Search results

@helen2002 Seems like he's a drama llama. Drama is for little girls, I have no interest in content creators who try to farm it for engagement

@mm1992 If you just look at RP's recent videos that's pretty clearly not true. They definitely do more entertainment/bait videos recently, but even then only 3 out of the last 10 videos would fall under that category.

@dadude Yeah, right now I do - I never used to. There's something about that stretch at the bottom that I can't mimic with cables or machines.

@mm1992 I'm not, what do you think is the difference between what he said years ago and now?

@supern0va And some can't train even twice a week. This is a guide to building muscle as fast as possible, not what is likely to be most practical for everyone.

@mm1992 Despite the fact they're literally saying the same things?

@tom34 He says the exact same things he has been saying for years, and RIR training is widely used, supported by a mountain of evidence, and a good idea for most lifters. You're just addicted to internet drama, and bashing what's popular sells well.

@streetwitness 1 and 6 are definitely wrong if you want to build muscle as fast as possible

@htb33rod A handful of N = 11 studies following untrained ungrads for a few months aren't my thing, for sure. Almost all of them are garbage, which is why we get a whole new conversation every few months when they inevitably contradict each other. If you just lift, you know you don't need a...

@htb33rod Perhaps on a long enough timeline it all ends up in the same place, given such things as genetic potential, but self-sabotaging by ignoring basic training principles to take significantly longer to achieve the same results just seems... pointless. It's fine if you're just lifting for...

@michael67 I don't care about this study, just what every good program and my own experience show. I suspect it has to do with this: The entire point of upping your frequency is that you can then handle more (sub-maximal) volume. Seeing how you want to hit 10 - 20 sets for a muscle group per...

@dawn16 That's like 1 set I need to ask a spotter for. I don't think that's a particular hardship.

@michael67 Is it time for another brief bout of influencers overhyping a single study, and people eager to workout less eating it up? It always ends up the same way - the observable truth that higher frequency wins out is validated.

@michael67 Literally how are you coming up with this stuff? It goes against every training principle we see repeated, and literally against every single popular, proven program. 2x/week per muscle group is the standard you should aim for, including quads and chest. If you can't recover from...

@michael67 Unless you max out every session, or you're spectacularly unfit, there's no way you can't recover enough to do chest twice a week. You should be able to do hit it 3x/week during a specialisation meso by dropping the volume in each individual session. This is a bodybuilding sub. The...

@xzissoux Since when is less volume amongst fewer sessions, and most importantly only hitting each muscle once a week, better?

@htb33rod I don't even do full body, it's just a good option when you only can/want to work out 3 days a week. It has its weaknesses (though the joint concerns are a meme), but every 3 day program has significant downsides.

@htb33rod Your standard 3 day full body program would have you do something like heavy bench Monday, relatively light chest work on Wednesday, heavier (but not as heavy as Monday) on Friday.

@htb33rod There's no reason why 3 day full body should be harder or more taxing on your joints unless you train poorly or have seriously sabotaged your recovery capacity via poor nutrition or poor sleep

@darksoul999 PPL just isn't a good routine if you only want to work out 3 times a week. The entire idea is that PPL makes it very easy to hit all muscles twice a week, which is optimal. Look into a full body routine instead.