanced lifters need to do better.
Cheaters Never Prosper 🙏✝🕊💪
Are you denying the existence of presidents ?
Failure is key apparently
I am the Robocop and you are all under arrest.
Drop your weapon you have 5 seconds to comply 5,4,3,2,1 😂
Remember the other bigger robot?😂
What ever is the point in using untrained people I don’t understand
Muscle gain is a lot faster
In this study, it would be very very hard to find trained individuals willing to do this while not doing any other upperbody training. If they were also benching, for instance, that would mess with the results.
The replies to this highlight some of the potential benefits with data on untrained folks.
- Larger magntiudes of gains, which under some circumstances could enhance the ability to detect differences
- The ability to get them to train with a program that many trained individuals may not be willing to do
Nevertheless, as mentioned in the video, we should be caution in extrapolating data on untrained folks to trained individuals. Luckily, it appears we have data on untrained individuals coming soon :)
It is almost impossible to find trained people on the same hypertrophy level. How would one do that?
Just watch Jay Cutler do ANY movement. It clearly works
Cool
It's not surprising if they are all going to FAILURE. Sort of like fad diets -- as long as the diet has calories out greater than calories in there should be weight loss. So, no matter how you are doing a rep, as long as you go to failure, you should get muscle growth.
Cheating a little is OK, how ever my wife didn't agree.
Im just waiting for day when i see people actually working out hard, strict or cheating doesn't matter, I just want people to put out some effort. All the science, genetics, nutrition, and lifestyle can't compensate if your a lazy bumb.
did they perform cheat vs strict with the same weight? the goal of cheat reps is usually add more load, one that you can't perform strict, which could give cheat reps an edge. I mean, literally every high profile bodybuilder trains with cheat reps, and they are the ones which their careers depend on getting the maximum hypertrophy from the training
They adjusted the weight so the participants could do 4 sets 8-12 reps with failure within these reprange. So my guess would be that they increased the weight in the cheating.
And their on roids , they can lift how messed up they want 😅
@OriginalPripp not at all, there are no difference in principles of training between natural and enhanced
@Dylan-mr5hs oh you're right! I missed that. thanks!
As mentioned in the video 6:10, they did train with heavier loads :)
Hi, I hope you read this comment, i´ve been seeing your videos for a long time and watched mostly all of your videos. but i nver seen a video about ISOMETRICS. i´ve been researching for a long time and haven´t found anything reliable. i think its a good idea for a video because its a topic with little info
xD that's it. 40secs in, as we just start, it's already debunked. 25 people xD
💪💪💪
🙏
Ok I will save everyone since I can't stand seeing the same mistake in trying to explain short reps, and why it works, this I haven't seen anywhere so this is an exclusive...ok let's go ! Do yoy know about isometrics? What is a partial rep that has muscle contraction even if it's not a full range, what is it?? IS AN ISOMETRIC!!! If you use a pulley with to much weight but still you try to make muscle contraction it becomes an isometric exercise, if you try to lift a deadweight and you can't move it, it becomes an isometric, so in conclusion to know why short reps works you have to first know about isometrics, the next video here has to be about isometrics! Done...(drop the mic)
Bugenhagen was right again
Cheat reps are superior BUT only when done with a weight that is too difficult to do with clean form. Downside is increased risk of injury... Simple.
Might try watching the video. If you don't plan to watch the video, don't comment. Simple.
The video chapters are a little broken lol
They appear to be fine on my end, what problems are you experiencing?
@@HouseofHypertrophy 6:21 in the top middle you see it says volume load (sets x reps x lod), however it's meant to be sets x reps x load
@@HouseofHypertrophy the chapter "final thoughts" supposed to start at 8:23 is ignored and instead is overwritten by the "additional notes" message with the timestamp of 6:21 reading a very lengthy " in the top middle you see it says volume load (sets x reps x lod), however it's meant to be sets x reps x load"
If this study was needed? I will find out😂😂.
Yet another study in the basket of "just train close to failure buddy".
Also the the "training in the stretched position" argument doesn't make sense to me. The whole point of cheating is making it easier in the hardest portions of the lift, not making it even harder...
Literally no one does strict cheating reps. Everyone does normal reps until it gets too hard then cheats out a few extras. Again the science-based crowd lost the plot
🎯
Bro it kinda sounds like you didn't watch the video and don't understand the study design/purpose. I'm assuming your ideal study would say, "Yeah so we just told people to do the obvious thing when it suits them."
The point is to test if the cheat reps are effective at all. It wouldn't be a good way to study their effectiveness if you had them just do an overload because you now have to consider whether any difference is caused by additional damage to the muscle from higher reps. In more experienced lifters this could be beneficial while not the case for new lifters.
There are times people do train with 100% "cheat" in the case of eccentric training (as in certain workouts that you only do heavier than you otherwise could normally).
Lmao you've never been in a commercial gym...half the guys are cheating every lift
Ego lifting is a pop thing my dude. Guys using weight way too heavy for them, only way they can lift it is by cheating from the start
Also you're training other muscles as well with cheat reps so it's time saving and makes it a little bit less likely that a specific muscle group will grow out of proportion to the rest.
Mike Israetel has probably spent 500 hours trashing cheat reps. The man just talks and talks and talks with so little substance.
Ooof "untrained individuals" big issue 😔
It's a consideration for sure! Luckily it seems we have a study on trained indivduals coming soon :)
In other news, I was right again on spot reduction. It turns out, if you do it correct the body draws resources from the closest energy store (fat) to perform the activity. I was right for the past 30 years.
Proverbs 4:26-27
"Give careful thought to the paths for your feet and be steadfast in all your ways. Do not turn to the right or the left; keep your foot from evil"
First
Can i get a pin.? ❤ always love your vid brother keep it up 💪🏼
I unfortunately have to have the timestamps, notes, and links pinned so it's easy for people to see. Thank you for the support though my friend 🙏
Hi, interesting study, but it was not peer reviewered.
I think you should share just real peer reviwered published articles. Just a suggestion. Congratulations for the great animations you make!
I strongly disagree. I don't think peer review is anywhere near as flawless as suggested pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC1420798/
Why are you asking if this means the death of strict reps ? Strict reps were EQUAL to cheat reps for hypertrophy.
Honestly, I just wanted to use that animation haha. But hopefully I made it clear that I was propsing the "hyperbole" question to then detail further nuances :)
@@HouseofHypertrophy yes you made it clear for most people that it was just a hyperbolic question to discussing the nuance but apparently not for this guy
No one who is reasonable is going to fully triple extend and power clean their curls.
If they did though that's cool, that's called a power clean, very good exercise, but the point is they aren't going to do something that feels uncomfortable or that feels unsafe to them, i don't think cheating is more unsafe, I think being a dumbass trying to move too much weight without building into it is how people get hurt, maybe power cleans run a 2% more chance of getting injured just cuz it's more load than a strict curl but how many strict curls or preacher curls have you seen popping biceps on the internet. The anecdote outweighs the stupid superstition imo.
I also don't buy into this warning of "progressive cheating" that people like basement bodybuilding espouse. There's only so much cheating you can do relatively speaking. Your back can only bend back so far to get a rep up, you run out of room eventually and then you have to actually get stronger at cheating, but like I said before people are going to be reasonable for the most part and if failure is the guide then consistency is guaranteed, but most people are going to be intelligent enough to cheat in the same way they always do because that's WHY they cheat they're strongest in these movements. Even disregarding consistency and failure you'll still eventually develop an understanding of how close you are to fatiguing the target muscle because they...holy fucking shocker still get fatigued when you do cheat reps, and amazingly, still grow.
They should also when they do the study with experienced lifters, allow for a group that uses cheat reps to train beyond failure, because it's just logical that this group is going to be the closest to totally cooking the target muscle group. I don't think anyone can deny that going to rpe11 with momentum-induced forced eccentrics is going to produce more stimulus than rpe10 cyborg lifting. The only thing they'll argue is stimulus to fatigue but that's just pussies coping about not having the mentality to do something difficult, but that's a different argument, the layers that these weak willed individuals use to protect themselves from having to train hard is crazy. They're coddled by influencers always telling them to not do hard things but to do smart things and it's poisoning the well like crazy. It's smarter to just train hard.