Search results

  1. D

    New "RIR 1-2 vs RIR 0" Study - Similar gains

    @butterflymich I can definitely see the value in slower cadence as you get older. I respect that and I have no issue with it. If it works for you and you feel the risk of getting injured is less keep doing it. In my defence I guess I'm just a stickler for evidence and I have a tendency to...
  2. D

    New "RIR 1-2 vs RIR 0" Study - Similar gains

    @butterflymich The difference in hypertrophy with a cadence between 2 and up to 8 second is the same.
  3. D

    New "RIR 1-2 vs RIR 0" Study - Similar gains

    @minhphat Why are lengthened partials an adaptation while full rom are "true gains"? Sounds like bro science.
  4. D

    My issues with measuring hypertrophy by strength increase

    @johnc101 The problem with adding sets is that your sessions become too long and too confusing. Eventually you have to reset but when? It's complication for the sake of complication. Keeping sets/reps the same and just adding weight is much easier and should work just as well. You're adding...
  5. D

    New "RIR 1-2 vs RIR 0" Study - Similar gains

    @minhphat Yeah that may very well be true. I forgot to mention that I meant doing only lengthened partials and how that would incur more fatigue than doing full rom.
  6. D

    New "RIR 1-2 vs RIR 0" Study - Similar gains

    @minhphat How can lengthened partials incur more fatigue when the endpart of the rom (short muscle lengths) is usually the hardest and the least hypertrophic according to the studies done on lengthened partials?
  7. D

    Going to failure VS chasing the pump VS volume

    @helen2002 Menno breaks down exactly why this meta analysis has flaws and limitations and why the curve doesn’t match previous metas. Also like I’ve said before, this meta has not been peer reviewed so reading into this too much might not be accurate.
  8. D

    Going to failure VS chasing the pump VS volume

    @helen2002 If you think Menno Henselmans is some random youtube guy then your analysis of this meta analysis has no value whatsoever. What makes your interpretation of this meta more valuable than Mennos?
  9. D

    Going to failure VS chasing the pump VS volume

    @helen2002 So you have no arguments against Menno’s analysis? Do you always ignore evidence if it doesn’t fit your preconceived conclusions?
  10. D

    Going to failure VS chasing the pump VS volume

    @sugarcookies The debate has not been settled. Listen to Menno Henselmans break down training to failure and this non peer-reviewed meta analysis:
  11. D

    Going to failure VS chasing the pump VS volume

    @jordanconnect Completely wrong. Doing 10 sets is about double the growth. 15-20 sets isn't twice that of 10 but it's still more. After 20 you start getting major diminishing returns which is why 10-20 sets is the general recommendation and has been for a long time.
Back
Top