004 Training splits and exercise selection - 3 sets of 1 exercise or 1 set of 3 exercises?

And welcome back to another episode of high peritrophy, past and present. Thank you guys to joining us again. If it's your first time joining us and welcome. And today we have, as always, another topic we're going to talk about, which I'm excited for, I think this is going to be, it's going to connect into what we spoke about last week a little bit. So if you haven't listened to last week's episode, make sure you do, and we have a plan today to talk about, which a lot of the time people ask you what my favorite silver era plan is. And if I'm honest, I think this might be it. So I'm excited to jump into this one. This is this two. I'll be honest, this two that I really love. And a lot of time I actually trained by combining both of them. And I'm sure I'll talk about that sometime. But this is one of the definite highlights for me. Chris, welcome. Anything you want to jump in and say? No, I'm also excited to talk about this routine. As you say, it links wonderfully with the topic we covered last time because it's an absolute monster of a workout plan. And I think a lot of people might want to split it out over two days, which is what we talked about last time. But yeah, let's let's jump in and describe it, try and get our hands around it because it's a lot of, it's a lot of exercises. It's a big one. You guys might not sit down and really focus on this one. So it comes from Steve Reaves. I'm sure most of you will have heard of Steve. So obviously early Mister, Miss Universe winner. And this was published in the early 50s. Now what I like about this explain this in our first episode. That for me, I feel with everything I've seen, I feel fairly confident. That up until about 1954, at least in American bodybuilding, I don't think there's any really significant usage of antibiotics going on. So anything before that year 1954, I'm pretty confident with. And this was published before 1954. So this to me seems like a good silver area pre steroid era plan. And again, take a seat because it's a big one. The way that Steve I'll, I'll ease you guys into it. The way that he outlined this and he talked about it was he was full body and he trained each muscle. And for each muscle, he did multiple exercises. So he did three different exercises per muscle and he did one set of each exercise. And so he started with his upper body. And then he worked down to lower body. And he just did one set and he did repetitions of eight to 12. Now I actually think that's quite significant as well, eight to 12. Because obviously Steve was competing at the same time as Reg Park was and Greg obviously popularized some of the lower repetition stuff, you know, five. So example, he went down to twos with some exercises like bench. And eight to 12, you might look at that. And even today, you know, when we talk about things like, you know, you're stimulating a small people might think, why would you do eight to 12? Now for me, if I'm doing a full body program like this and you're doing one set for an instead of eight to 10 or 12. It requires a lot less warming up generally than if you're doing a set of five. So the interesting thing is, and this again ties in with what we were talking about last time is that if you are working in the high rep range, you're going to find that you're creating a lot more tabolite accumulation. Your lactate is going to be there. You're going to find you're depending so much more on your cardiovascular system. So everything we talked about last time in terms of the limitations of putting a full body workout together. If you want to do a lot of exercises or a lot of sets across the whole body in one session, you are going to find cardiovascular capacity is the limitation. Well, if you're doing sets of eight to 12, you can double that again. I mean, you're going to find it's even more problematic. So again, really, really interesting, you know, connecting these dots here. Yeah, yeah, and you know, something that a lot of these people state, and I think Steve even stated this in this particular workout is that there was this understanding that some people just did better with lower repetitions and some did better with slightly higher repetitions. And you know, often they're sort of talking that sort of, you know, five to 12 or kind of range. And I do wonder if it's, you know, what you're saying there just some people had better cardiovascular sort of fitness and so they are better suited to the higher repetitions potentially. Anyway, I feel like I'm teasing you guys. So the workout plan is started with the shoulders and he did one set of set up behind the neck barbell press. He went into a standing dumbbell lateral raise and then into a seated dumbbell front raise. So that was it for shoulder work. One set of each. He then moved into chest. So he did a wide grip barbell bench into an incline dumbbell press into a decline dumbbell fly. Then into back, we did set of bent over barbell grow with a pronated grip, a bent over one arm dumbbell grow, so like a neutral grip and then flat barbell pullover where he then went into biceps, where he did standing barbell curl incline curls with dumbbells and they seated dumbbell concentration kill. And then triceps, where he did a seated overhead dumbbell triceps extension with a singular and then incline triceps scar crusher and then a standing triceps cable press down using a bar. And then he did his lower body work. Now we'll mention he was, he was resting two minutes between each set and he was resting four minutes between each muscle. So that's an interesting note as well, especially in the context of the cardiovascular at a man. So for quads, he did a barbell squat with a with flat feet. He then did a barbell box squat and then he did a hack squat now a barbell hack squat. So some of you may not be familiar with this. We're kind of standing with it's it's almost like a combination of a deadlift squat almost where you got a barbell behind your back. So it's not on your shoulders. So that was his third quad exercise. And then for ham's includes he did a stiff leg deadlift, a seated barbell good morning. And then our horizontal back extension and then for calves, he did a bent knee car phrase. He explained that he did this on the leg press. So I'm not sure this was bent knee off of his straight leg. And then he did a seated car phrase, which would have been bent leg and then he did a standing car phrase, single leg at a time. And he did finish again, what I called last week is some of the more fluffy type exercises. He finished with two he did a sit ups crunches and hanging new raises for abs. And he did a little neck sort of super steady thing where he did assisted neck sort of push ups and push downs and side to sides. We had a workout partner providing resistance for his neck. So I don't know how long that workout took him. We could crunch some numbers quickly. I'm sure it was a 24 26 exercises with the abs in the neck. Two minutes between each. So that's what about an hour and 10 if you take your rest periods in the work time and then four minutes between each muscle eight muscles. So look, that's at least an hour and 45 minutes. Chris, what do you, what do you make of all that? It's crazy, isn't it? I mean, it's, it's absolutely mad. You know, I think I think most people today would be, you know, really struggling to make that work. I think there's, let me just run through a couple of quick observations that I made as you are going through just because they're in my mind at the moment. There may not be any particularly useful order, but these are the kind of observations I made going through from the beginning is starting with shoulders and the front raise. The front raise is not actually a adult exercise. It's actually a kind of clavicular peck exercise where the anterior helps. So, you know, again, there's some interesting exercise selection there. And that obviously wasn't, you know, kind of noticed or observed that it wasn't doing what he thought to do. On, on to the, the, the pressing is interesting that they're using a wide grip bench, you know, I think that's, that's one of those things that I think has sort of fallen out to favor with because powerlifting has tended to use a narrower grip. People tend to start adopting those type of benching techniques. The reality is that when you move from transverse plane to size to plane, it completely changes which part of the pecks are being used. Using a wide grip bench, you're definitely using all three parts of the peck, probably focusing mostly on the middle. If you bring it into the narrow grip, you're doing what most people think you're doing when you use an in-flight press. Most people are using in-flight press for clavicular peck. And like, honestly, you could just use narrow grip and it would be a lot better and more effective for targeting the region you think you're going to, you're trying to target. So, again, it's interesting that they have got that wide grip in there. It's a very telling point. That was quite a popular exercise at that point as well. A lot of, you know, rich park is being a wide grip, you know, definitely a popular variation. In terms of the back exercises, again, I repeat myself, but I'm always surprised when I don't see a wide grip pull-up or pull-down. You know, because here we've got a pronated grip bent over a rigid, I assume, as a relatively wide grip therefore transverse plane, so actually not a lat exercise at all. But then obviously the narrow bent over one arm row is almost certainly going to be sagittal plane, so that's kind of the sagittal there. Pull over is obviously sagittal plane, so I'm not really seeing frontal plane work. And if you look at the moment arms and the activation data, which incidentally I just did an infographic series on Friday, you can see that the frontal plane is actually a better choice. If you were just going to pick one plane to work the lat's in, you would go frontal plane because they have way better leverage, both regions upper and lower, have way better leverage in that plane. And you're going to get therefore more involvement of those muscles. You look at the size tool, you've got smaller moment arms in general, and the lower lat's don't really have any meaningful leverage to speak of. You kind of seeing the sagittal plane is very much an upper lat focused exercise, frontal is obviously more lower, but you do kind of get a big chunk of both. I'm always surprised when I don't see a frontal plane exercise in there, because it just feels like they're really leaving something. stimulus on the table. I think if you look at Steve's physique, I don't think you would say his latter was most developed part to be fair. It'll be interesting when we do look at some of the bodybuilders who should have more developed latter what we see them doing. Definitely, definitely. I didn't really have a lot to say about the arms work except I think one of the triceps exercises is listed here as being done supernated and I just wondered whether that was meaningful because there is some activation data suggesting for some unknown reason. The supination in triceps work does seem to create a little bit of an increased effect. So again, you know, maybe it's nothing, maybe it's coincidence, but again. They did commonly do that. They did do the, especially the skull crusher type exercise. I mean, they actually called it, I think they call it a triceps curl instead of a biceps curl. Okay, because that makes sense them because they're literally just mirroring the exercise, aren't they? Yeah. And so they are doing that with a supinelli grip. So that seems to be the more common way they were performing it. Because it's one of those things that there's just a little bit of activation data suggesting that there might be a benefit to doing that. Don't have any other information really to sit with that and kind of build a picture. But always, when we see things being done by bodybuilders pre-anabolic, then it's kind of like there's a high probability that they were noticing something meaningful. You know, whereas today you could just say, well, there's no possibility of noticing whether what you're doing is working. It's just like everything is growing and it's like, well, is that because the exercise selection or is that just because I've changed something in my stack? So I think those are the kind of interesting coincidences where you kind of say, well, actually no, it may be meaningful when somebody has chosen that particular exercise. And then really it's just interesting to note that now here in this program, in this workout plan, we've got a stiff leg deadlift. So in past podcasts, I've pointed out that there is a lack of deadlift variations in some of the early programs. And I always felt that was strange because it's like it's not difficult to set up a deadlift variation, you know, and even use blocks and other, you know, kind of means of changing the heights and those kind of things. So you've got a lot of flexibility over deadlift variations and it's not an equipment intensive exercise. So it's nice to see that here. But again, you know, there's a back extension, which is also very interesting. So, you know, one of the issues with deadlift variations is that, you know, you kind of have this necessity for quadriceps activation just to stand up. And so there's that potential for inhibition of the hamstrings and the electomagnus tends to take over. So if you've got a back extension, you don't have that. And so you've got that, you know, kind of possibility. But the fact that it's horizontal is even more interesting because that's really the first kind of incidence, really, well, arguably, you can kind of find glute work earlier than this. But, you know, this from the programs we've talked about, I think this is kind of the first real glute specific exercise that we've got. So those are just my random observations from listening to you walk through the program. You know, it's always just fascinating to trace through from, you know, kind of plan to plan what's changing, what's different. This is one of the latest, really. This is kind of like the very most advanced latest. I, you know, I'm not a historian of this like you are. I'm a little bit skeptical that there was no antibiotic usage prior to 1954. I think there's probably definitely a little bit going on because obviously it did kind of come out in the in the 40s. But, you know, I think, you know, as you say, probably not widespread. So, you know, the efficacy if it were being used would have been very low. And the doses that you would have needed to get any benefit would have caused severe liver toxicity at that point. One thing I'm interested here, a seeded by the good morning, what utility you're seeing in that exercise. So again, issue with, so obviously the good morning is programmed for the hamstrings. Primarily, really. The issue with any of these standing exercises is the problem that I mentioned a moment ago, which is that as soon as you put quadriceps activation into play, the hamstrings start to go well, maybe we shouldn't be used as the primary hip extensor in this situation because we're going to create any flexion force and the quadriceps trying to create the extension force and that then is inefficient. That's the whole idea behind this two joint muscle problem. So, maybe the seeded variation is a way of taking that quadriceps activation down a notch. I don't know. You know, that would be one possible scenario or one possible explanation of why that is chosen. It could be, I mean, the other thing that I think overall as a program, I mean, I've already mentioned I think it's a bit mad in terms of the kind of the workout volume. I certainly would never have done this even, you know, at my fittest, you know, kind of 15, 20 years ago now. But I would probably have to divide this into two. But even though you're talking about doing sets of, you know, eight to 12, so you're kind of limiting how much you're putting on the barbell, I can't really imagine doing all of that upper body workout and then loading the barbell up to do squats. Yeah, I just can't visualize doing that. I honestly couldn't do that. I would have to do a leg press or something that didn't involve me, you know, kind of warming up to do a set because even even eight reps, eight to 12 repetitions, I'm going to have so much on the bar at that point that it's going to take me 15 minutes to warm up, you know, and I've just done like what looks like a brutal upper body workout before that. So I think it's, it's really interesting just to put ourselves in the shoes of these guys and go, this was, this was a mission. This was, this was seriously hard work. And like your quick arithmetic earlier, it's like over an hour and a half of, of, of, you know, relatively short rest periods. I think this, the cardiovascular capacity of these guys was doing very, very high. And they must have got to this point over a period of years, I think, or at least had a history of other physical activity that permitted them to do this. So I don't think it's, again, I think this is a really nice, continuous one we talked about last time, which is that, you know, cardiovascular capacity really does limit how much your full body sessions can be. But again, even with that in mind, loading barbells up to do lower body work after an entire upper body workout is, is challenging mentally, I think. So what I love about this plan personally is what it seems to me, like he's doing, is trying to pick as many exercises, or I guess maybe as few exercises as a needed for that muscle to, to really stimulate as much of that muscle as possible, right? And I think with what we have available to us today, with machines and with cables, we could do that using a lot more, you know, single join exercises, we could do it with a lot less need to load barbells, we could do it, you know, a lot more conveniently, and we could select exercises that are using less load. And so that, again, you know, less warming up, it will just be easy to set it up. So I think there's, there's that potential to modify it. And then the second thing I think is some of the, like he's obviously had a system he was following, you know, three exercises per muscle, okay, it's neat, I get that. But I do think if we look at it, there's some exercises that aren't necessarily needed, you know, we look at the calf stuff and there's two exercises there that are doing very similar things, you know, we look at, you know, arguably even the quads, the all squat patterns, you know, arguably there's a bit of overlap there. So I think for me looking at it, we could probably condense it down largely to maybe two exercises per muscle using machines using cables. And that to me seems like a feasible plan to people who have a decent cardiovascular fitness could follow today. Oh, absolutely. And that's a great point. You know, I think this, this idea of, you know, instead of saying, let's do three sets of, you know, one exercise, you know, do sort of one set of three exercises or two sets of two exercises or whatever. You know, I think those, those are really interesting kind of concepts. And again, you're two points that you made, I totally agree with. I mean, if you were to go through this and replace, you know, everything that you can with a machine exercise, and so I've got this size to play in row, I've got, you know, wide grip row I can do on the same machine and I've got a lap pull down right next to it. You know, and I've got, you know, sort of a chest fly that I can immediately switch around and then do a reverse, you know, pack deck of a re-adult fly on that same machine. You know, I think again, suddenly you're changing the situation completely. So yeah, I agree. I mean, I think the machine access changes everything in terms of the difficulty of sort of setting things up. And I'm big chunk of the cardiovascular as well. You know, I just say with leg press versus the squat. And then as you say, there's so much redundancy in here. I mean, like, the carvers are great examples. Like, what are you doing? I mean, like, why do you need to two totally different, you know, sort of calf raise exercises with that with an extended knee? Or you got to that point and he's like, well, obviously, I'm doing this every other muscle exercise. Exactly. That's the point. It's like, because I've got my system working with three of three of three, it's like, I have to do that. So well, not really. But yeah, I think if you were to sort of really condense this down to say 16 exercises and so 24, move everything across the machines. And now you're doing, you know, a single set of six, a single set on 16 exercises. Then yeah, absolutely is that is definitely doable. I mean, I think that's, I mean, that's as you pointed out when we were talking before, you know, if you start thinking about that in terms of, like, well, could you do, you know, five exercises for three sets each? Well, for me, that's topic. That's that's absolutely my top end. But yeah, you could. And so yeah, you can do 15 exercises, 16 exercises for one set each. Yeah, that starts to make a lot more sense. It's a really cool way, as you say, having that sort of exercise variety to make sure you've got all of the muscle, not just, you know, the bits that aren't necessary for the joint actions that you're training in the exercises that you've selected. Yeah. And what you said there, that's basically exactly how I use this type of plan in my self, is I do about 15, 16 exercises, one set of each, and I tend to condense it down to essentially two exercises per muscle, but I tend to have one of those exercises often will also train another muscle, so you tend to still get that two to three sets per muscle anyway. And obviously, like we spoke about last week, another alternative would actually just be splitting this up. And you could just take the workout as is and say, okay, I'm going to do half of it in the morning. I'm going to half of the afternoon. And if you aren't familiar with that, we did do a whole podcast episode, episode two on that, so go back and listen to that. Now I don't know if you want to segue into this, but one thing I do want to know here, obviously these are single sets. And there is a difference because people talk about single set systems a lot online. It's it's got a lot of attention lately. And there's a lot of criticism around single sets, and you know, people saying our single sets and only as effective as multiple sets, and you know, people shouldn't be doing single sets or whatever. And I think that there's this sort of, I guess, overlooking of this single sets per muscle, but then there's single sets per exercise. And a system like this is using single sets per exercise, but it's not doing single sets per muscle, is it, is doing three sets per muscle. And so a lot of that criticism where people saying don't do single sets or single sets are less effective than multi sets, well, obviously we're talking about per muscle. And that's, that just doesn't feel like a fair criticism against the workout plan like this. So I just wanted to differentiate that because that's a rhetoric that we're seeing a lot online in the money. Yeah. And even so, even though, you know, even though it's true that multiple sets will produce more growth than single sets, the incremental difference is not proportional to the number of sets. I mean, you don't, you don't get double the hypertrophy by doing two sets compared to one set. I mean, it's absolutely nowhere near that. I mean, it's probably something like another sort of 40% on top of what you've done. You know, the first, the second set is probably about 40% as stimulating as the first. Or maybe depending on the dose response model you want to use, but it's certainly not, you know, kind of saying that, oh, I don't do two sets, therefore I've got twice the type of, nowhere near that, you know, and it carries on getting worse. And by the time you're up to three, four, five, I'll certainly four, five, six sets. I mean, the increments are so tiny that you kind of just saying, well, I'm creating all of this post-workout fatigue, which is going to cause me problems in my recovery and also affect other workouts that I want to do later in the week. So, you know, I think it is that misunderstanding of what, how much stimulus we can get or how much extra stimulus we can get from those multiple set protocols. Yeah, is anything else you want to comment on on this program or should we move on and jump into our next topic? I think we can segue naturally actually from the last point that you made, which is this idea of having multiple exercises for a muscle group. So, one of the questions I see a lot is, is it better to do, you know, just to kind of phrase the question in a common way. I mean, this is kind of just the way that it's often phrased. Would it be better to do one exercise and then do three sets of that exercise? Or would it be better to do, you know, sort of three separate exercises for more or less the same muscle group and do one set, you know, on each of those exercises. So, it's like, you know, one set each of three exercises or one exercise for three sets. Now, basically, what we have to start with is the understanding that hypertrophy and also atrophy are muscle fibres specific. Now, if I literally just said that and nothing else for the rest of my time in the fitness industry, it would be worth, it would be worth it because it's the single thing that everybody else gets wrong and everybody else. But like, you know, the vast majority of the fitness industry talk about training muscles and you can't do that. There's no such thing as training a muscle. You can only train muscle fibres. You train some of the muscle fibres in a muscle and the other muscle fibres if they're not trained. They just won't even know that it happened. So, it's very, very important and people really, really struggle with this. Not just, you know, like as a concept, like some people will literally outright reject it and go, "Oh, no, we think that if you're training one part to the muscle, the other part magically gets a stimulus, much physiology just doesn't work like that." But even with people who don't reject it out of hand, you still see people programming as if it's not. And that's the really interesting thing because what you're seeing there is that their mental model, which maybe they don't even know what it is, but their mental model of how hypertrophy works is not the model that they would derive if they worked through the physiology step by step. And ultimately, that's the only difference between what I'm doing and what a lot of other people are doing is that I'm trying to start with a physiology and say, "If this physiology is true, which we think it is, then what does that mean for programming implications?" You know, I'm not just kind of, you know, kind of programming the way I want to and then trying to make that fit with physiology, we know. So ultimately, you know, if we accept that hypertrophy and atrophy are both fiber-specific, then we look at different exercises and we've got this principle of neuro-mechanical matching which tells us that the brain or the central nervous system to be more accurate actually sends central motor command to the places that are going to be most efficient for doing the movement. And so what you find is that different regions within a muscle, if a muscle has a large segment of regions, especially like, for example, that's a great example, as I said, posted on this on Friday. So if you've got a muscle which has very clear regions, you can easily see that there are differences in leverage, which is what a principle of neuro-mechanical matching uses to decide where to send activation. And you've got, therefore, differences in activation. And so when we look at literature and we see differences in leverage and also differences in activation that match those differences in leverage, what I mean by that is if you look at the leverages for the lats, for example, you'll see that the upper lat, the thoracic lat, has really good leverage for sagittal plane pulling, the narrow grip rows, narrow grip rounds. It doesn't have quite so good leverage at all for frontal plane wide grip pulldowns, which is what I was talking about earlier. Now contrast, the lumbar middle or middle to lower lat is the opposite. It has very much poorer leverage in the sagittal plane, has great leverage in the frontal plane. So then we look at activation data, we see exactly the same thing happening. We see that the upper region of the lats, the thoracic area tends to be more activated in the sagittal plane pulling whereas the lower region tends to be more activated or middle and lower tends to be more activated in that frontal plane. So you can see the two things are matching out. Now what does that mean? What it means is that the central nervous system is choosing the areas that have the best leverage and therefore can produce the highest joint talks for the lowest levels of muscle activation in order to accomplish the movement. So what happens is you end up with a region being maximally activated. For example, I do a wide grip pulldown, the lower part, middle and lower part of the lat is going to be maximally activated. The upper part will therefore be kind of delayed. If you're going at the minimum size principle, it will be pushed higher and higher and higher at the ranking. It will go, well, we don't want that area to be activated. So we'll kind of kick in later and the minimum size principle basically sits inside of, you know, we're kind of matching. Some people really struggle with the way that those two things work together. All you have to go is, all you have to do is to say, well, the brain has a number of options, or the central nervous system has a number of options available to it to do a movement. So you can say, well, okay, what it does is it chooses to start sending activation to the regions that have the best leverage first. And then what's going to happen is, Hennemann's size principle is followed inside that region, no problem. And then what it does, okay, well, now we've started to get to the point where that region is starting to max out, where we start using some of the other region. And that's the point where things start to break down for people because they will go, okay, well, why doesn't the brain just carry on activating all of the upper region after it's activated, all the lower region in that wide grip pulldown. So I'm doing a wide grip pulldown. My lower region of the lat has the best leverage, so the best highest activation. And so the central nervous system starts to turn the activation to that area. And then when it's done with that, why doesn't the central nervous system carry on and activate all of the upper region as well? Because it has some leverage, so why doesn't it use all of that? And that's the bit that catches people out, I think, when they start to think about how new mechanical matching works, how exercise works because they don't realise that the brain actually has a limit on how much central motor command it can create because of the maximum tolerable perception of effort. So if we're doing a movement, then we're going to have a what's called a volventure activation deficit. We can't actually activate the entirety of the muscle, we won't let us do that because it's too painful. The brain has a limit on how much central motor command it can generate because it has a perception of effort that is generated every time we create a central motor command. So there's a deficit. Where does that deficit happen in a Y-Gut pull-down? When it happens in the upper region, which is the area that has the worst average. So if you have a muscle with a volventure activation deficit and every muscle bigger than the elbow flexor complex does, then what's going to happen is the area that has the worst leverage out to the options that you've got available will be a bit that actually has the biggest deficit and you don't activate those fibers. So I realised that was a very long explanation, but what that means in practice is that if you are doing an exercise and one area of the muscle, one of the muscles involved has great leverage and another has poor leverage, then the muscle that has the poor leverage or the region of the muscle that has the poor leverage will not have all of its muscle fibers activated. That's just how this works. That means that because those fibers are not activated, they are not trained because I perched for an atrophy of both muscle fibers specific. So ultimately that means that the area that you're doing in that particular exercise that has that weak leverage is not being trained by that particular exercise. So we are going to find that exercises half, so if I look at the one grip pull down versus the narrow grip row again, if we have those two exercises and we compare them, there's going to be a group of muscle fibers that are used in both exercises and there's going to be a group of muscle fibers that are unique to the one grip pull down and there's going to be a group of muscle fibers that are unique to the search for plane, narrow grip, row, or narrow grip pull down. And that is just how this model is working. There's a lot you covered there. So I just want to highlight a couple of those things that maybe simplify them in case we've missed anyone. So you've explained there basically how our drain central nervous system is ultimately going to decide which muscle to use, right? And it's based on these leverages. And this is essentially the principal of neurochemical matching. Now what you said towards the end there, so you said that any muscle that's larger than the elbow flexes, there's going to be a natural deficit there where we can't activate the entirety of that muscle. I think that's a really key thing because that's happening essentially the same thing that's causing that to happen is why we're seeing this deficit in particular muscles and muscle regions in particular exercises, right? So what you said in that statement is we don't we simply don't produce enough central modic man to actually fully activate a muscle most of the time, right? Exactly. And I think that this comes back to another problem that a lot of people have in the in this space, which is that they think that muscular failure is reached when essentially every single muscle fiber has been activated. And that's just not true. There are voluntary activation deficits, even in maximal effort, voluntary maximal voluntary isometric contractions with maximal efforts. We still see a deficit of activation compared to what could be achieved theoretically or through testing. So we know that that deficit exists. Now, why does that deficit exist? Well, they exist because we don't reach failure when every single muscle fiber is activated, you reach failure when we reach our maximum tolerable perception of effort is the effort perception that stops us going any higher. And so again, it's one of these areas where it's important to appreciate all of the key areas of physiology because they're all impact on each other and this is a really, really good example of that. Yeah. Yeah. So theoretically, if there was a way that someone that one could continue to increase central motor command, then you have an exercise like the lap pull down front of playing lap pull down. So you're saying in that situation, we could actually see if the essential motor command was not the limitation, okay, you could actually maximally activate both up and lower lads or up and middle lads. And that would sort of that would be it. That would be the exercise that would do everything for the whole lads. But we're never going to get to that point because we had this limitation in available central motor command. Exactly. And the larger the muscle, the harder it is or the larger the muscle mass involved in the exercise is probably a more accurate way of describing it. So if you're doing an exercise and the central node system recognizes that you have all of these possibilities and there's a lot of possibilities and a lot of muscle mass could be involved. Now you're going to have a bigger deficit. So ultimately, the more muscle mass that can be involved, the more of a deficit you're going to have. And again, that then ties into the exercise selection choices that we might sort of go through where we sort of maybe have to make compromises with exercises that have more muscle mass like presses and you know, pulls and you know, kind of squats and deadlifts compared with single joint stuff. But basically, yeah, if you've got a lot of muscle mass being used or potentially could be used because it all has leverage, then you can have a bigger deficit. So the fact that someone can get, so you say you have a bilateral exercise and you perform a unilaterally and you know that you can perform more than 50% of that load unilaterally because there's more central motor command going to less muscle mass. The fact that we know that that happens, that like that effectively settles the debate on, on the lats or on whether you can maximally activate a muscle or whatever, like that tells us because that happens. It tells us that there's always going to be a limitation then. Well, exactly. I mean, it's not just the bilateral for deficit. I mean, the bilateral for deficit, I think, is the very best proof of this. And it's one of those wonderful things that people can literally just do in their own gym at home or in a facility to prove to themselves, you know, we talked about this many times, you know, over the years, you can do a, you know, sort of a bilateral exercise and then put, you know, if you're doing using two dumbbells, you put one dumbbell down and generally you're going to get another rep with the remaining limb that you're still using. There's a lot of examples like that, but bilateral for deficit is great. Maximum voluntary contractions also show deficits and those deficits increase with increasing muscle size. So if you look at elbow flexes, the deficit's really tiny, a couple of percent, look at quads and glutes, you're looking at sort of 15, 20% deficit, which is enormous. You can actually do a look at as a series of studies that have been done that also make this point in a slightly different way, which is that. Essentially, if you're doing a fixed duration of exercise, high intensity exercise, then you'll reach task failure at a certain point. Now, the amount of peripheral fatigue that you can generate at that point of task failure is a really good proxy for how high your recruitment was when you reach task failure, because if your recruitment is really high, using a lot of fast-reached fibres generating auto metabolites, you're going to see a lot of peripheral fatigue. So you can literally, and I'm actually sketch this out across the studies, there's three or four studies that have been done and they've compared things like, you know, single limb versus two limb or multi-joint versus, you know, single joint or upper body exercise versus lower body. And you just see that they've got different amounts of exercise, sorry, different amounts of muscle mass in each of the two exercise conditions. And you can just literally draw a straight line across the entire set of studies, which shows you that the more muscle mass you've got, the less peripheral fatigue you're going to see at muscular failure. So when you get to the really kind of single joint, single limb upper body exercise, then you generate absolutely crazy amounts of metabolite related fatigue in the muscle at fast failure. So it's not just about, you know, oh, look, we've got the bilateral force deficit. Therefore, we're going to extrapolate from that. No, no, no, no, we're not doing that. We're saying that you've got it in maximum voluntary contractions, and it scales with muscle mass in those situations and full interaction deficits recorded with interpolated twitch. You've got the same thing happening in bilateral force deficit. And you've got the same thing happening again in the fatigue literature, where you start to track peripheral fatigue at fast failure with different amounts of muscle mass in the exercise. So I'm kind of trying to belabor the point a little bit here to sort of show that this is not extrapolation from a single point in literature. This is a collection of multiple different investigations with totally different methodologies that all get to the same answer. So if we go back to the plan that I introduced in the Saturday's episode, where Steve was doing, there was, he split into eight, eight muscles, and he was doing three exercises, one set of each. And the alternative to that would be, say, eight muscles, so one exercise of each and doing three sets of that one exercise. So if the question was, well, which is going to produce better results, or which is going to be better for, you know, building, I guess the highest potential of muscle mass, okay? Not necessarily quickest, whatever, but in a high sort of total potential. Then based off what you're saying there, then obviously having multiple exercises at one set, each, you said that there's going to be some muscle fibers in each of those exercises where there's going to be overlap. And so they're going to be getting an estimate in each of those exercises, potentially. And then there's going to be some fibers where they're going to get an estimate less in potentially one of those exercises and not in the other two. So how would that play out in in practical terms? Like if we have a bodybuilder who's doing this, is, are you going to see notable difference? Like what, what outcome would we see by having some fibers that are going to assume less than one of these exercises and non the others compared to the multiple sets of one exercise? What's that even mean? So essentially, if we were to do a full body program and just pick one exercise for a muscle like we said earlier, if I was going to be forced to choose a single Latin exercise, it would be a wide grip pull down or wide grip pull up. If you literally just do that for two or three sets every time you do your sort of training sessions, then obviously a rate of growth will be, I would say, pretty much as fast as you can possibly make it in the muscle fibers. Those that are being trained. So you get very rapid growth in those muscle fibers, but it's almost impossible, if not impossible, to train every single muscle fiber in the thoracic region using a wide grip pull down or pull up. So basically, it's like you're just ignoring those muscle fibers forever. They just never get touched. And so what happens is you get very rapid rate of growth, but you don't really maximize your muscular potential. That's how I would describe that. Yeah. In contrast, if you were to do say wide grip pull up, and I'm just going to follow Steve Reeves's kind of for that and use three different exercises. I'm not saying this is the right three. So if you do wide grip, kind of pull up or pull down and then narrow it row and then pull over, kind of more or less what he has with a bit of a change there. So you have to kind of focus on that and you do three separate exercises. What would happen is that you would get the same rate of growth for the muscle fibers that are continuous across three exercises, which is however, whatever percent, you know, 60, 70 percent, whatever. So you're getting that same rate. So it's not going to be like the same as doing three sets of, you know, that pull down, but it's going to be approaching that point. But then what's happened is you've now, so you've got three sets of that stimulus. You've also now got one set stimulus on the muscle fibers that are not continuous across the three. So essentially what you've then done is you've got your kind of sort of you 78% as sort of continuous fibers, which are going to get that same sort of rate of growth. But then on top of that, you've now got a slower rate of growth with one set per session, which is actually still perfectly valid. And it's going to be giving you a higher maximum muscular potential. So it's a really, really different scenario that we're describing. So what I would expect is that it would, it would basically lift the ceiling. I mean, I'm not sure how much difference you would see in terms of rate of growth across the whole that, I mean, it might be sort of similar ish. But you are definitively raising the ceiling on how high you can go in terms of muscular potential if you use a wide of a right to it. So I mean, it's just basic neuro mechanic matching observations. You know, and I kind of, I did make the point earlier, but let me just make it again because I I think it's super important. If we have an exercise which is training, for example, like the wide grip pulldowns, training predominantly lower latin, some of them as far as in the upper lat, there will be fibres that are not activated in the upper lat. And you can't train those, you can't grow them, they're just ignoring the stimulus. And this then has really huge problematic implications for programs that don't have a higher frequency. So if we're looking at a full body split like we're talking about, then actually, you could either do it the way that Steve did it with three exercises in one session, or if you want to, you could do what we've talked about for, which is full body ab split, where you have workout A, and then maybe say Monday, Wednesday, Friday, I've workout A, and then workout B on Wednesday, and then you go back to workout A on Friday. Following week, you start with workout B on the Monday, so, and then A on Wednesday and B on Friday. So you have A, B, A, and then the following week, B, A, B, you just alternating with your workouts. In that scenario, essentially, you kind of end up with a sort of some muscle fibres get a stimulus. Say, for example, you're alternating wide grip pull downs and narrow grip blows. A, workout is wide grip pull down, B, workout is narrow grip rune. You're just doing that instead of what we've been talking about. In that scenario, you would have a sort of three times a week stimulus for the 70% fibres that are continuous between the two regions, and you'd have a one and a half times a week stimulus for the fibres that we're not continuous. So it's exactly the same concept. You can make that work. What you can't make work is if you now have only two upper sessions a week. So if you're doing an upper lower split, and you're doing two upper body workouts a week, you can't now have those two separate exercises on different days and make it work. What's going to happen is that you're only now training your continuous muscle fibres that are the same and activated in the two different exercises. So like as the same, maybe 78%, you train those in the wide grip pull down, the same fibres get trained in an area. Row, anything on top of that that's trained uniquely in the two exercises, just attributes from one week to the next, because you're literally just doing one workout a week for those fibres. And unless you're pushing five sets plus, it's just toppy, even in an upper lower context, you're not going to be able to make those fibres grow from week to week. And I think ultimately that's where this exercise selection problem is being felt as a pain point in the industry at the moment. We're making this observation about how neuromacanconmetching works, how muscle fibres are activated, how hypertrophies muscle fibres are specific, and we're pointing out that means you can't do AB formats in upper lower splits. The only format that works for upper lower splits is AA. You have to do the same exercises both times. You can't do a different exercise in different sessions, it literally cannot possibly work physiologically. Maintenance, it just shows us that you have to do more than three or four sets, so probably five sets, four that set of muscle fibres once a week. So if your exercise is not training, the same muscle fibres as your other chosen exercise, which you can't possibly do, then you're going to have some fibres that you're training and then just letting kind of atrophy, which seems like a tremendous waste of time and energy. This is really important. I want to just repeat some of this, because I think if people can take this away, I think it'll change the way people program completely. And it's something that I see a mistake people make all the time. So we're talking, there's two splits you've drawn up there. We've talked about full body AB, and you've talked about upper lower, done four times per week. And I love full body AB. So in fact, there's even take a step back for a moment. The alternative to that would be full body ABC. And so by that, we just made a different workout plan each day, right? I personally think full body ABC makes no sense. I struggle to see a time where that is a worthwhile split to use. I do not use it. Unless I say this, if you understand by mechanics well enough, you understand your mechanical matching well enough, you could select exercises that are going to have similar enough overlap, where if you just wanted variety for the sake of variety, it's so basically you just be kind of changing the machine or changing the kind of implementing or using, but fundamentally the biomechanics behind that. It's the same exercise. It just looks different on a picture, yeah. It looks different on paper, and I use our technique with clients because it does, some people find them more motivating, right? So some people might be listening to this and be like, held up, I've seen your plan, and I've seen you do this. Well, if you look at the exercise selection, that's what I'm doing. It's kind of like, yeah, it's a dumbbell curl, or it's a barbell curl, it's like, it's the same thing. Exactly, exactly. So you've mentioned AB, and so the benefit with this AB split is roughly what, once every five days or so, the exercise is getting trained. So this is a bit of one to go slow with. So every five days is significantly different to every seven days. So if we're doing an upper lower four sessions per week, you've got an upper body one day, you've got an upper body two day, and they have different exercises on those two days. Obviously it's seven days before that exercise is being trained again. For people listening, being like, hold up. Why is AB so much better than an upper lower? Why is five days and seven days? Why are we saying that that's so important? So basically, if you're doing a single set of an exercise, so like we're still sticking with this, Steve Reeves idea of doing one set per exercise and doing a couple of different exercises for a muscle group, then you have unique fibers that are only getting a single set of stimulus. Basically, if you're doing AB, sorry, yeah, AB in the context of four body training, so you're doing AB, and then BAB, then basically you're training on Monday, and then you've got Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, and Friday. So yeah, four days or five days. So it's four days if you're Monday to Friday, it's five days if you're Wednesday to Monday. So alternating, that's gonna happen. If you've got four days, then you are gonna arrive at your next session with some hypertrophy net of the atrophy from the one set that you did. So you get from Monday to Friday and you've got some hypertrophy net. If you go Wednesday to Monday, you're actually kind of end up on maintenance exactly at that day. So essentially what happens is you can literally just about make progress with that over time. It's the literal bare minimum, I think that you can do to make work. Now, I really, having said that, I really love that program. Like you say, a four body AB is fantastic. For somebody who's already developed a large chunk of muscle mass, doesn't really have a lot of capacity to move forwards, but wants to maintain, you know, absolutely everything, absolutely everything, because the coverage you get with four body AB is insane. You know, you just literally do everything you want to do, and there's just no demand on the system at all, because you've got your variety, like a Steve Reef type program, but you've split it out over two totally different workouts. So you can bring things back to a handful of exercises, like eight or nine exercises, single sets, and you actually really well covered. So yeah, basically what we're saying is that four body AB is gonna allow you to either be on maintenance between sessions or actually growth between sessions, which is the point. If you push that further than five days, it starts to get to a very difficult point, where you start to lose that growth stimulus that you've previously established, and so you end up at the next session without the hypertrophy that you've actually achieved. So ultimately pushing further than five days, five days kind of where you're gonna hit maintenance with one set, pushing further than five days, you end up in a scenario where you're losing everything that you've made unless, as I say, you're doing five sets, four or five sets, you're gonna find that you can do that, but that is top of all you really, and if you're trying to do a variety of exercises, you're not gonna be able to do five sets. And it's just so inefficient. Like if you sit down and because you're obviously, you've talked about how it can be hard to fit all these exercises in, right? We've talked about 24 exercises and Steve's plan, maybe it made it seem like five sets each. Exactly, like if you think about it, 'cause I, my starting point with everyone is I say, start by thinking about all the exercises you need, right? And then work out what split you're gonna use. If you only need 10 exercises to adequately train whatever you wanna train, you can do that all in one session. I think you should repeat that for people, because honestly, this is a key element of the programming section of the mentorship course that I've been doing for years, which is you start with the contents of the program. You do not start with the split. You start with the contents of the program. So you decide what, say like I often teach athletic programming. So I say decide what the athlete is gonna need in terms of the exercises and the stimuli. You've decided what those things need to be. Having decided what those things need to be. Now arrange them in a split that works. If you start with a split, like so many people ask me questions on Instagram, they're starting their programming journey with I wanna do this split. And like, well, you've just now constrained the options that you've got available to you. And you may find that your choices of exercise selection don't fit the split that you've already identified. Start with the contents and then split it up. I mean, that's kind of what split means, doesn't it? It's like, what are you splitting if you haven't got something to split up? How are you even splitting it? You're splitting nothing, it doesn't exist. It's like, honestly, it's terminology tells you what the answer is before you can start. You can't split something up that isn't there, you know? So you start with the contents. You know, so important point. Start with the things that you wanna do. And then you split them up. Exactly, exactly. And then figure out what I was going with that point. But what I do wanna say with that is, yes. So with all the exercises you decide you need, then decide whether that's too many to do in one session or not. If it's too many, do AB, however you wanna do that, do up alone in the morning evening, whatever. And then what I would say is if that session has more cardiovascular capacity, you feel like you've got more time or whatever in that session, you can add another set, right? You can do a second set or third set, whatever. So that ultimately I think is a foundation of how someone should be starting. And that's what I wanted to say in terms of efficiency. So if you've got the, let's say, 15 exercises you want to do, you can get that stimulus, like you've set as long as an exercise is being trained by one set every four to five days, we're going to see enough over time that you're going to build. But suddenly you do this once a week, you now need a jamph realistically, probably five sets into that. So if you're now looking at your weekly volume, just in terms of work, you need to get done to get anywhere to move forwards. You now need to use a hell of a lot more work, just to grow muscle, then if you just use a different split, you're actually using that exercise every four to five days instead. It just, like for me, when I run out of plans, I just can't justify doing that. Because I'm wasting so many sets just to make up for my mistake of not doing that exercise a couple days earlier. And just doesn't make sense. No, it doesn't make any sense to, and I think, you know, it's so cool that we have this documentation of how solver-era bodybuilders were doing this, you know, they identified this problem. They fixed this problem. They didn't have the confusing, confounding effect of antibiotics, making it almost impossible to tell whether what they were doing was working or not. And so they came to the same conclusions, you know. And I just, every time we talk about this stuff, it's such a great reminder that the physiology which allows us to derive essentially the same answers is so, so continuous with what these guys were doing. You know, the only reason that the fitness industry is running around with ideas that are completely opposing to this is because of antibiotics. The antibiotics came in and now suddenly nobody knows how to train anymore because you've got a stimulus which creates probably, you know, at least as much growth as a beginner would get and probably substantially more than the advanced trainer can get from strength training. So you just completely obliterate any ability to perceive what's happening. But, you know, if we return to the physiology, we get a model that tells us how training should work and then you kind of end up in this exact same place as these guys got two through trial and error. It's just such an amazing, you know, kind of, confluence of observations. I wouldn't make one more point about the splits and then I'll stop going on about it. But I do think this is such an important point for people to get. And in terms of the upper lower, I think this, I still use upper lower splits, but I think people often think to themselves, an upper lower will be a better split for someone who's advanced because it allows you to isolate just upper body or lower body on a particular workout. And so people think you can get more variety by doing that because you're not having to dilute that session amongst, you know, the full body. And to go back to what you've been saying, it doesn't allow you to do that. If anything, well, well, it is. It's less, it's, it's more limiting than doing a full body because if you are doing upper lower, upper lower, which to me, I think is a good intermediate plan, but no good advanced plan because it means you're limited by how many exercises you can still do on, well, on one of those sessions because ultimately you need to repeat it again. You don't get the benefit of having two unique sessions. So it's no different really to doing full body AB or you're getting less benefit than if you're doing full body AB because you don't get to say, well, I'm going to do eight exercises for my upper one. And I'm going to do eight exercises for my upper two and I get 16 exercises across the week. You don't get that benefit because you get a whole week between them. So you're actually better off if you're on advanced lift and you need more variety, you're way better off doing something like a full body AB split than trying to make it work with an upper lower full times per week. Basically, and we have to remember that the maintenance literature is all done in, you know, sort of people with only sort of three to six months of training experience. It's not done with people with years of kind of muscle mass. And the interesting thing is if you look at the physiological underpinnings of that, atrophy as it occurs is non-linear. It happens faster than the more muscle mass you have. So the bigger muscle fiber is, the faster it can start shrinking when you do it, when you cease to load it regularly, and you've got load to data like that and I'll do a kind of a Friday post on that soon. I've got an amazing series of graphs showing the kind of non-linear graphs with most rapid atrophy occurring immediately after the end of a stimulus period. So we know that the more muscle mass somebody has, the more muscle fiber, the larger the muscle fibers that they have, the faster the atrophy is going to happen. So you're going to find that the advanced lifter, if you think about the net stimulus across a week, being atrophy deducted from the hypertrophy. Obviously everybody knows that the advanced lifter is going to be increasing muscle fiber size by tiny, tiny, tiny percentages, you know, almost insignificantly in, you know, sort of that nature. But the atrophy is going to be greater. So you've got a situation where we know physiologically that the advanced person is going to be getting less hypertrophy with each workout and greater atrophy between workouts. So you know, that thing is this perception that people believe, I don't know why, maybe just again, the confusion effective antibiotics, that, you know, people who have achieved a larger muscle size can somehow preserve that without training. Physiologically, the opposite is probably the case, almost certainly the case because hypertrophy is definitely going to be less than I don't think anybody disagrees on that particular point. But atrophy is going to be faster, and if you don't think atrophy is going to be faster because you haven't looked at the data, then okay, it's going to be the same, you know. But ultimately, you're going to find that the balance is different. So what we would expect is that the more well trained you are, the more frequency is going to play a role, you know. So yes, I just want to reinforce what you said a moment ago, which is that upper lower is a horrible split for an advanced person, it really is. The only reason that, you know, recent bodybuilders have kind of managed to get away with that is the pharmaceutical sport. I think that anybody who's trying to do this without that is going to need to use a full body. And as I say, eventually gravitate towards full body AB because that's what gives you the maximum possible variety. We're still maintaining that. That's stimulus across the week, unless there's someone I Steve who can do your 24 hours. Unless there's just debriefs and you can do a billion exercises in one session in the training for two hours, and it's a little late, you know, even breathing hard when you're taking two minutes rest for two minutes. It's quartz. Yeah, okay. So I started playing with full body, no, not full body, with upper lower. So upper lower six times a week, basically splitting the full body out in two days, yeah. Yeah. And I started writing out some of those plans and it was like a size relief because every time I have to write an upper lower plan, I just feel so straight in here. And when I started doing this, I was like, oh my god, I can do upper one. I can do an upper two like it was just like, oh my god, this works now. But the basic is writing a serious program and splitting it off. I mean, that's, yeah, yeah. Now we covered a lot in this. I just want to do like a little TLDR, if you got to the end, you're like, well, maybe skip to this point, I don't know, but there's a few key points I think we covered. And you know, ultimately, you ever think about some of these points as well, but ultimately we did talk about, are you going to get more bang for your back out of doing three sets of one exercise, one set of three exercises? And what you've established there is that, well, for all the muscle fibers that are active across those three different exercises, you're still getting that same multiple sets stimulus for those muscle fibers. But because everything is happening at a muscle fiber level, whether it's hypertrophy or atrophy, then what you're saying is in that, in the extra variance, some of those fibers are getting that single set that they wouldn't be getting otherwise. Yeah. And then a point that I think maybe you alluded to or maybe you did mention it was based on on that, that also means that there are going to be muscle fibers that can hypertrophy while other fibers are atrophying in the same muscle. And I don't know if people necessarily grasp that we're saying yes, actually the same muscle of the lats can be hypertrophy while other fibers are atrophying, the total size can be going up. We're not saying that your lats as a whole are getting smaller, but there are some fibers where, especially if you're not using more exercise variation, where those fibers will be getting smaller. Yeah. Ultimately, that's what happens during detraining. So, if we sort of do a strength training program and then we go on holiday for two weeks and we don't train more on holiday, we start to see, you know, atrophy occurring, but we're not atrophying the muscle fibers that we use to walk along the beach. Yeah. So I use, you know, I've said this a hundred times and I think it sort of sails over most people's heads, but the mechanical tension that muscle fibers generate that triggers them to grow is determined by the force for loss to relationship. So if you stroll along the beach enjoying the weather or sunshine rather, then your muscle fibers are moving very slowly, at least the muscle fibers are reactivated and they're producing high forces, high mechanical tension, that stimulates them to, essentially, they're not going to grow because they've already maxed out their growth capacity, but they're going to stay the same size. If on the other hand, you were to, instead of going on holiday, you would have an unfortunate accident and end up with your leg in a cast, then the whole thing would shrink. Why would that happen? Well, because none of the fibers are now activated. So the difference between mobilization induced atrophy and detraining induced atrophy is just the difference in the number of fibers, you know. So atrophy is fibers-posed, semi-hypertrophy is fibers-posed. So ultimately, this translates perfectly to what we're saying about exercise selection. It's like whichever fibers you're activating and learning are going to grow whichever ones you're not going to grow, in fact, if you persist in not loading them, so maybe you go from a highly varied exercise program with lots of different exercises in, and it was everything with growing, and then you suddenly shrink down and just do squat bench deadlift for three months. You're going to see that muscle fibers that were used in those previous exercises that you're not now using. I mean, again, we go into details on this in a separate podcast, but you're going to see a lot of localised atrophy because there must be a longer training. So it's just such an important point. Now I think there's just this I think belief at the moment in some parts of fitness industry that you know a row and a pull down and pull over. They're all training the same muscle fibers. So you can just choose whichever one you want and interchange them and it doesn't really matter. And nothing could be further from the truth. You know I think there's basically totally different motor units are going to be prioritised for different activities based on the efficiency requirement near mechanical matching principles. What largely determines that for us? Everything is happening at a muscle fiber level. I think ultimately that's one of the key takeaways here. And the question is always you know what to what magnitude to what degrees that but ultimately whether we're talking about excise variation or we're talking about volume or we're talking about atrophy or we're talking about any of this stuff. Everyone needs to start from the place of we're talking about muscle fibers. We're not talking about whole muscle. Exactly as I said I wasn't being entirely flippant when I said I could literally repeat that for the rest of my time in the fitness industry. It wouldn't be a waste of time because I sure you know it will be two years down the road and I shall still be saying the same thing. I'll be saying that model that you know is being proposed by XYZ or these groups can't possibly work because I perched for an atrophy muscle fiber specific and it will be the same mistake every single time it will be the same mistake. Yes you know because for some reason whatever has happened people now just think in terms of I'm training a muscle I'm not making it out. That's not how it works. It's not how the body works. Frequency muscle fiber. And therefore frequency becomes fiber specific as well because everything is fiber specific. Any other TLD up points you've got first? I have no more wisdom to share. I'm definitely don't put it there. Yeah that's cool. Thank you. Thank you everyone for joining us. Hopefully you've got some nuggets of wisdom and gold out of this one especially if you guys are right programs you know there's there's a fair bit of of application so hopefully you guys go and use some of that and we'd love to hear how you go with it as well so if you do apply some of this stuff I love hearing getting messages from you guys being like I started doing this and I noticed this so I grew better than whatever and we'd love to hear that feedback so please do that please like and subscribe and review and all the good stuff on our podcast and we'll we hope you'll join us next week for another episode.