Get Stronger Doing Less Training (Science Explained)
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 2 ต.ค. 2024
- In this video, Pak from Stronger By Science goes over the 7 studies of his PhD on the minimum effective training dose for increasing strength in powerlifters. From the inception of the PhD, to the final studies, this video offers a comprehensive breakdown of the literature on what's the least amount of training a trained lifter needs to do in order to get stronger.
Relevant SBS article (includes free minimum effective dose programs):
Effective Strength Training for the Time-Poor
www.strongerby...
Gain access to 28 FREE Programs:
www.strongerby...
Want us to help you reach your goals?
strongerbyscie...
References:
Pilot Study: www.ncbi.nlm.n...
Systematic Review & Meta-Analysis: link.springer....
Multi-Experiment Paper: www.frontiersi...
#MinimumEffectiveTrainingDose #MinimalistTraining #HASHTAGTHREE
"Get Stronger Doing Less Training (Science Explained)" - กีฬา
It’s really satisfying to see people finally experimenting with training modalities that would help people with less than stellar genetics. It took me years of experimenting, even after reading Brawn by Stuart McRobert to realise I can only manage about 3sets of 3-5 reps about every 10-14 days per body part. Any more and my strength actually drops and I get severe tendinitis. Please keep this up. I look forward to reading your study in full.
maybe that's not bad genetics though, maybe you "need" less volume?
Stuart McRobert and his books on abbreviated training are very underrated and extremely under utilised in my opinion! 👍🏻
17:58 For those of you who don't have time😏
Some heros don't wear cape
Appreciate the video series. Excellent addition.
Question: what’s the optimal setup for the average powerlifter to maximize strength rather than minimize effective dose ?
Thanks for getting this message out to people. So many people in the general population don’t bother exercising at all because they think it requires a huge time commitment to see any results. The reality is the majority of the gains come from the first sets and then you’re just doing lots of work for very little gains after that.
Bring back the fuzz 💯
Tnx. Pak plz talk about long term programming for strength.
Same set as Milo?
What about for muscle growth?
Interesting, especially for older men like me. I am 58 and recovery is the main thing in training for me.
Could someone cover why people don’t account for warm up reps in training volume when doing top set with or without back off sets. I am kinda strong and I like to work up to a top single or double but it will take me 45 min if it’s close to max. My volume, as I see it, wasn’t the last set it was the previous 45 min working up to the last set. My rep scheme would be 12 8 4 4 4 1 1 1 1 and 1 or 2 usually 9-15 total sets for a heavy single. This in some or even most programs is 1 working set? If I do back off it would be @80% 2x3 for “3” total working sets. It’s easier to log but completely without context when viewed independently. It’s like saying Dorian only did one set of 8-12 but it actually took him 4 sets to get there, when you watch him train someone and they did more than 12 reps they did another set with more load, but it’s only 1 set in the log book.
How I see it is warmups are a bit irrelevant as long as they are not taken anywhere close to failure. Warmups also vary from person to person, some might need or do 2-3-4 sets before feeling ready , others, like you, do 9+, but at the end of the day everyone does roughly 1 set for their 1RM (significantly more and it s counter productive) which is where the most, if not all, stimulus and adaptation occurs. Warmups are essential, don t get me wrong, but they are more like...a ritual if I can say so, which is highly individual, before doing the thing itself...I hope it makes sense😅. Just my 2 cents
There's some truth to this. When training for strength, if you tend to do a good amount of heavy warm-up sets before your first working set, those warm-up sets almost certainly count as "working sets", since recent research suggests training close to failure doesn't really enhance strength gains. In fact, I suspect this is why many lifters report success with "heavy single" programming strategies for strength: you do a ton of submaximal, heavy sets on the way to that single.
For hypertrophy, if you tend to go relatively close to failure even on your warm-up sets, those do likely also count towards "working sets".
Outside of these circumstances, probably nothing to worry about!
-Milo
Thanks
One caveat that you didn't mention is that these studies were performed on competitive powerlifters, which introduces selection bias. Most of the volume research shows non-responders to respond better to higher volumes. These high level powerlifters likely aren't non-responders.
The meta-analysis he described was not specifically limited to powerlifters. His initial pilot study was only powerlifters, and the survey/interview described at the end. But the meta-analysis was gen-pop.
I think Pak's point is that everyone responds better to higher volumes and the minimum effective dose is suboptimal by definition, but still provides significant gains.
@@b005t3r Yes but my point is that he is trying to determine what the minimum effective dose is but the MEV is higher for people with worse genetics. Studying high level athletese and polling them for their thoughts on how they quantity MEV is subject to selection bias.
@@archmaesterofpullupsI don’t think you’re looking at the big picture for this. Of course low volume isn’t going to be optimal for overall strength gain it won’t for anyone. He’s just saying lower volume still does work at progressing, that’s not to say a newbie who has 10-15 hours a week to devote to lifting should only be doing 2-3 sets a week for a lift. But for guys who want to get into lifting but have kids and a family or experienced people who have been lifting for years but have a busy time of life happen. this is an alternative and you don’t have to feel like your wasting your time by just doing 1-2 sets a week or just give up on your goals over all for 6 months to a year just because you don’t have hours a week to train.
From the SBS newsletter: "In non-powerlifters, but still resistance-trained individuals, doing 2-3 weekly sets of..."
excellent process of establishing a solid meaning for the word meaningful.
would you say the backoffs with 80% alone could be more important than the single?
Potentially! Especially given the latest data on proximity to failure and strength gains.
no fluff Pak!! 🤣
I didn't even recognise him without the fluff. Man has mastered Clark Kent's Art of Disguise.
It was Like bulgarian training for powerlifting?
Not really bulgarian per se. More like "lower frequency-daily max" training
Great
Could it replace a deload week?
Sure, although it would probably be better to avoid "daily max" singles during a deload week. You could however do a few heavy singles at an RPE of 6-7 and call it a day!
I think the real question is if the prescription of only 1-3 singles per week would eventually lead to plateaued gains in the long term, over say 6 months. The prescription is highly specific to powerlifting, so maybe this served as a long term peaking block for these lifters instead of actually “growing” their overall strength
It may do but that's something you will be able to notice pretty quickly given the daily max nature of the singles. In addition to that, moving away from the plateau can be as easy as adding an extra set here and there and seeing how your strength responds!
Let’s go!!!
Does anyone actually squat with a full range of motion during squats? Would be great to see how much weight could be lifted if they did. Definitely less
And how would you define full range of motion?
clarence0
I heckin' love science!
When are these interviews with the advanced powerlifters and coaches getting released?😊
Very interesting and useful! Thank you Doctor Pak!
Wait, are you and Milo roommates??? My jealousy is also getting stronger
Why jealous? You can visit a gay bar or somthing, will find some muscular men there
@@ew-zd1thsome people do just like having friends, transactional relationships are demonstrative of a lower level of maturity.
@@BigBADSTUFF69 ok, mr.bigbadstuff69
@@Anandfulness Look up Kegan's theory of adult development though I do realize I have a stupid name on yourtube, but it's stupid on purpose!
I am trying to add to my friend group. You aren't "technically" allowed to say group if it's just you, but tomato tomato.
For the algorithm
bro has no fuzz... good vid tho
At no point in my life have I ever gotten stronger or larger by doing less. If I want to get stronger I do more volume over a week, if I want to get larger I do more volume over the week and eat more food.
I just don't see how could progress by doing less and less and less work. Like why stop here? Why not do one single on bench one week, another one single on deadlifts the next week another on squat the next week, deload then go again. 3 reps a month, why not that?
I don think they are advocating low volume for maximum gains, just showing what a MEV would be for a good chunk of people while still making SOME gains. I guess this also shows that more does not simply equal better
Getting stronger doing less does not necessarily imply that you will get the STRONGEST doing less 😁. You can, however, still get meaningfully stronger by doing less training volume when time or recovery resources are limited!
you can do 2 hour workout a day if you want...nobody stopping you
Are those science beakers on the shelf what you use to make your trenbolone ?
*Way* too many modern guys that are just trying to find the minimum amount of work to do.
It is about time efficiency
@Blue_wingsWave don't kid yourself, guys spend tons of time PPVing Jake Paul fights, going out with friends, bullshit like that; it's about doing less work.
@@littlethuggie going out with friends is a good thing. Socializing makes life prettier. I can only speak for myself. As a full time working individual with family comittments, spending 60 - 90 min in gym everyday (without taking in to account the time for communte, shower etc.) is not feasable consistenly.
@Blue_wingsWave it's definitely feasible for just about anyone to move things around to get 60 min a day. It's just priorities. You want to do the least amount of lifting possible. Tons of people are in that boat.
Interesting stuff
From "do more to lift more" to "do less do lift more" in just a few years
Not what these studies suggested, as put simply in the news letter: "If optimizing strength adaptations is your main goal, training following the above minimum effective dose guidelines should probably not be your default approach to training. However, the concept of the minimum effective training dose can come in handy during periods where your time and/or recovery resources are limited, allowing you to still make meaningful progress without having to spend a lot of time or mental energy training."