Interesting info on the cardio timing. My wife and I have argued about this for years (I always say after, she always says before). Turns out we’re both wrong unless it’s way before or way after. Ha.
He mentions the timing is important if you're really trying to zero in on strength and power. I think that's something overlooked on the internet sometimes where everyone is so focused on finding the most efficient, BEST way to do everything in the gym (not you specifically just something I notice in this sub and reddit in general). For the *average* person hitting the gym just wanting to stay healthy, timing probably doesn't impact as much. Yeah it's not "ideal" but meh, if you're progressing you're progressing. After I lift I hop on the treadmill for 15 minutes. I've never had any issues with fatigue or muscle recovery or whatever else but I'm not a powerlifter, nor am I trying to break any records, just trying to stay in shape as I get older. And staggering cardio on the opposite end of my day for some percentage increase in gains is not worth it to me haha.
How funny, my wife and I have the same disagreement. I hate running before the gym (mostly because I feel gross), while she prefers it.
I always thought a run after made a good "shake out" after a lifting session. According to this, her way is arguably better. I have not decided if I will tell her this or not.
You can walk, bike, or drive to the store. All of those methods will "work" to get you to the store. But, depending on other factors like distance and the amount of time you have and the size of what your buying, one option may be better than the others.
In 'works the stabilizers':
>Some instability might be desirable, but not if it trades off too much force production. This means:
>* **Heavy (10 reps or less) dumbbell work is largely wasteful because you’re not stable enough to produce the max forces you’re shooting for…** choose barbells instead for such heavy loads.
>* Don’t do anything on a bosu ball or other unstable surfaces… forces barely high enough to cause any growth within a reasonable rep/set scheme or in long term.
Well that's an interesting thought.
I found the smith machine ok for beginning, but as soon as I got above 60kg it restricted my form and hurt my shoulders. Use free weight now and am up at 100, feels alot safer and natural.
That is a fair point.
But if you want to work those stabilizers, you have to do it with a barbell and have a friend spin the weights in opposite directions.
Not true. It's for focusing on specific muscles in a movement more than you'd be able to do without the Smith. It's the exact same thing as what /u/Fitztastical bolded: When you bring "stabilizers" into the equation they can be a serious limiting factor if they're not strong enough to keep up with the weight you're pushing. If you take them out of the equation then you're able to push more to focus on the primary muscles hit by an exercise.
Meh, the beginner phase is arguably the most important phase for learning the barbell lifts properly. That's when it's most important to get as many quality reps in as possible. You should be avoiding those machines as often as possible.
Yeah, calf raises are kind of a secondary lift on any program though and there's a machine that specifically made for calf raises that's basically a limited range smith machine with a platform. Personally I've never really had to specifically target my calves. As long as I was doing deadlifts and full depth barbell squats, my calves grew fine with my quads and hamstrings.
I don't know about the ten-rep cutoff specifically, but low-rep dumbbell work definitely does tend to be a shitshow.
Also, note that this is specifically "when applied to pure hypertrophy training", where you mostly wouldn't be doing far under 10 reps anyway. If you're trying to train your chest, it seems silly to do something that is limited by stability rather than your chest.
The Phul program that I'm on recommends rope for tricep and lat pulldowns. I've now progressed to the point that my my tricep and lat gains are being hampered by weakness in my forearms.
Do you have a plan in place to work out forearms specifically to strengthen them up? Curious! I have the same issue. I see websites recommend wrist curls but that just hurts my wrist join for a number of days...hammer curls are the only exercise I've found that directly works out my forearm in addition to bicep, but it's not like an "wow, my forearm is on **fire** right now!
Forearm is all about grip. If you want to do it with weights, farmer walks are great. Alternatively you can simply hang from a pull-up bar.
In either case, it'll be more effective to have your grip such that the thumb is on the same side as the fingers instead of the opposite...the name of the grip eludes me right now but it's the same as the suicide or thumbless grip.
Gotcha, thank you! I noticed that hammer curls only work the muscle on the forearm closer to my head, not the "outside" forearm muscle, if that makes sense.
But oh yeah, I forgot that I do absolutely incorporate farmer walks! I guess I didn't logically realize that my forearm is the muscle being worked out with them, as opposed to shoulder/general arm. But I guess if I could feel the forearm muscle while performing them (which I don't, because both hands are full), they would be tight.
Thank you! I hadn't thought of hanging from a pull-up bar or changing grip, I will see how that goes.
Sure, I totally know what you mean about the hammer curls! It works the outer forearm much more. You can focus on the inner or outer forearm with forearm curls as well depending which way you twist.
My favorite to build forearms is the pull-up bar hang. No tension on the arms or shoulders, you get a nice stretch through the lats, and holding those last 10 secs when your forearms are on fire is super rewarding :)
Yeah, it's like — I might as well use my body weight against me since I can't get rid of it! Hahah. I know that's gonna kill my hands and fingers too though, but I am excited to try it!
Just chiming in here. Try rolling up a small weight plate on a bungie cord and then thats attached to a pvc pipe. Arms out and roll it up and you also roll it back down. Did it back when i was on the wrestling team years ago in school and it will blow your forearms up hard.
http://www.complete-strength-training.com/forearm-exercise-equipment.html
Look at number two.
Farmer's walks for 30 seconds to a minute, anytime I found my deadlift grip suffering, those quickly fixed the issue. Definitely made great forearm gains there too
I try to bend my wrists when I can to reduce the force required by my forearms when I'm doing light isos. Then I'll hit some grip work another day or after.
The other side of the argument that I've always heard is training with dumbbells in this manner strengthens stabalizers, which in turn can help the amount of weight you can bench with a barbell. Also for chest development even at sub optimal loads while using dumbells there's a greater ROM, and you can engage the chest more if you're really thinking about squeezing at the top of the rep. So now I'm a bit torn on which is true.
That's true, but I was talking more about your last sentence in the above comment, and why doing something that is limited by stability is supposed to be conducive to training your chest.
How do you go from laying down with heavy ass dumbbells on your chest, back to sitting? Do you just drop the dumbbells on the floor and try to not to rip a muscle by dropping them wrong?
With my warmup weight, I just rock myself back up like these guys say.
With my working weight, I drop it to the floor. You don't have to fight it. Think about it like lowering a barbell doing deadlift. Relax, follow the weight to the floor, and grip it enough that it doesn't bounce away. On an incline, pull them to your chest/stomach, lean and drop one, then repeat with the other. You don't have to try to be gentle, just don't throw it into the next guy's bench. Right now I'm doing working sets with 105's and haven't had an issue.
This is my exact same issue, if I am able to get them in position, I can usually bang out 4 to 6 reps, however when I am trying to go really heavy, I struggle to even get into position to start rep number one, once it is there, everything is fine
Honestly I like to do DB bench in the 5-10 range as well, but for the purpose of increasing power off the chest rather than hypertrophy which is what Dr Mike is mainly discussing.
I use Spoto press occasionally because it trains you to keep your setup and technique really tight but prefer DB bench for off the chest power as it is a greater ROM than both Spoto press and my own comp technique. I think only benching with a cambered bench bar or duffalo bar would be superior as that would be maxed ROM with the ability to load the bar more.
Huh. I really like heavy DB movements to help me notice if I'm pushing really hard with one side or have some type of favor/imbalance issues. I've done it with people who started going to the gym to notice issues.
But isn't it known that barbells are almost always better for total weight?
Yeah, I guess I use dumbbells because that's all that's available at my gym and because I like that I can't compensate with my stronger arm, so I have better symmetry.
No workout is perfect. The act of doing work that is challenging is more important than getting the final few percent refinement. Every body is different and reacts to different excercises differently.
I've never heard of someone using sheiko for dumbels, but I do like and do sheiko myself.
Maybe the 10 rep thing is more of a 10 reps till failure and therefore meaning something like use less than 75% of your max, which is fine because sheiko rarely has you using loads over 80% anyway.
Probably, they are more stable than bent over row. Also cable row are more stable, at least for me, so probably they are both (dumbell and cable) better for hypertrophy than bent over.
Both those thoughts seem relevant only in the context of building muscle mass. If the scope of consideration is expanded, is there any room to consider benefits of stability, CNS development, muscle memory, anything else?
I haven't looked at the source material and can't now (at work) but is the scope of his arguments limited to gainz?
I think this entire 'article' can be taken as one very informed and well researched guy's take on contested viewpoints in fitness. There's a lot of shit that intuitively makes sense in the context of all of the information that is out there on training, building muscle, best practices etc. - but it reads like a guy's facebook feed.
Because it is/was his facebook feed from what I understand.
I'm uniquely qualified to answer this because of my experience with gymnastics having rolled into powerlifting.
If your goals are to be able to do some cool shit on rings, use rings to workout with. There will be some specific stabilizers that are distinct in rings vs dumbbells, but adding strength to the ring-specific stabilizers won't necessarily translate into more raw bench strength. Doing dips on rings is just another minor variation on an accessory- won't make or break the bank.
You can lock out if your lockout position isn't hyperextended. For some people the lockout position is hyperextended. It's worth noting that the elbow and the knee are the only joints on humans that can lockout.
As someone who naturally has hyper extended knees (to the point of physio therapist give me exercises to fix them) I completely refuse to lock out my knees during leg press even on lighter weights.
If your VMO is not fully-engaged at knee lockout, you have a muscular disorder. If you don't have a muscular disorder, and you don't feel the muscles engage, then you're just lacking mind-muscle connection and should trust that your quads are being fully engaged.
What I mean is, I can almost 'rest' at full lockout on leg press. If I don't fully lock out or stop at full lockout it feels like a more intensive workout.
This... is not a good article.
I like sports science. I don't care for rhetoric.
Look at Section 2. The effectiveness of 'finishers' is not determined by the rhetoric of the enlightened. Show me an *actual study*!
This is why people say "you can't trust fitness advice because it's all just opinion, not science". In this case, that's exactly right. Give me *facts*, and convince me with serious studies, not with clever explanations.
The author is a professor, for heaven's sake! His job is to fail undergraduates for writing like this!
To say that the claims of an accomplished expert in a relevant field should be dismissed entirely simply because they don't cite their sources in an informal medium/setting is pretty silly.
Considering the inherent difficulty in recruiting trained populations, and the lack of funding for rigorous studies involved in niche sports and activities, you're kind of fucked.
Unless you like wild extrapolation and misinterpretation of significance, there simply isn't a good pool of studies available that are relevant to things like section 2.
I hate the idea that you need a pile of studies for fitness advice. I used to believe this but after actually reading a few studies the results are usually so varied as to be nothing more than a starting point for individuals, and most times the study design is so limited and specific and the variables so difficult to control that you are better off just experimenting on yourself and taking tips from experienced people.
Absolutely not saying there is no value in this research, just that this sub tends to take it way too far.
Except it’s not an article. This is for people who already follow Dr. Israetel and his work, and trust him enough. He’s not trying to convince any strangers formally or “scientifically”, he’s just telling his fans what he knows based on the work he’s done.
This.
I just follow Dr. Israetel and like his training philosophy just like many other experts such as Alan Aragon, James Krieger, Brad Schoenfeld and many more.
These Tips were posted in a span of a year and I wanted to make a single piece for later use and to pass on to my friends. Then I posted it on reddit.
No ty pls just give me a 200 word article with a list of sources at the end so I know I can trust it, not wasting my time clicking them though, obviously. /s
It remains a poor document, and not one it makes sense to discuss at length on /r/fitness.
Without sources, none of his claims have any weight.
The web is full of endless bullshit claims and tips about fitness. We have little choice but to insist on rigour.
I found it very nice and informative. Yes, it lacks in references. And you might one who expects a coach to explain everything they do by scientifically rigorous articles, all the time, but I will accept experience and knowledge.
> Halp zero progress after 2 years
... have you tried progressive overload and eating and sleeping? oh, you were waiting for sources the entire time? Alright, see ya, I'll be making gains over here if you want to join.
>I found it very nice and informative. Yes, it lacks in references. And you might one who expects a coach to explain everything they do by scientifically rigorous articles, all the time, but I will accept experience and knowledge.
Considering that he's a well respected expert in this area, this is just a compilation of his social media post where there is no necessity for references, and that you can probably find a fair bit of this information in the book he co-authored: *Scientific Principles of Strength Training*, I don't see why everyone is so up in arms about this.
Excuse me but this information is literally worthless unless there are at least 57 peer reviewed studies that I can nitpick.
If it's not published in a journal there's no evidence that any of this will build more muscle than me sitting on the couch and eating cheese doodles 8 hours a day.
Then you're not getting me.
No, it's not good enough to trust experience and eminence, if you're genuinely seeking the truth of the matter. That's how you end up with a head full of half truths, contradictory advice, and outright falsities.
There is no substitute for doing it properly, especially when it comes to fitness. There is *so much* bullshit out there, we *must* insist on rigour.
Exercise science is notoriously difficult to study, and the science out there is often of low quality, with poorly designed and controlled studies based on university-aged novices over an overly short time frame. Some of the knowledge in the fitness community has never been formally researched, and I wouldn't hold my breath. You appear to assign zero value to any knowledge imparted by experience, and only assign value to this research. That is ridiculous, given the nature of the field and the science done in it. Using the accumulated expertise of highly experienced coaches such as the author isn't a completely reliable method of learning more about the field and what works by any means, but it has a non-zero value that you're dismissing. Beyond that, there is still a place for logic and reason in this field, which again has a non-zero value. People are coming to tentative ideas of what is most effective, based again on non-zero evidence.
Does that mean that the body of knowledge will be accurate? Nope, there will be issues with it. Over time, those issues get worked on, both formally with research (such as it is), or informally through what builds up to a large weight of anecdotes from experienced professionals. Many issues will remain.
If you wait until everything has been formally researched, when much of said research is, in practice, impossible to perform, all the while ignoring any value whatsoever from any other source than a research paper, then you're foolish and will die weak and unfit.
You may enjoy r/advancedfitness if you want to obsess over research studies. Best of luck with your fitness journey.
When there is no good science you have to look at experience, expertise and logical mechanisms.
The human body is a complex and chaotic system of systems and it will take many years before we can answer everything with scientific literature.
Well, why don't you actually look into Mike Israetel's body of work and see for yourself. The guy is legit, he absolutely knows his shit and can back it up.
But he didn't.
For the hundredth time, eminence is not good enough. I want evidence. The fitness world is absolutely flooded with false advice, so I really have to insist (*we* have to insist), no matter what the guy's credentials.
Not only are we unable to confirm that his claims are true (and we're therefore stuck if we find someone else saying the opposite), we are deprived of a link to additional detail that proper studies give us.
The knock-on effect is uninformed discussion on the subreddit. If we're able to go digging for more by following the references, that improves the quality of the conversation we can have.
*Edit: I should emphasise that I'm not pretending this subreddit is a scientific journal, but it's not unreasonable to ask for more than the author's word*
>For the hundredth time, eminence is not good enough. I want evidence. The fitness world is absolutely flooded with false advice, so I really have to insist (we have to insist), no matter what the guy's credentials.
Except you don't have any right to insist and he doesn't have to provide any evidence to you. This is not a scientific paper, essay or published book where references are generally required, it is just a compilation of social media posts from a guy who is fairly well respected in this field, and who has even co-authored a book that discusses to a number of these points in some way. It is foolish to suggest that everything he has said in these posts has no weight just because he has not provided references. As an expert in his field you can at least expect what he has said to be likely true, rather than necessarilly true, and if you really want to confirm or deny everything you can do your own research or even contact him yourself.
> I want evidence
OK, we'll get back to you in like 30 years when we have some actual well designed fitness and diet studies. Until then, feel free to either learn from experience, learn from others' experience, or do nothing and get old and weak.
Maybe in this particular case because it was done casually. But in general he backs up everything he does if it's official work. I'm thinking you wouldn't care anyway though, just a feeling.
I will not read articles in the scientific article format to learn about fitness. Especially since there apparently are so many bad articles. I don't know enough about it to spot good from bad. Yes, bullshit must be gotten rid of. But there must be some trust on some actors to write a readable article (not in the scientific article sense) to actually spread knowledge. I guess it would be *nice* for him to also provide references for all the things he claims, I don't need them.
/r/AdvancedFitness exists for a reason. If you genuinely want to seek the truth with scientific rigour, that's the place.
But fitness studies have so many limitations: small sample size, short time frame, special populations, limited scope to name a few.
You usually can't judge am entire program from a study because they only examine small isolated elements of them.
Plus contradictory studies come out all the time in any field. Over time evidence may accumulate on favor of one direction. But one study is normally not enough to determine anything.
Not to mention poorly done studies that are also abundant in any field, certainly in fitness.
The person talking is the source. He is speaking from experience, and you can either take his word or not.
Not everything that's true is based on the scientific method.
Hey, I am a sport scientist university student and this is actually very interesting to read. I am trying to find research in SAGE about the effectiveness of "finishers" but all I find is basically "the differences about marathon finishers and non-finishers". I would be extremely thankful if you could give me a synonym or another word for the training "finishers" and see if I can find something about this subject. English is not my first laguage.
(Otherwise, it looks like good topic to research about if I choose to continue to doctorate)
RP has a large number of scientific studies and links to backup a lot of their positions. These are mostly posted on their website, facebook or in the references sections of their publications. I can also recommend 'Stronger by Science' as a great resource. I agree it would be nice if this article had relevant links at the end of each section, however it appears to be just a collection of informal posts.
Of course expert opinion is better than the opinion of random people, and of course some outright stupid ideas don't deserve a serious study, but when serious people disagree about something (presumably the case with these myths), rhetoric doesn't move things forward.
I don't want to be left guessing who is right, I want to be *shown* who is right. Rhetoric doesn't do that, only good studies can.
Hell, fitness is even hard to prove one way or the other with a study. Hormones, bone density and body equilibrium are probably the three most important things in lifting and gaining strength. You can’t be most effective when you literally cannot control any of these variables, except for one (with drugs).
How can we ever have a single useful study when everyone is so different?
I'd suggest it's more than that. Joints often allow for a slight over or hyper extension, to the point where effort is required to unlock or flex the joint again.
Apparently, doing cardio near the time you lift can take away, or even block, nutrients your muscles would need to repair quickly, resulting in a loss of strength and muscle growth. This says if you are lifting to gain strength, then you should avoid cardio entirely. Although, I didn't see anything for burning calories or fat loss goals, so I'm assuming its fine to still do cardio anytime except for immediately before or after lifting.
Just to add a bit on this, cardio is still really important for long term health! It builds your heart so doing a combination of both low intensity and high intensity cardio on separate days is one of the best investments in your future!
Maybe I'm reading it wrong, but doesn't the myth say timing cardio? As in its a myth that there's ant point to trying to time cardio a certain way besides how it makes you tired?
If you read the document, he goes into the AMPk and mTOR pathways in brief to say that you should time your cardio for best results. I don't like it either, but then we don't always get what we want.
Oh. The way it was worded in OPs post made me think the opposite.
That being said, even if there is such a thing as timing your cardio for perfect results, timing my cardio will always take a backseat to: sleep, family requirements, work requirements, time constraints. AKA, it's not happening.
That seems likely too extreme... Lots of people have done that successfully. It is true that some scientific basis exists here:
https://journals.lww.com/nsca-jscr/Abstract/2012/08000/Concurrent_Training___A_Meta_Analysis_Examining.35.aspx
> The primary objective of this investigation was to identify which components of endurance training (e.g., modality, duration, frequency) are detrimental to resistance training outcomes. A meta-analysis of 21 studies was performed with a total of 422 effect sizes (ESs). Criteria for the study included were (a) compare strength training alone to strength plus endurance training (concurrent) or to compare combinations of concurrent training; (b) the outcome measures include at least one measure of strength, power, or hypertrophy; and (c) the data necessary to calculate ESs must be included or available. **The mean ES for hypertrophy for strength training was 1.23; for endurance training, it was 0.27; and for concurrent training, it was 0.85,** with strength and concurrent training being significantly greater than endurance training only. The mean ES for strength development for strength training was 1.76; for endurance training, it was 0.78; and for concurrent training, it was 1.44. Strength and concurrent training was significantly greater than endurance training. The mean ES for power development for strength training only was 0.91; for endurance training, it was 0.11; and for concurrent training, it was 0.55. Significant differences were found between all the 3 groups. For moderator variables, resistance training concurrently with running, but not cycling, resulted in significant decrements in both hypertrophy and strength. **Correlational analysis identified significant negative relationships between frequency (−0.26 to −0.35) and duration (−0.29 to −0.75) of endurance training for hypertrophy, strength, and power. Significant relationships (p < 0.05) between ES for decreased body fat and % maximal heart rate (r = −0.60) were also found.** Our results indicate that interference effects of endurance training are a factor of the modality, frequency, and duration of the endurance training selected.
Later in the same article:
> The mean overall ES for the changes in body fat mass for strength training was -0.62 (95% CI: -0.99, -0.25; n: 14); for endurance training, it was -0.75 (95% CI: -1.12, -0.37; n: 14), and for concurrent training, it was -0.95 (95% CI: -1.30, -0.58; n: 15) (Figure 1 and Table 5).
Though it could be measurement error or due to variation in the studies, it does seem that concurrent training (both lifting and doing cardio) led on average to more loss of bodyfat in the available studies.
In sum, he has a point that cardio near lifting can decrease some of the impact of the lifting (strength, power, and hypertrophy), but it could also help with bodyfat changes, and it does depend on how much cardio we are talking about. This is also all without considering the quite serious longterm health benefits that cardio can provide.
I'd say that all else being equal, the cardio goes better on other days, but it's really not that high up my list of things to worry about when people are designing their programs. The linked article says 3+ hours before or 6+ hours after **if you have the choice**, which also strikes me as reasonable.
Yeah this one of those things that just seems like internet science... like all the jacked lean guys at that gym I see definitely do a quick run before they lift.
Unless you are a high-level powerlifter, training to compete in world's strongest man, or an Olympic strength athlete, you are not the target audience for #6.
The benefits of cardio are massive. The only reason to even consider not doing it is if you are in a position where you need every last ounce of strength you can squeeze out.
It's ideal to space it out but doing cardio after lifting won't make a huge impact for someone mainly trying to lose weight. If you can't space them further apart keep the cardio.
>If you’re training for hypertrophy, you should consider doing your cardio before your lifting for two main reasons. First, you want to limit interference with the post-lifting anabolic pathways and second, you can probably still put in the volume needed to grow even if you’re a bit tired from cardio, since intensity is not nearly as much a factor with hypertrophy training as it is with strength training.
I've been cutting and doing some like cardio. Like 2 hours a week total on an exercise bike. Can that explain the drop in my strength? To be fair, I'm also cutting.
He's saying if your number one goal is strength, power or muscle growth, don't do cardio right before or right after training. Do it on a different day or if you must on same day, many hours apart. Cardio is still good and beneficial for you, ESPECIALLY if you are massing.
Dr Mike is fucking awesome. ( u/rp_mikeisraetel ) Genuinely got a lot of insightful info from his videos, I only wish there were more of them (although I imagine has a pile ready to post I particularly enjoyed the recent AMA too.
It's also awesome that he was just like "been catching up watching clone wars, i've seen them all a millions times".
In my head I was like *Dr Mike lifts and shit ton and watches clone wars! What a fucking boss!*
> Have been training for decades and are too beat up to lock out on certain moves... many would do it if they still could.
Isn’t this evidence that locking out is bad for your knees in the long run?
At every point he justifies his opinions by saying “well this is ok but you should actually do X Y Z for maximum growth.” But what about safety and long term preservation of health? I want to strike a balance where I get strong. I don’t want to sacrifice my safety or long term survival in the name of hypertrophy.
Lmao at all the armchair trainers asking for sources. This dude is a well respected Doctor..
Do you demand sources when your doctor tells you you're sick?
Do you demand sources when Steven Hawking makes a claim about astrophysics?
I guess some people might not be at their best at the start of a workout, especially morning lifters, but the end? I might do a few curls or crunches at the end just for a pump really, not to push through to the next level.
He never said they were a waste of time at all, just that they're nothing super special...
*In summary, finishers are cool and please by all means keep doing them. Just don't focus on them at the expense of ignoring the details of the rest of your workout, especially the stuff that likely matters most: progressing slowly but surely in volumes and intensities on the big main lifts that occur early in each of your sessions (or damn well should if you program correctly).*
For a Dr. in physical medicine, I find this paper HIGHLY lacking in any source material. How is this any better then some other doctor claiming the exact opposite? I need graphs, tables, and data dammit!
Dr Mike didn't compile this and it's not a paper. A reddit user did. Research and evidence is available on the RP website, facebook and in their official publications.
Wouldn't stronger stabilizers or other support muscles be necessary, though?
I've heard that it's common with (for lack of a better term) "normal" weight-lifting that if you only work the load-bearing muscles, you can end up with them being too strong compared to the stabilizers and other secondary muscles left behind.
The context was in terms of injury (ie the load-bearing muscle overpowering the ability of the support muscles to do their jobs), but wouldn't that also affect the ability to stabilize during activity?
Interesting info on the cardio timing. My wife and I have argued about this for years (I always say after, she always says before). Turns out we’re both wrong unless it’s way before or way after. Ha.
He mentions the timing is important if you're really trying to zero in on strength and power. I think that's something overlooked on the internet sometimes where everyone is so focused on finding the most efficient, BEST way to do everything in the gym (not you specifically just something I notice in this sub and reddit in general). For the *average* person hitting the gym just wanting to stay healthy, timing probably doesn't impact as much. Yeah it's not "ideal" but meh, if you're progressing you're progressing. After I lift I hop on the treadmill for 15 minutes. I've never had any issues with fatigue or muscle recovery or whatever else but I'm not a powerlifter, nor am I trying to break any records, just trying to stay in shape as I get older. And staggering cardio on the opposite end of my day for some percentage increase in gains is not worth it to me haha.
How funny, my wife and I have the same disagreement. I hate running before the gym (mostly because I feel gross), while she prefers it. I always thought a run after made a good "shake out" after a lifting session. According to this, her way is arguably better. I have not decided if I will tell her this or not.
If what he's saying about timing is right, then how can CrossFit possibly work?
Because other stuff still works, it's just not optimal if you have specific goals.
Because he's talking about optimization, not effectiveness.
People good at crossfit don’t train crossfit, they train to do crossfit, big difference
You can walk, bike, or drive to the store. All of those methods will "work" to get you to the store. But, depending on other factors like distance and the amount of time you have and the size of what your buying, one option may be better than the others.
In 'works the stabilizers': >Some instability might be desirable, but not if it trades off too much force production. This means: >* **Heavy (10 reps or less) dumbbell work is largely wasteful because you’re not stable enough to produce the max forces you’re shooting for…** choose barbells instead for such heavy loads. >* Don’t do anything on a bosu ball or other unstable surfaces… forces barely high enough to cause any growth within a reasonable rep/set scheme or in long term. Well that's an interesting thought.
Personally the only time I ever hear anyone talking about stabilizers is when telling people to avoid the Smith machine.
I found the smith machine ok for beginning, but as soon as I got above 60kg it restricted my form and hurt my shoulders. Use free weight now and am up at 100, feels alot safer and natural.
[удалено]
Yeah but how would people lay on the ground and push a barbell up with their feet without a smith machine?!
That is a fair point. But if you want to work those stabilizers, you have to do it with a barbell and have a friend spin the weights in opposite directions.
You've just described the proto-leg-press that lifters actually used to do before there was a real leg press and before squats were in fashion.
Duh, in the squat rack with the bar. Gotta work those balancer muscles
you never heard of Australian Pull Ups (Inverted Rows)? it's PERFECT for that!!!
I think that's the only time I've ever used a smith machine.
Not true. It's for focusing on specific muscles in a movement more than you'd be able to do without the Smith. It's the exact same thing as what /u/Fitztastical bolded: When you bring "stabilizers" into the equation they can be a serious limiting factor if they're not strong enough to keep up with the weight you're pushing. If you take them out of the equation then you're able to push more to focus on the primary muscles hit by an exercise.
My guess is it's a liability insurance thing.
You can't drop the barbell or swing it around into someone's domepiece on a Smith machine is the reason why it's there.
Mostly true. I can't do single leg pistol squats without it tho. My balance is attrocious
how does the smith machine help? I'm geniunely curious. I just hold on to a pole or setup a band somewhere ...
Meh, the beginner phase is arguably the most important phase for learning the barbell lifts properly. That's when it's most important to get as many quality reps in as possible. You should be avoiding those machines as often as possible.
I use it sometimes for calf raises. Helps balance aswell. And I know it works for that cos my calves are huge.
Yeah, calf raises are kind of a secondary lift on any program though and there's a machine that specifically made for calf raises that's basically a limited range smith machine with a platform. Personally I've never really had to specifically target my calves. As long as I was doing deadlifts and full depth barbell squats, my calves grew fine with my quads and hamstrings.
I don't know about the ten-rep cutoff specifically, but low-rep dumbbell work definitely does tend to be a shitshow. Also, note that this is specifically "when applied to pure hypertrophy training", where you mostly wouldn't be doing far under 10 reps anyway. If you're trying to train your chest, it seems silly to do something that is limited by stability rather than your chest.
The Phul program that I'm on recommends rope for tricep and lat pulldowns. I've now progressed to the point that my my tricep and lat gains are being hampered by weakness in my forearms.
Do you have a plan in place to work out forearms specifically to strengthen them up? Curious! I have the same issue. I see websites recommend wrist curls but that just hurts my wrist join for a number of days...hammer curls are the only exercise I've found that directly works out my forearm in addition to bicep, but it's not like an "wow, my forearm is on **fire** right now!
Forearm is all about grip. If you want to do it with weights, farmer walks are great. Alternatively you can simply hang from a pull-up bar. In either case, it'll be more effective to have your grip such that the thumb is on the same side as the fingers instead of the opposite...the name of the grip eludes me right now but it's the same as the suicide or thumbless grip.
Gotcha, thank you! I noticed that hammer curls only work the muscle on the forearm closer to my head, not the "outside" forearm muscle, if that makes sense. But oh yeah, I forgot that I do absolutely incorporate farmer walks! I guess I didn't logically realize that my forearm is the muscle being worked out with them, as opposed to shoulder/general arm. But I guess if I could feel the forearm muscle while performing them (which I don't, because both hands are full), they would be tight. Thank you! I hadn't thought of hanging from a pull-up bar or changing grip, I will see how that goes.
Sure, I totally know what you mean about the hammer curls! It works the outer forearm much more. You can focus on the inner or outer forearm with forearm curls as well depending which way you twist. My favorite to build forearms is the pull-up bar hang. No tension on the arms or shoulders, you get a nice stretch through the lats, and holding those last 10 secs when your forearms are on fire is super rewarding :)
Yeah, it's like — I might as well use my body weight against me since I can't get rid of it! Hahah. I know that's gonna kill my hands and fingers too though, but I am excited to try it!
For future reference; proximal = closer to your core, distal = farther from your core.
false grip or neutral false grip I think
Just chiming in here. Try rolling up a small weight plate on a bungie cord and then thats attached to a pvc pipe. Arms out and roll it up and you also roll it back down. Did it back when i was on the wrestling team years ago in school and it will blow your forearms up hard. http://www.complete-strength-training.com/forearm-exercise-equipment.html Look at number two.
Farmer's walks for 30 seconds to a minute, anytime I found my deadlift grip suffering, those quickly fixed the issue. Definitely made great forearm gains there too
Give dead hangs a try. Shoot for three minutes total. Greatly improved my grip and forearm strength.
Do Farmers Walks with Kettlebells, you'll soon feel your forearm on fire.
How is this at all related to the comment you replied to?
I try to bend my wrists when I can to reduce the force required by my forearms when I'm doing light isos. Then I'll hit some grip work another day or after.
The other side of the argument that I've always heard is training with dumbbells in this manner strengthens stabalizers, which in turn can help the amount of weight you can bench with a barbell. Also for chest development even at sub optimal loads while using dumbells there's a greater ROM, and you can engage the chest more if you're really thinking about squeezing at the top of the rep. So now I'm a bit torn on which is true.
Trying to increase your bench max is usually not considered "pure hypertrophy training".
That's true, but I was talking more about your last sentence in the above comment, and why doing something that is limited by stability is supposed to be conducive to training your chest.
I'm doing Incline DB Press in the 4-6 rep range.
Unless I have a partner, I find that my heavy DB incline eventually becomes limited by how much weight I can even manage to get up into position.
[удалено]
How do you go from laying down with heavy ass dumbbells on your chest, back to sitting? Do you just drop the dumbbells on the floor and try to not to rip a muscle by dropping them wrong?
I just rock back to sitting position before lowering the weights
You rock yourself back up.
With my warmup weight, I just rock myself back up like these guys say. With my working weight, I drop it to the floor. You don't have to fight it. Think about it like lowering a barbell doing deadlift. Relax, follow the weight to the floor, and grip it enough that it doesn't bounce away. On an incline, pull them to your chest/stomach, lean and drop one, then repeat with the other. You don't have to try to be gentle, just don't throw it into the next guy's bench. Right now I'm doing working sets with 105's and haven't had an issue.
This is my exact same issue, if I am able to get them in position, I can usually bang out 4 to 6 reps, however when I am trying to go really heavy, I struggle to even get into position to start rep number one, once it is there, everything is fine
I don't know what you want me to do with this information. Do you mean that you've developed a great chest this way?
Honestly I like to do DB bench in the 5-10 range as well, but for the purpose of increasing power off the chest rather than hypertrophy which is what Dr Mike is mainly discussing.
That's not a bad idea I guess, but you would possibly benefit more from something like Spoto Press? Just food for thought.
I use Spoto press occasionally because it trains you to keep your setup and technique really tight but prefer DB bench for off the chest power as it is a greater ROM than both Spoto press and my own comp technique. I think only benching with a cambered bench bar or duffalo bar would be superior as that would be maxed ROM with the ability to load the bar more.
Huh. I really like heavy DB movements to help me notice if I'm pushing really hard with one side or have some type of favor/imbalance issues. I've done it with people who started going to the gym to notice issues. But isn't it known that barbells are almost always better for total weight?
Yeah, I guess I use dumbbells because that's all that's available at my gym and because I like that I can't compensate with my stronger arm, so I have better symmetry.
I'm like 6 months into Sheiko bench and this made me want to vomit in my mouth because I'm doing heavy dumbbell work 3-4x/week.
No workout is perfect. The act of doing work that is challenging is more important than getting the final few percent refinement. Every body is different and reacts to different excercises differently.
I've never heard of someone using sheiko for dumbels, but I do like and do sheiko myself. Maybe the 10 rep thing is more of a 10 reps till failure and therefore meaning something like use less than 75% of your max, which is fine because sheiko rarely has you using loads over 80% anyway.
The programs I’m doing (MS, prep, comp) feature dumbbells pretty heavily for bench training.
Sheiko is a strength program. The list above is more about hypertrophy training. Keep on keeping on
I like to do heavy dumbell rows (7 reps). Me and my back do not feel it a waste of time.
Dumbbell rows are pretty stable by nature though, so it makes sense that it wouldn't apply to that
Probably, they are more stable than bent over row. Also cable row are more stable, at least for me, so probably they are both (dumbell and cable) better for hypertrophy than bent over.
Both those thoughts seem relevant only in the context of building muscle mass. If the scope of consideration is expanded, is there any room to consider benefits of stability, CNS development, muscle memory, anything else? I haven't looked at the source material and can't now (at work) but is the scope of his arguments limited to gainz?
I think this entire 'article' can be taken as one very informed and well researched guy's take on contested viewpoints in fitness. There's a lot of shit that intuitively makes sense in the context of all of the information that is out there on training, building muscle, best practices etc. - but it reads like a guy's facebook feed. Because it is/was his facebook feed from what I understand.
> Don’t do anything on a bosu ball this should trigger a violent reaction by u/mythicalstrength
I love bosu balls for the sheer joy they bring to my life.
Could someone ELI5 this? Does this mean that 12+ reps with dumbbells is good for the stabilizer muscles or something? I am confus.
[удалено]
How does stability factor in with things like gymnastic rings?
I'm uniquely qualified to answer this because of my experience with gymnastics having rolled into powerlifting. If your goals are to be able to do some cool shit on rings, use rings to workout with. There will be some specific stabilizers that are distinct in rings vs dumbbells, but adding strength to the ring-specific stabilizers won't necessarily translate into more raw bench strength. Doing dips on rings is just another minor variation on an accessory- won't make or break the bank.
So I should lock out my leg press? 'Timing Cardio in Relation to Lifting' I can see why this one is silly.
Yes, you should lock out on leg press if you're able to per the article.
[удалено]
You've seen exactly two videos. He man in yellow and the woman in black.
That was enough, thank you.
[удалено]
I've also had PTs tell me running and deadlifts are bad.
Yeah but this is on reddit, on the /r/fitness sub.
Ask that entire department how they finish a deadlift.
Trick question, they don't deadlift cause it's bad for your back
Of course. How could I forget.
Just don't hyper-extend with heavy loads.
[удалено]
You can lock out if your lockout position isn't hyperextended. For some people the lockout position is hyperextended. It's worth noting that the elbow and the knee are the only joints on humans that can lockout.
As someone who naturally has hyper extended knees (to the point of physio therapist give me exercises to fix them) I completely refuse to lock out my knees during leg press even on lighter weights.
I feel my leg muscles clearly disengage to a degree when I lock out. Where is that load shifting?
If your VMO is not fully-engaged at knee lockout, you have a muscular disorder. If you don't have a muscular disorder, and you don't feel the muscles engage, then you're just lacking mind-muscle connection and should trust that your quads are being fully engaged.
"Trust your quads" - u/klethra
Quadgoals
I'd stand by that quote.
What I mean is, I can almost 'rest' at full lockout on leg press. If I don't fully lock out or stop at full lockout it feels like a more intensive workout.
[Sometimes](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H2q4LLYG8sU)
This... is not a good article. I like sports science. I don't care for rhetoric. Look at Section 2. The effectiveness of 'finishers' is not determined by the rhetoric of the enlightened. Show me an *actual study*! This is why people say "you can't trust fitness advice because it's all just opinion, not science". In this case, that's exactly right. Give me *facts*, and convince me with serious studies, not with clever explanations. The author is a professor, for heaven's sake! His job is to fail undergraduates for writing like this!
Yeah, no one can debunk a myth without data to back it up, otherwise, it's just a different myth trying to debunk a myth.
[удалено]
cheeky
Anything asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
To say that the claims of an accomplished expert in a relevant field should be dismissed entirely simply because they don't cite their sources in an informal medium/setting is pretty silly.
Considering the inherent difficulty in recruiting trained populations, and the lack of funding for rigorous studies involved in niche sports and activities, you're kind of fucked. Unless you like wild extrapolation and misinterpretation of significance, there simply isn't a good pool of studies available that are relevant to things like section 2.
I hate the idea that you need a pile of studies for fitness advice. I used to believe this but after actually reading a few studies the results are usually so varied as to be nothing more than a starting point for individuals, and most times the study design is so limited and specific and the variables so difficult to control that you are better off just experimenting on yourself and taking tips from experienced people. Absolutely not saying there is no value in this research, just that this sub tends to take it way too far.
Except it’s not an article. This is for people who already follow Dr. Israetel and his work, and trust him enough. He’s not trying to convince any strangers formally or “scientifically”, he’s just telling his fans what he knows based on the work he’s done.
This. I just follow Dr. Israetel and like his training philosophy just like many other experts such as Alan Aragon, James Krieger, Brad Schoenfeld and many more. These Tips were posted in a span of a year and I wanted to make a single piece for later use and to pass on to my friends. Then I posted it on reddit.
He has written many books that go very into detail with lots of sources and PhD contributions for anyone who wants a strong scientific argument.
No ty pls just give me a 200 word article with a list of sources at the end so I know I can trust it, not wasting my time clicking them though, obviously. /s
This isn't an article, it's just a collection of facebook posts Dr Mike made that a redditor compiled together in a document.
It remains a poor document, and not one it makes sense to discuss at length on /r/fitness. Without sources, none of his claims have any weight. The web is full of endless bullshit claims and tips about fitness. We have little choice but to insist on rigour.
They hold weight if you know who Dr. Mike is. I bet you're the kind of guy who doesn't take a shit unless a peer-reviewed journal tells you it's time.
Yeah that's right, the academic bastion that is /r/fitness demands higher standards.
I found it very nice and informative. Yes, it lacks in references. And you might one who expects a coach to explain everything they do by scientifically rigorous articles, all the time, but I will accept experience and knowledge.
> And you might one who expects a coach to explain everything they do by scientifically rigorous articles, all the time /r/fitness in a nutshell.
> Halp zero progress after 2 years ... have you tried progressive overload and eating and sleeping? oh, you were waiting for sources the entire time? Alright, see ya, I'll be making gains over here if you want to join.
No use in going if you're not on the optimal program. ¯\\_(ツ)_/¯
Might as well just kill myself amirite?
>I found it very nice and informative. Yes, it lacks in references. And you might one who expects a coach to explain everything they do by scientifically rigorous articles, all the time, but I will accept experience and knowledge. Considering that he's a well respected expert in this area, this is just a compilation of his social media post where there is no necessity for references, and that you can probably find a fair bit of this information in the book he co-authored: *Scientific Principles of Strength Training*, I don't see why everyone is so up in arms about this.
Someone in every Reddit thread in the known and unknown universe is up in arms about something or other.
Excuse me but this information is literally worthless unless there are at least 57 peer reviewed studies that I can nitpick. If it's not published in a journal there's no evidence that any of this will build more muscle than me sitting on the couch and eating cheese doodles 8 hours a day.
Weakpots need a reason to be weakpots.
Then you're not getting me. No, it's not good enough to trust experience and eminence, if you're genuinely seeking the truth of the matter. That's how you end up with a head full of half truths, contradictory advice, and outright falsities. There is no substitute for doing it properly, especially when it comes to fitness. There is *so much* bullshit out there, we *must* insist on rigour.
Exercise science is notoriously difficult to study, and the science out there is often of low quality, with poorly designed and controlled studies based on university-aged novices over an overly short time frame. Some of the knowledge in the fitness community has never been formally researched, and I wouldn't hold my breath. You appear to assign zero value to any knowledge imparted by experience, and only assign value to this research. That is ridiculous, given the nature of the field and the science done in it. Using the accumulated expertise of highly experienced coaches such as the author isn't a completely reliable method of learning more about the field and what works by any means, but it has a non-zero value that you're dismissing. Beyond that, there is still a place for logic and reason in this field, which again has a non-zero value. People are coming to tentative ideas of what is most effective, based again on non-zero evidence. Does that mean that the body of knowledge will be accurate? Nope, there will be issues with it. Over time, those issues get worked on, both formally with research (such as it is), or informally through what builds up to a large weight of anecdotes from experienced professionals. Many issues will remain. If you wait until everything has been formally researched, when much of said research is, in practice, impossible to perform, all the while ignoring any value whatsoever from any other source than a research paper, then you're foolish and will die weak and unfit. You may enjoy r/advancedfitness if you want to obsess over research studies. Best of luck with your fitness journey.
When there is no good science you have to look at experience, expertise and logical mechanisms. The human body is a complex and chaotic system of systems and it will take many years before we can answer everything with scientific literature.
Well, why don't you actually look into Mike Israetel's body of work and see for yourself. The guy is legit, he absolutely knows his shit and can back it up.
But he didn't. For the hundredth time, eminence is not good enough. I want evidence. The fitness world is absolutely flooded with false advice, so I really have to insist (*we* have to insist), no matter what the guy's credentials. Not only are we unable to confirm that his claims are true (and we're therefore stuck if we find someone else saying the opposite), we are deprived of a link to additional detail that proper studies give us. The knock-on effect is uninformed discussion on the subreddit. If we're able to go digging for more by following the references, that improves the quality of the conversation we can have. *Edit: I should emphasise that I'm not pretending this subreddit is a scientific journal, but it's not unreasonable to ask for more than the author's word*
>For the hundredth time, eminence is not good enough. I want evidence. The fitness world is absolutely flooded with false advice, so I really have to insist (we have to insist), no matter what the guy's credentials. Except you don't have any right to insist and he doesn't have to provide any evidence to you. This is not a scientific paper, essay or published book where references are generally required, it is just a compilation of social media posts from a guy who is fairly well respected in this field, and who has even co-authored a book that discusses to a number of these points in some way. It is foolish to suggest that everything he has said in these posts has no weight just because he has not provided references. As an expert in his field you can at least expect what he has said to be likely true, rather than necessarilly true, and if you really want to confirm or deny everything you can do your own research or even contact him yourself.
> I want evidence OK, we'll get back to you in like 30 years when we have some actual well designed fitness and diet studies. Until then, feel free to either learn from experience, learn from others' experience, or do nothing and get old and weak.
Maybe in this particular case because it was done casually. But in general he backs up everything he does if it's official work. I'm thinking you wouldn't care anyway though, just a feeling.
I will not read articles in the scientific article format to learn about fitness. Especially since there apparently are so many bad articles. I don't know enough about it to spot good from bad. Yes, bullshit must be gotten rid of. But there must be some trust on some actors to write a readable article (not in the scientific article sense) to actually spread knowledge. I guess it would be *nice* for him to also provide references for all the things he claims, I don't need them. /r/AdvancedFitness exists for a reason. If you genuinely want to seek the truth with scientific rigour, that's the place.
[удалено]
But fitness studies have so many limitations: small sample size, short time frame, special populations, limited scope to name a few. You usually can't judge am entire program from a study because they only examine small isolated elements of them. Plus contradictory studies come out all the time in any field. Over time evidence may accumulate on favor of one direction. But one study is normally not enough to determine anything. Not to mention poorly done studies that are also abundant in any field, certainly in fitness.
The person talking is the source. He is speaking from experience, and you can either take his word or not. Not everything that's true is based on the scientific method.
Hey, I am a sport scientist university student and this is actually very interesting to read. I am trying to find research in SAGE about the effectiveness of "finishers" but all I find is basically "the differences about marathon finishers and non-finishers". I would be extremely thankful if you could give me a synonym or another word for the training "finishers" and see if I can find something about this subject. English is not my first laguage. (Otherwise, it looks like good topic to research about if I choose to continue to doctorate)
Maybe look for research on exercise order, although this is a somewhat broader concept than just "finishers".
RP has a large number of scientific studies and links to backup a lot of their positions. These are mostly posted on their website, facebook or in the references sections of their publications. I can also recommend 'Stronger by Science' as a great resource. I agree it would be nice if this article had relevant links at the end of each section, however it appears to be just a collection of informal posts.
[удалено]
[удалено]
Of course expert opinion is better than the opinion of random people, and of course some outright stupid ideas don't deserve a serious study, but when serious people disagree about something (presumably the case with these myths), rhetoric doesn't move things forward. I don't want to be left guessing who is right, I want to be *shown* who is right. Rhetoric doesn't do that, only good studies can.
Hell, fitness is even hard to prove one way or the other with a study. Hormones, bone density and body equilibrium are probably the three most important things in lifting and gaining strength. You can’t be most effective when you literally cannot control any of these variables, except for one (with drugs). How can we ever have a single useful study when everyone is so different?
Anyone the shares or makes workout programs are what I consider, Guidlines. I pick a choose what works best for me.
What is lockout?
[удалено]
I'd suggest it's more than that. Joints often allow for a slight over or hyper extension, to the point where effort is required to unlock or flex the joint again.
u/BenchPolkov It is a pleasure to help the lifting community. Thank you so much for mention.
As a newbie, can someone expand on number 6?
Apparently, doing cardio near the time you lift can take away, or even block, nutrients your muscles would need to repair quickly, resulting in a loss of strength and muscle growth. This says if you are lifting to gain strength, then you should avoid cardio entirely. Although, I didn't see anything for burning calories or fat loss goals, so I'm assuming its fine to still do cardio anytime except for immediately before or after lifting.
Just to add a bit on this, cardio is still really important for long term health! It builds your heart so doing a combination of both low intensity and high intensity cardio on separate days is one of the best investments in your future!
Maybe I'm reading it wrong, but doesn't the myth say timing cardio? As in its a myth that there's ant point to trying to time cardio a certain way besides how it makes you tired?
If you read the document, he goes into the AMPk and mTOR pathways in brief to say that you should time your cardio for best results. I don't like it either, but then we don't always get what we want.
Oh. The way it was worded in OPs post made me think the opposite. That being said, even if there is such a thing as timing your cardio for perfect results, timing my cardio will always take a backseat to: sleep, family requirements, work requirements, time constraints. AKA, it's not happening.
Wait I should NOT do cardio after lifting even if I WANT to lose fat?
That seems likely too extreme... Lots of people have done that successfully. It is true that some scientific basis exists here: https://journals.lww.com/nsca-jscr/Abstract/2012/08000/Concurrent_Training___A_Meta_Analysis_Examining.35.aspx > The primary objective of this investigation was to identify which components of endurance training (e.g., modality, duration, frequency) are detrimental to resistance training outcomes. A meta-analysis of 21 studies was performed with a total of 422 effect sizes (ESs). Criteria for the study included were (a) compare strength training alone to strength plus endurance training (concurrent) or to compare combinations of concurrent training; (b) the outcome measures include at least one measure of strength, power, or hypertrophy; and (c) the data necessary to calculate ESs must be included or available. **The mean ES for hypertrophy for strength training was 1.23; for endurance training, it was 0.27; and for concurrent training, it was 0.85,** with strength and concurrent training being significantly greater than endurance training only. The mean ES for strength development for strength training was 1.76; for endurance training, it was 0.78; and for concurrent training, it was 1.44. Strength and concurrent training was significantly greater than endurance training. The mean ES for power development for strength training only was 0.91; for endurance training, it was 0.11; and for concurrent training, it was 0.55. Significant differences were found between all the 3 groups. For moderator variables, resistance training concurrently with running, but not cycling, resulted in significant decrements in both hypertrophy and strength. **Correlational analysis identified significant negative relationships between frequency (−0.26 to −0.35) and duration (−0.29 to −0.75) of endurance training for hypertrophy, strength, and power. Significant relationships (p < 0.05) between ES for decreased body fat and % maximal heart rate (r = −0.60) were also found.** Our results indicate that interference effects of endurance training are a factor of the modality, frequency, and duration of the endurance training selected. Later in the same article: > The mean overall ES for the changes in body fat mass for strength training was -0.62 (95% CI: -0.99, -0.25; n: 14); for endurance training, it was -0.75 (95% CI: -1.12, -0.37; n: 14), and for concurrent training, it was -0.95 (95% CI: -1.30, -0.58; n: 15) (Figure 1 and Table 5). Though it could be measurement error or due to variation in the studies, it does seem that concurrent training (both lifting and doing cardio) led on average to more loss of bodyfat in the available studies. In sum, he has a point that cardio near lifting can decrease some of the impact of the lifting (strength, power, and hypertrophy), but it could also help with bodyfat changes, and it does depend on how much cardio we are talking about. This is also all without considering the quite serious longterm health benefits that cardio can provide. I'd say that all else being equal, the cardio goes better on other days, but it's really not that high up my list of things to worry about when people are designing their programs. The linked article says 3+ hours before or 6+ hours after **if you have the choice**, which also strikes me as reasonable.
Yeah this one of those things that just seems like internet science... like all the jacked lean guys at that gym I see definitely do a quick run before they lift.
[deleted]
Unless you are a high-level powerlifter, training to compete in world's strongest man, or an Olympic strength athlete, you are not the target audience for #6. The benefits of cardio are massive. The only reason to even consider not doing it is if you are in a position where you need every last ounce of strength you can squeeze out.
It's ideal to space it out but doing cardio after lifting won't make a huge impact for someone mainly trying to lose weight. If you can't space them further apart keep the cardio.
[удалено]
>If you’re training for hypertrophy, you should consider doing your cardio before your lifting for two main reasons. First, you want to limit interference with the post-lifting anabolic pathways and second, you can probably still put in the volume needed to grow even if you’re a bit tired from cardio, since intensity is not nearly as much a factor with hypertrophy training as it is with strength training.
I've been cutting and doing some like cardio. Like 2 hours a week total on an exercise bike. Can that explain the drop in my strength? To be fair, I'm also cutting.
Probably more to do with your cutting since you are eating in a deficit. It's a common complaint I've seen and heard before.
He's saying if your number one goal is strength, power or muscle growth, don't do cardio right before or right after training. Do it on a different day or if you must on same day, many hours apart. Cardio is still good and beneficial for you, ESPECIALLY if you are massing.
I always do 15 minutes of light cardio before and after to get my body warm. Is that bad as well?
No that's totally fine. That's like literally nothing. Dr Mike is really referring to hour long+ cardio multiple times per week.
Dr Mike is fucking awesome. ( u/rp_mikeisraetel ) Genuinely got a lot of insightful info from his videos, I only wish there were more of them (although I imagine has a pile ready to post I particularly enjoyed the recent AMA too. It's also awesome that he was just like "been catching up watching clone wars, i've seen them all a millions times". In my head I was like *Dr Mike lifts and shit ton and watches clone wars! What a fucking boss!*
This looks awesome! I know what I'll be reading for the next couple of hours. Thanks for sharing this.
> Have been training for decades and are too beat up to lock out on certain moves... many would do it if they still could. Isn’t this evidence that locking out is bad for your knees in the long run? At every point he justifies his opinions by saying “well this is ok but you should actually do X Y Z for maximum growth.” But what about safety and long term preservation of health? I want to strike a balance where I get strong. I don’t want to sacrifice my safety or long term survival in the name of hypertrophy.
Lmao at all the armchair trainers asking for sources. This dude is a well respected Doctor.. Do you demand sources when your doctor tells you you're sick? Do you demand sources when Steven Hawking makes a claim about astrophysics?
Who on earth thinks #2?
A lot of people. The science/understanding in relation to fitness has changed a lot over the years.
I guess some people might not be at their best at the start of a workout, especially morning lifters, but the end? I might do a few curls or crunches at the end just for a pump really, not to push through to the next level.
Point 2: ''finishers'' ......... rest-paused sets, dropsets, partial reps, static holds at the end .... all waste of time?
He never said they were a waste of time at all, just that they're nothing super special... *In summary, finishers are cool and please by all means keep doing them. Just don't focus on them at the expense of ignoring the details of the rest of your workout, especially the stuff that likely matters most: progressing slowly but surely in volumes and intensities on the big main lifts that occur early in each of your sessions (or damn well should if you program correctly).*
Those are not finishers, just special techniques. Finishers are what you do at the end of your session.
So we should just continue our workout infinitely?
Help, Ive been at the gym for a week because I don't know what finisher to do!
Superman punch followed by a spear will suffice
ITT: personal beliefs and opinions.
For a Dr. in physical medicine, I find this paper HIGHLY lacking in any source material. How is this any better then some other doctor claiming the exact opposite? I need graphs, tables, and data dammit!
Dr Mike didn't compile this and it's not a paper. A reddit user did. Research and evidence is available on the RP website, facebook and in their official publications.
Would be handy if the user referenced where exactly he/she got each point from
> 3.Works the Stabilizers So there's no hope for improving balance?
The article goes on to say that "works the stabilizers" is useless for bodybuilding, but great for literally everything else.
Balance isn't necessarily a function of muscular strength.
Wouldn't stronger stabilizers or other support muscles be necessary, though? I've heard that it's common with (for lack of a better term) "normal" weight-lifting that if you only work the load-bearing muscles, you can end up with them being too strong compared to the stabilizers and other secondary muscles left behind. The context was in terms of injury (ie the load-bearing muscle overpowering the ability of the support muscles to do their jobs), but wouldn't that also affect the ability to stabilize during activity?