Why sleep loss isn't killing gains - Why high reps (probably) DON'T build the same amount of muscle

All right everybody welcome to today's episode of Chris and Paul show the best muscle physiology podcast on the internet. I'm here back with my partner who crime Chris Beardsley Chris welcome back son back this week after a hiatus how are you doing? Doing well thanks for good to be here. What are we talking about today? I think you are going to talk about sleep pre-purchase because you've been doing some work on it. I have. I got off into we had a couple of sidebar conversations about sleep. I don't think most people know that the way that we kind of work together is you and I both kind of have the same interest and the same stuff and the same disinterest and the same stuff and either one of us have really been super interested in the sleep topic and then I don't even know how I got on it the last week or so but I had remembered looking at a you know just a previous study somewhere that some sleep deprivation didn't really cause reduction and kind of like maximal strength we're talking about you know like when rap maxes or it was some MVIC stuff and then I started going down that rabbit hole again because you made this when you do you text us to me the yesterday and you said we laughed about the fact that for everybody but our said there's no such thing as overtraining just under eating and under sleeping and that's I always felt like that was the biggest crop so I got down the sleep rabbit hole again and there's a meta analysis to well to start off to say this we don't have any long-term studies longitudinal data on sleep deprivation or sleep reduction and muscle growth we don't have any. There's an ethical reason why that is the case. I was gonna say probably because you can't keep people sleeping for like two and three months at a time so we're never gonna get one of those. The ones we do have I didn't need to find a bunch of these I just need to find some really good ones so we had a randomized control trial on muscle damage I sent you that one and it was they had them do 240 eccentric contractions you know like sentient and the isle kinetic machine what do you shake it your head for it? It just feels a bit excessive. I thought that one I read it. You know 240 is just a little bit off the top end I mean like I'm used to seeing like 40 or 50 or 100 maybe at the top end. Okay so 240 deals a little bit overkill. Not just me I was driving home the other day after I was looking at some of this stuff and I remember thinking did they really was it really 240 had to come home and get back in the study and look and really was 240 eccentric contractions in the isle kinetic machine. So you can imagine these guys were probably yeah they were hurting but what they found was then after that after 240 eccentric contractions they kept them up for 48 hours and they found the difference in the people who slept for the three days and the people who were up for the next 48 hours when they did the retesting there was no difference in recovery so I didn't need to find it's cool when you can find a bunch of studies that's what you're looking for but I think you find you and I've talked about this quite a bit finding a few really well done studies where they really cover their basis and the methodologies are good you don't need a lot of those you just like I'm looking here for a specific thing who did this really well so that when I thought I don't really need to find 10 more of these if if there was enough subjects in the study they clearly caused enough muscle damage to last couple of lifetimes and then you know they said let's just do the retesting on strength to see where how we're doing from a recovery standpoint they're like yeah we're not really seeing any difference here between somebody that was up 48 hours and somebody who slept so my whole thing about getting into this is I want to look at things from how do these things work from a practical application standpoint because I had some people asking the same stuff you're you know we're just talking about like where's the long-term sleep studies I'm like dude first off number one you got Google go do your own leg work and in number two like you said ethically we can't keep people up for two months like no sleep for like two months you know before they're getting like I don't know it would be like four hours of sleep but night or whatever I guess you could do something like that or you could do like six hours of sleep but ethically speaking I don't know how you would set that up I think we know that that will be harmful I think I would struggle to do that I think you you find the ethics board would be extremely unhappy about it because we actually know that it's harmful exactly so here was my whole thought process I have to back up because sometimes my brain does not put things in chronological order my whole thought process from the practical application standpoint was people fret so much about that like I didn't sleep well last night or you know I've been stressed this week because you know I've got finals for this or you know life is stressful and I'm just not sleeping well my thought process was just when you're kind of going through those times where you know sleep's not great and I'm a lifetime insomniac you know this from us having to work together all these years or times where I'm like Chris I can't talk this week I've had no I'm not slept all and you're like okay just hit me up and you're good again so my thought was I just want to put people's at ease with worrying about my sleep's not great so like am I losing muscle or is this or whatever and as I pour through the data I'm looking for more like a Q type studies I'm not really looking for oh we have people sleep deprived for 10 days I'm not looking for that I'm looking for because I'm my own walking experiment with that I'm just looking for are we do we really see hampered recovery time when sleep is when somebody sleeps with a private or sleep's not great we don't see that and then from a performance standpoint this is the interesting part we actually have a lot of data of performance strength strength endurance and endurance training with either having people sleep deprived where it's like a late sleep or an early sleep so you make them go to bed late and then or they they wake them up early and then they're sleep deprived one and the other the lower rep stuff really does not seem to be bothered much by it so if you're doing a heavy set of four or five six reps there's really if there is a kind of a different performance it's so minuscule it would be easy to say you could chalk it up to any number of other mechanisms right that could be currently existing if you start using higher reps it becomes more prevalent and and that was the hard part of sorting through the studies because in my opinion I see a even a 10 rep max very differently that I think that a lot of people I think a 10 rep max is probably going to be more hampered in sleep deprivation than a five rep max and then one of the the ones I come back to is one of my favorite velocity law studies do you remember this one where they looked at the difference in eight reps and 12 reps is pretty massive in terms of fatigue and people will get mad at us about that stuff unlike what there there's the data so the difference in five reps eight reps 12 reps the difference to five to eight not really huge for the different eight to 12s pre-beak and then eight to 15 is massive so like you're really huge so I have drainage for anybody listen so I anything that you get in my opinion about 10 reps are above starts kind of bearing a little bit into that drink the nerd stuff for me and whether somebody else agrees with that or not that's fine but I did expect to find that reps of 10 or above would be more hampered by sleep deprivation than heavy sets and that was what I found so I was like okay what I want to look for is a maximum voluntary isometric contraction that's what I really want to look for because they're they're gonna be a short duration it's gonna be more representative what we'd expect on the five to six reps max and in the MVIC stuff there's no difference there's no difference in this so when people say stuff like you guys cherry pick studies because you've probably heard that I'm like I know I'm looking for if I want a practical application standpoint then I have to look for things that are real life can be applied to real world stuff not I'm we kept these people up for 10 days and of course there's tons of drop-off in performs I'm like I'd expect that I'd expect that I'm not arguing with you but who has been a wait I mean it's not like we're out here looking for you know who like who are you Christian Bale from the machinist I mean you know what I mean like like oh we've been up to 365 days I'm like I'd expect you not to perform well so I was looking for kind of a cute studies pay this person only slept four hours last night was there performance applied this person we kept them sleep for five for 24 hours post workout was a recovery hamper that's stuff I was looking for all right I've been talking this whole time take your might off me if you can talk where we're going it's not gonna get feedback I didn't even put echo cancellation on the go ahead no I know I guess just provide the physiological underpinnings of what we've been or Paul has been saying for the last couple of minutes. Basically what we're talking about here is supraspinal central nervous system fatigue. So essentially when we are in a a bad mental state we can experience reductions in motivation or we can start to find that we tolerate pain and discomfort less well. As a result we are going to hit our maximum tolerable perception of effort during a sustained bout of muscular contractions earlier and then we would do as in early when I say earlier what I mean is at lower levels of motor unit recruitment. So essentially if you go into a workout in a bad mental state or if somebody really upsets you you can experience a drop in motivation that can lead you to then experience you know a reduction in performance because you're not hitting as high levels of motor unit recruitment. Bad nights of sleep can do that but what we're seeing or Paul is describing is that the effect is actually very very small when the efforts are short in duration. Exactly. Ultimately that's because the longer the duration the more opportunity there is for these negative feelings or negative experiences to cause a problem for you in terms of adding to that perception of effort that you're experiencing. So ultimately the longer the set goes on for and this is obviously then magnified if people want to do pre-exhaust journal drop sets or anything like that. Ultimately the longer the set goes on for even if it's just rep ranges the more this impact this is going to impact us. So ultimately with kind of the vibe I'm getting really and I haven't gone through and looked at all of the sleep research because frankly it doesn't interest me that much because ultimately I kind of looked at it a while back and I came to a similar conclusion which is that if you're using heavier loads and it's a short duration effort you're not really kind of getting into very much supospinal CNS fatigue because you know the set is going to be over very soon. Ultimately it seems to have very very small impacts when the sleep deprivation is you know kind of relatively minor in the sense that we're talking about four hours of sleep or so which I think is probably you know I don't think there's going to be many people that go to the gym you know if they've had less than four hours of sleep I mean I travel internationally a reasonable amount probably more not as much as people who actually travel obviously is part of their job but I do travel internationally a reasonable amount and so there are times when I literally just go without one night of sleep just kind of just function without that night of sleep completely and even in that scenario I can often just go to the gym anyway it just can be done you know but I don't think there are many people that are kind of you know sort of weak in weak out going to the gym with less than four hours of sleep behind them I mean maybe it happens but I don't I don't think that's probably very common and so ultimately I think what we've got here is that sleep really doesn't do very much to change the performance of workouts if our programming is on point now there are scenarios where I would be a little bit more concerned so for example if you're talking about athletic situations and you're asking the athlete to do more complicated coordinated movements that was what I was going to say showed up very prevalent in the data is the more coordination or athletic stuff you get into the drop-off then it comes massive so it's absolutely and if you're at then decision-making on top of that then you've got a real problem because ultimately that's where the sleep starts to create real issues for you so that's where it really shows up in the data there is definitely on a spectrum so there's the one spectrum where you're looking at MVIC or you're looking at one rep max sensor you're looking at low heavy low rep sets four five reps does it really see you have too much of an impact on the other flip side of stuff when we start talking about the velocity side of things or coordination side of things it's huge so for any athletes listening or anyone doing endurance-based work or you know if you're even if you're doing Jitsu or for martial arts if you're if you're doing football if you were doing anything muscular endurance-related or just aerobic endurance-related the difference there it's a huge difference maker having good sleep is a huge difference maker preceding any of those kind of events if you're sleep deprived going into any of that stuff you are 100% gonna just see a pretty dramatic drop-off in performance compared to yourself if you were well well rested and had you know a couple of nights of really good sleep so anybody going into say that we get lots of people to do Jitsu you know that follow our stuff that still don't do it what I'd say is just make sure the couple of nights before if you have a tournament or whatever that's a really key thing to get your to get good sleep the few nights before that I guess what I was saying is don't if you've sl- if you're doing if you're not doing that competing mode just don't my practice I would say if somebody had a really bad night to sleep I would just not go to practice because the thing about coordination improvements is that you kind of need to be at the top of your game to make a coordination improvement you have to show your brain a superior motor program compared to the one you've already got stored so if you're guaranteeing that you're going to go to a skill practice and you can't do that why are you going because ultimately there isn't you end up teaching yourself bad patterns and that's yeah that's possible I mean I don't think it's quite as it doesn't have the same strength of stimulus as as actually giving your brain better information but yeah I mean ultimately that that is a risk but basically I would just not go because I think if if if you're going to go and there's a risk of obviously injury you're not going to make any benefits and coordination doesn't go away so it's not like if I don't practice then my coordination will get worse no way. Generally speaking a coordination will stick pretty much where it is so I would be much much more kind of careful about those situations especially where there's risk of injury in contrast with bodybuilding it seems like there's almost no problem at all. The thing about that stuff is that what I was getting to is that when you're fatigued if there's endurance or there's coordination and that kind of stuff you will often put yourself in poor positions from a joint perspective when that stuff is involved because the fatigue becomes greater so you I think you probably do increase risk of the injury in those circumstances because if anybody who's tried to if you ever tried to do a high rep set of squats even if you're well rested your form breaks down pretty well by the end of the set if you're sleep deprived it breaks down even further so if you're doing athletic stuff you're going to see kind of a larger breakdown in your mechanics which will probably lead to injury. Getting back to what you were saying there is what I think probably is happening is that there's definitely fatigue that exists from not having slept or being sleep deprived and I think it probably takes up space in the corollary discharge and then what I think is if you're doing high rep stuff or you're doing coordinate stuff or whatever I feel like I don't know if I can articulate I feel like it's start to show up more in those when you're doing those things so I think let's say reduced tolerance to discomfort because ultimately if you're just dealing with a very short effort you can you can kind of get your head around it and you can just say look this is going to be over in like 15 seconds time or as it when it goes into a longer duration your ability to tolerate that discomfort becomes much more important I think that's ultimately what's super spinal CNS fatigue is doing. Yeah I'm trying to like anecdotally think about that's kind of the way that it feels if when you're sleep deprived and you go and you got to have you set a four you can pretty much go here's my four reps and I'm done but if if you're having to do high reps you kind of hit that that perception of effort while really fast somewhere around eight or nine reps you can be like that's I don't want to do this. It's just what I'm saying it's the reduced motivations reduced tolerance to effort is the reduced desire to be there it's just this kind of it's all just enhancing the risk of super spinal CNS fatigue and because super spinal CNS fatigue increases with increasing rep range anyway it tracks perfect. Well that was kind of my thought though about it potentially taking up space in the corollary discharge is kind of like how when we have different efforts that are doing that whether it's from the inflammation you know it muscle damage or something you don't know what I mean and I mean I feel like it becomes more prominent and I think we're actually saying the same thing in different ways I think that you're just less able to tolerate the discomfort of those things when that is in place so you probably do I think we're actually saying the same things in different ways to be honest so you're kind of hitting your perception of effort much quicker. It's interesting though it's a duration dependent function. It is so the reduced tolerance it is becoming greater and greater and greater and its impact the longer the exercise goes on for it really is I think sort of tracking that increased duration of exercise and becoming more and more problematic so I think yeah basically for a practical perspective you know ultimately a bodybuilding workout constructed more like a power building workout or a kind of a you know sort of on-rests heavy loads relatively sensibly no volumes. Anything that's highly coordinated but yeah again moving down the sort of more machine side of route side of things. I was going to let folks a guide DM to me and he He said whenever he was sleep deprived, the only thing that ever took a hit was his incline dumbbell press with the rest of his workout machines and I'm like, "Well, that's, I love when that kind of stuff, when the physiology plays out in the real world like that, I'm like, okay, so you use a highly coordinated and you and I both said this, I think we're the only ones to say this. Dumbbell movements are really highly coordinated. People like to downplay that. I'm like, they're very highly coordinated." So he used the only time he saw a reduction in performance was in a highly coordinated motion. He's like, "I didn't see the rest of it because it was all machine work." I'm like, "There you go." So if you're sleep deprived, if you're doing something athletic based, as Chris said, I would just avoid doing it. Just like, if it's like a practice, just take a rest day. You're better off taking a rest day than really going and doing the practice. If you're lifting, as long as you're using a stable motion and heavy load, I don't really see the problem. And again, I didn't find anything because that's what I'm trying to say. One rep max is MVIC low rep sets. I'm like, "I don't want to look." I already know if it's a 10 rep set, you're going to see a drop in performance. That's not what I'm saying. So the mid analysis is money for that reason because it mixes all of that in together. And it's like, there's a drop in performance. But they did delineate that if it's really, if it's heavy stuff, MVIC, if there is a performance, it's negligible. It's really not much. So sleep deprivation doesn't seem to show up much in heavy low rep stuff. And then from a recovery standpoint, I really just couldn't find anything. And you said this to me a couple of years ago. You said, "I would need somebody to explain to me how sleep somehow sped up the damage process from an overload of intercellular calcium ions." And that's what you'd have to see. You'd have to see that somehow that myth of you recover when you're sleeping. You've heard that though. It drives me mad. Absolutely mad because there's people have. Do you remember when people used to talk about hyperch if you'd been like a hormonal process? It was like, "No, you did your heavy squats." I brought it up yesterday, yes. You do heavy squats, you create all of this increase in testosterone after the workout, and that magically makes your whole body grow. I kind of remember when people used to argue that your biceps would grow as a result of doing heavy squats. Yeah, from squats. I know. And kind of like thankfully, we've left that madness behind us. But the same madness actually exists regarding the recovery concept because people will say, "Oh, you're recovering." And when they say, "You are recovering," what they mean is like you as a computer sprite. Like you as a computer game character. Is this recovery bar which has health that's decreased? Now you're kind of. This is how people think. The health bar is going back up to underpeacity. You always end up having the best of allergies for this. I don't even think. You're the health bar in the computer character. You have to not take any damage right then to let your health bar bill back up. And that's how people think. And they're like, "Oh, I'm going to measure it using this kind of device that records my state." And it's got obviously a heart rate variability built into it. It's got whatever else built into it. And it's kind of giving them. He will try to tell me that it was the recovery stuff was built around the circadian rhythm. Absolutely. Crazy what they're looking at. And they're going. And I'm like, this is a damaged piece of tissue. It has a biochemical process has affected it because of the muscular contractions causing intracellular calcium increases or the stretch activated and channels opening and causing calcium ion increases. That's caused us some localized damage, which is now going through a series of processes, including protease, as well as proliferation. But as far as inflammation or not influenced by sleep. They don't even probably know whether you're sleeping or not. How did your sales go? Hold up boys. Hold up boys. Sorry, we can't do this now. Hold on. It's nicely. No, no, no, we're got. I know, settle down, Jimmy. Okay, we're going to do this thing, okay? We got to wait till he's asleep. Yeah. Can't work on it right now because he's not asleep. Sorry. Unbelievable. So, basically, the study that you sent me earlier this week and with the 240 million eccentric contractions, you know, that's really cool because basically it shows exactly what we're saying, which is that the muscle tissue is damaged and it goes to a set of repair processes. And then you come out the other end of that and you're back to where you were before and sleep really isn't changing that very much. And anytime that you bring this stuff up, everybody who opposes you turns into the guy who understands who Robert Paulson is. Yeah. Okay. They do. I'm like, that's not. That's not. That's not what's happening. You know, it's like you said, we have a. We have literally a piece of tissue that has been damaged, okay? The repair process happens physiologically through a series of events that have nothing to do with whether you're awake or asleep. And actually, don't have a lot to do with whether you're eating or not. I mean, you can kind of create a slight reduction in the rate at which muscle damage repair occurs by not eating any protein at all. I mean, yeah, you can't. You can't kind of do that, but not many people are doing, you know. Most people are eating enough protein to go through those repair processes. Wait, I thought of one. Wait, hold on. I got a better one. I got a better one. I thought, like before, bros got a hold of all this stuff. Can you imagine, like, hunter-gatherers, like, back, like, you know what I mean? Like, if they had to do. Like if they were asleep to thrive because they were hunting or whatever, and their body couldn't make the necessary muscle adaptations to just survive, you know what I mean? Like, they didn't know they had to sleep to allow these adaptations to happen. They would have never continued to exist. It's very weird. Early in the morning to go mammoth hunting. So it's basically. I sleep just right. I can't hunt mammoths today because I got to bed. I got to the cave so late last night. I mean, just to be clear, just to be clear, if you become extremely psychologically stressed, you can disrupt the inflammation processes that are involved in the repair of muscle damaged tissue and you can slow down the rate of recovery. So yeah, if your sleep is being continuously disrupted. Oh, I agree. that is because that stuff actually does a similar release of myocons that you get. So there's any time that you're stressed, your body's in a stressed out state, you can have an increase of myocons that get. and I'm getting released that the pro-wonger even kind of adds to some of the problems that you're already dealing with in terms of muscle damage. So what I'm saying is that there's a disruption to the inflammation process which would basically relying on to get the. The interesting thing is we can see this in the medical literature. So it's got actually not necessarily anything to do with that side of the side. So what I was going to get at was if you have long-term sleep problems, there's an underlying issue you need to deal with. A gap but again, is it the underlying issue that's causing you to lie away and stare at the ceiling? That's what I was trying to go with all the time. Is it the other way around? Is it the fact that you can't sleep is causing you to have issues? Because I think actually it can end up being both. You know, if people have an issue that's causing them to not sleep, then the fact that they're not sleeping then causes an issue. And it's like, "Oh, I can't sleep." And they get wired because they can't sleep. But you need to get to the root of why it is you're not sleeping well. So if it's. What I was getting at is we've covered this before. The daily life stress absolutely reduces or adds to your perception of effort. Going to the gym, you're already stressed out. Some people can have great workouts because they can kind of disconnect. So a lot of that mentally in your head is all depending on how you navigate those lands days. And it's kind of like when I was bringing this up, I was like, "Look, I'm just saying, if you know that sleep deprivation or having a few bad night sleep affects your workouts, then change some stuff in your training so it's not as affected so significantly." And then the other thing is I wasn't invalidating anyone else's experience. I'm saying my own experience is I don't really notice a difference even when I'm going through periods of sleep deprivation in my training. I sometimes I still hit the p-yars. If somebody else says, "I do," I'm not saying, "You don't." I'm saying it's just your own experience. What I'm saying from the data is we have good data that shows it's probably some of that's probably mental. So it's in like, there's enough people that have done this testing to where we can say, if you're really impacted by being sleep deprived, some of that's probably you being like, "Oh, I'm tired." And maybe you don't have a very good pain tolerance that kind of like we're talking about is it's a reduction in kind of pain tolerance or suffering when you're already tired. I agree with that. But what I was saying is with the stress stuff, I think it's more beneficial to figure out how to reduce your life stress, how you cope with your life stress because that's going to have, if that has an impact on your sleep, then like you said, then they just kind of [BLANK_AUDIO] doubling each other. Like I'm not getting sleep, I'm stressed, I'm stressed because I'm not getting sleep. And now I'm not sleeping because I'm not sleeping and I'm stressed and I'm not sleeping. And they just kind of compound each other. So you have to figure out what the root of that is. So if it's the, you're not sleeping and then you get stressed out because you didn't have a good night's sleep, then get a good night's sleep. If you're not, if you're not sleeping because you're stressed out, then you need to get to the core of how to deal with your stress. I don't know if I said all that correctly, but I'm saying, if you have a long period where you're sleeping, probably figure out why that is happening. But even then, I don't think that there's a reduction in recovery. So there's some nice, there's some nice data showing that if you psychologically stress animals or people, then the rate of muscle damage repair itself actually does slow down slightly. So the medical literature does this by looking at operations. So like we, you know, somebody has a, you know, some kind of orthopedic type operation. And they basically do questionnaires on their levels of stress before they have the operation. And then they track them and basically look at whether those people have their stitches at more earlier or later. And generally speaking, people who are more stressed tend to take longer before their stitches are removed. So you do see a relationship between the level of stress that people are experiencing and the time it takes for a muscle damage repair. Yeah. So what I'm saying is this is where the sleep and the stress become very difficult to disentangle. Exactly. So if the sleep is because of a stress or, or if, sorry, if the lack of sleep is because of a psychological stress or, as you were just saying, if the sleep causes us to experience a psychological stress or because we get upset because we can't sleep. And we think that's going to have, you know, kind of major implications for us in whatever thing we value. Then yeah, I think you would probably find that it started to create problems in terms of muscle damage recovery. But I think in the context of that study that you were describing, it's really cool because you're isolating the effect to sleep on its own. You just say, look, these people just didn't sleep because we didn't let them. You know, it's like, the reason why that's important is because I think it's important for us to figure out mechanistically what is going on from physiological standpoint is kind of like how we spend all those years if we were trying to figure out from muscle damage and metabolic stress, mechanical tension. You had to figure out a way to isolate off metabolic stress from muscle damage from mechanical tension in somebody's life. Exactly. Physically what is happening between the difference. Sure, you'd get some metabolic stress with mechanical tension, but we were trying to, that's why we had so many different kinds of studies that ended up looking at metabolic stress. You have to look at it independently of what it's doing physiologically. So if I'm looking, I'm like, okay, I don't want to stress out person other than just the stress that would come with not sleeping. So just don't let them sleep for 48 hours after they do the workout. Is there a reduction in recovery? They're like, no, there's not. I'm like, okay, but if you did that with stress, you'd find out you'd absolutely be better if people didn't say that they are not sleeping enough and not eating and I've actually it's like you're too stressed. We've done that. We have strup test. So we have strup test. Where if you do a strup test and then you have a. But this is performed at that super spinal sin of t. So that's also true, but this is about recovery from muscle damage. Okay, yeah. So what I. Yeah, I was saying, so in the recovery standpoint, I didn't get in and getting off deep. I got off into the. I think the same area that you were in, if somebody is stressed out and there's damage and I want to say I was not off in muscle-induced exercise damage. I was often looking at recovery. Yeah, there's loads in the medical literature. Yes, there is. And I remember, but I ended up getting distracted by something else. I didn't get far deep off into it. I believe there was something I got off into about there was an increase detected in my own kinds. But with disruption to the inflammatory process because stress actually directly affects your immune system, which then directly affects the inflammatory process, which then stops you from recovering from muscle tissue. And that's the inflammatory process. Yes, exactly. So there's the inflammatory process is needed for the healing cycle. So anything that kind of gets in the way of that totally kind of way is. Absolutely. for a long that recovery cycle. So if you're. I think the good takeaway here is that the most important thing for recovery is your training program itself is that it minimizes any significant amount of muscle damage. Yeah, the most important thing is don't get damaged in the first place. Don't get damaged in the first place. And I literally say this to people all the time, they say to me, "How can I accelerate my recovery?" And I'm like, "They always have to have that at the first place." "They all do it in the first place. If you don't have damage happening, then your recovery is accelerated." And they're like, they're doing these crazy high rep sets with super-stretched positions and all the way to failure and like, they're stacking them on top of each other and doing like, 11 billion sets in a workout. And I'm like, "Just don't do that." And you just. If I try to tell people going into this year, like if you do these few things, your training will improve immediately. You can't get them to stop doing it. And they're like, "Well, Jake made a great point that I was mad about because it was such a good point that I wish I had made it." And coaches always say when somebody's not making progress, how's your sleep, how's your eating, how's your blah blah. I'm like, "I don't know how's the training program you wrote up for me, dummy." So he made a great point. He said that if your training program is really piss poor, then sleep is going to magnify how piss poor it is. If your start becomes sleep deprived, you're not getting enough sleep. So it really just kind of shed light on the fact that, "Oh, your training program kind of sucks because you need everything else in your life outside of the gym to be perfect for it to even produce a modicum of results." And if that's the case, your training sucks. It sucks. It sucks. If you need perfect sleep, perfect diet, no stress, blah blah blah, for your training program to work, your training program sucks. Your training program sucks. I can be sick. I was sick last month first time in like a decade plus, you know, most of my training was still great. I can be sleep deprived. My training never takes a hit. I got thousands and thousands of people in my groups. I'll talk about work shift workers, sleep deprived, new moms, new dads, sick, whatever. They're like, "I can't believe I still hit PRs. We're used to like, if I was sick or whatever, I'd have to take days off from the gym. I don't have to." Because training really, really good training does not cause all these problems or it minimizes it significantly. So if your training approaches sound and creating the least amount of muscle damage and you're not going into the gym, even if you're going into the gym fatigue, the training is the session itself is set up in a way that you don't have to have some, you know, John Rambo level of pain tolerance in order to kind of get through it, then your training will still be great. This is a really, really important point that I see quite a lot, which is that I will say to people, "Hey, look, using heavier loads means that you don't have to experience all these other pain and discomfort feelings that come with lighter loads or even moderate loads." It's like, you know, use these heavier loads. What you're describing here basically is the same kind of idea. It's like, if you're going into a workout and you've got a sort of poor night's sleep behind you, doing heavier loads shouldn't, shouldn't mean that you can basically do a normal workout. But if you had lighter loads planned, you're going to do 20 reps sets or whatever. You'd probably find that you would see some supress finals, seeing as teak kicking in and reducing the effectiveness of that workout. And that's kind of, you know, what you were just describing. But this is other thing, which is where people, I say to people, "Hey, look, you can do heavier loads, get a really nice high level of motine at Croom and it's not going to create those feelings of pain and discomfort." And they're like, "Oh, no, no, no, you've got to be able to push through that. You've got to be strong. You've got to be mentally strong and capable of pushing through that stuff." And I'm like, "Why do people say this shit?" "Why do you say that?" How are you still not getting to a better result than I'm getting to with these heavier loads? "I'm like dropsets with the same thing. It's like, I'm going to have the greatest amount of pain and discomfort as possible and get no progress out of it." I mean, like, people, I think, seem to want to show how tough they are, rather than actually trying to find the best possible way of practicing the workout. "I think that all the time, this really been on my mind a lot lately because there's so many comments like that where people like, "Well, that teach is resiliency and toughness or whatever." I'm like, I'm not in the gym to develop resiliency and toughness. I'm going to jump to make progress related to hypertrophy. Right? Like, if you want to do that, go do MMA fighting. Like, right? "I'm going to say I can think of some things that are really. " "There's a really things you can do that are very, very good to do." "I had a friend of mine who's like, he wouldn't stop the cold water immersion. He's like, because it builds toughness." I'm like, "No, it doesn't. No, it doesn't. It doesn't build toughness. Like, if you can actually regulate your nervous system, Right just to come down a little bit to get in the water you can just get in the water Like I watch a girl do it like it didn't make her tough to do is she just like was able to relax her nervous system She got right down in icy cold water So it doesn't make you tough like it depends on what kind of tough. There's different kinds of toughness But quote unquote pushing through the pain all that kind of stuff I think it's just a macho mantra that guys just try to use to you know It's like a dick measuring contest like my training is harder and tougher than yours. I'm like, blue good for you buddy You want to you want a cookie or do you want to you know you want a metal? You know to chest dependent on which one do you want so? The this idea of like making training as hard as possible Is not making training as productive as possible in fact I think I would say they're It's the antithesis of it. I think that if your training is brutally hard It's not going to be very productive in in the context of the goals that we're describing here. Yes, absolutely I think that people have trouble getting their head around that because it was really It's really been beaten into their brains that you just have to go in and put in this Exorbitant amount of like intensity effort. It's got to be hard drop sets You got to be dying not walk out of the gym for it to produce results Like it's I feel like that's what they have trouble getting their head around So we should lead just actually in that's the segue into the the number two part of what we're gonna talk about today something I brought up to you Maybe a couple months ago and we've just kind of spit ball back and forth occasionally and you kind of said yesterday You kind of wanted to talk quite a little bit and I got into it a few weeks ago when I was going through some of the EMG data for for back stuff And I was looking at The I Well, I sent you that really cool EMG study I found The really well done one where they use isometric contractions and also dynamic contractions. I sent you that one and then Um, they looked at upper back for adults different grip with another kind of stuff And then what I really liked about the upper back going through the upper back EMG stuff It was really all consistent with each other regardless of how they did it But what I was I was finding and I'd already seen it before and it's kind of funny how you might see something every day And then one day you just kind of have this little light bulb go off and like this is kind of important And I was like why is there always a down tick on that last rep of this failure set on the EMG There's always a down tick on it and then brought me back to the meta analysis on hypertrophy and training to failure and then when they drew the graph out When they were kind of creating a Representation and an infographic representation for where they felt like they were seeing they did the same thing They brought a down tick on that last rep and we've talked about this for so long now is that that last rep probably Promote fatigue not very productive. There's a lot of stuff going on with it And then I started saying to you I said the other thing that I found when I was looking at this I said every time that I started looking at When they're doing a heavy load EMG compared to a light load of failure That you're not getting the same amount of action potentials on the light load It's pretty low. It's actually quite a bit lower in some of these EMG studies It's the same person right so they're comparing a person person out people like EMG sucked I'm like in study design in the context of what we're looking at it does not you have to understand don't compare this EMG study to another one That's trying to where you're trying to find the best exercise or something because there's too many different variables But if I'm just looking at another back row across multiple EMG studies I can and I can find a consistent finding I feel pretty good about that But the consistent finding that I would find with the light loads versus heavy loads was that the action potential representation for the heavy loads always was way higher And what I think here is my theory that I toss up to you I don't think that we're getting the same amount of high-perch free at 30 reps that we're getting a set of five I don't believe that you the physiology doesn't work You can talk now you keep putting I agree I Put I put the mic on mute because I'm I live in a block of flats and sometimes people go past the end of the corridor and so you can hear them talking And that's because I put myself on mute so Now I agree I mean I think physiologically we don't see the same levels of moti and recruitment at the end of a set to failure with A lower force level or a lighter load so we do with heavier Loads or higher forces so That would indicate that most likely we're not Getting the same high-perch free stimulus So it's really interesting then why do we see You know the high-perch free literature generally showing the same amount of muscle growth with You know kind of I'm gonna use the word heavy but ultimately they don't test heavy their test moderate in 95% of cases The testing moderate which is kind of 8 to 10 or 8 to 12 rep maxes and then they compare that with 20 to 25 rep maxes as lighter loads So those two rep ranges don't really seem to cause much of a difference in terms of the high-perch free stimulus And is that because the lighter loads are producing more muscle swelling? I mean that's kind of the the sort of the really really big question So we would need the same solution that we talked about previously which is a washout period So we need them to do There two different training programs and then at the end of the training program we'd need to see a Kind of at least a week and a half or so of washout where they did some sort of standardized workout um You know that that reduced the amount of muscle swelling that was occurring if If if men gene had had The same respirator. It's I know if they had the same respirator would have kind of had the answer. Yeah, no, I know I know But I it might not be a significant Five rep max so 10 rep max it might not be quite a significant But you're not going to convince me that 30 reps that you're producing the same amount of high-perch free as a five or six reps Do you know I know I'm in the same boat I agree with you. I agree with you. It's just it's just that isn't what the data are currently showing us So you know the last few years we've had these things and you've even made infographics on them post them So here's kind of what's evolved over the last years of us working together is that we put our own stuff that we posted up against This scrutiny over time. I mean like now we're strong about this because I used to say that the whole I used to repeat the you know um Almost all growth is equal when Volume is equated for the training week, but even when I say that I'd get that little cringy feeling inside because I'm like I'll possibly be true But we it took me and you together to kind of Sift through that to figure out why we're still showing up that way And then once we did and we knew what to look for which is not cherry picking studies We're like we have to have a study where everybody's recovering between the workouts I was gonna say I think we got comfortable talking about that stuff When we went through the studies and realized that recover recovery was not happening in 90% of those studies they were just and it's and it's kind of like one of those moments where you Thought that you'd kind of got your head around You know kind of the problems in the literature and then you get smacked in the face by this absolutely gigantic problem Which is that nobody is writing training programs that anyone can recover from And I'm not thinking about it, you know This is how far off the exercise science clowns are Is they they thought the only reason for higher frequency was to spread more volume across the training week they say that in the literature Can you imagine I love your go ahead. I love your you get better questions and I do go ahead Yeah That says you stop recording So Chris lost connection While he was in the middle of a talking there, but um Phil Hilary joined here Um Unless he Lost his entire Wi-Fi So I don't know what provocative point if he would have have gotten to what provocative point He was gonna make right there. I could probably have expounded on it Um a little bit but Instead His Wi-Fi without so I'll actually talk about um until he gets back on if he gets back on Um, I'll talk about My thoughts So, and the kind of the reference could undram is that I'll go back to the managing study here for just a minute. In the managing study, they had two groups, one group did set, heavy sets of three to five reps, and I think it was, I don't know if it was five minute rest periods, but it was long rest periods, definitely recovered between sets. And the other group did sets of 10 to 12, and it was short rest periods, and they were well trained, and the, I'm still talking about the managing study to fill in the gap. I could say something so I can hear you. Can you hear me now? Okay, so I was talking about the managing study. Still, because I was going back over that real quick until you got back going, I don't want you to lose your train of thought because you said you have something provocative stirring, so I'm here at now. Okay, cool. I mean, basically, can you make any of your DMs into your Q and A that you had had a thought this? Okay, go ahead. Yeah, so I did this Instagram questions session, and I had a bunch of relatively interesting questions, and somebody said to me, would I consider kind of submitting the stimulating reps model or various aspects? Go ahead. As a scientific paper. And at some point in the past, I have actually gone down that route a little bit, and we actually got as far as drafting a medical hypothesis, kind of type, type kind of document. The issue is that what most people don't understand is that peer review, and this was the controversial point, peer review is actually a relatively modern concept. I think there's this perception that peer review is so kind of baked into science that I think people kind of believe that Copernicus and kind of even Einstein were going through peer review. Back to a biblical canon, where it is almost like, yeah, this is always been the case. You know, without wanting to get to into the kind of weeds about why that sort of thing happens, ultimately it is actually a relatively modern concept. It is a relatively kind of recent phenomenon. And ultimately, from my perspective, I don't really feel that it adds anything to me to go through that process. I've, as I said on the Instagram stories, and answered that question, I've answered this problem to my own satisfaction. And I think really, and I don't want to go into a philosophical kind of sort of expose a here. And I think ultimately, I think it's really important to get to a point in your life where you're doing things because you are, they have addressed your requirements and you are satisfied. I think if you in a position in life where you depend on other people's approval for things that you've done, I don't think that's as healthy a place to end up in. But that's my personal philosophy. You know what, I'll bring that up in terms of one of our friends, Nick. He nerds out really hard too. He was like, he was like, you and Chris should do the right up this and he was really pushing. I'm like, I just don't have an interest in it. I don't think Chris has an interest. I said, I generally feel pretty satisfied with me and Chris working together and the conclusions that we come to because every time somebody does a longitudinal study, they just prove what we already kind of came to conclusion of. And I was like, if Chris ever wanted to do that, I would love to be involved with that. I was like, but I personally just don't need to be validated by external sources. At this point in my life anymore and I told him, I was like, I don't get the feeling that Chris needs that. And of course, I don't ever like to speak for you, but I just told him at the time, I was like just throughout conversations. We don't ever, you and I have talked about so many millions of things over the past few years. And we have literally never discussed that one time. And if it was something I knew that was like passionate on your heart because I always know when there's something is because you'll talk about it a lot or the way that you talk about it is very passionately. Literally, we've never discussed it. And it's not something I've ever brought up. So that's why I told him I was like, I don't, what is that going to do? Here's my thing. You see, you already, I wish we probably should get on YouTube because people will get a bigger kick out of your reactions. What is that going to do? If you've been on the internet long enough, you, some people think if you get the peer review and it gets put on PubMed and you got a PM ID for it or whatever, suddenly you got that gotcha. I'm like, dude, it doesn't work that way because you can have studies lined up from here till kingdom come and people will still argue with you. So you could, we could sit down and write up something to get something peer review to talk about the stimulating rep's model, they get published, but after whatever, people still going to say, if somebody was to argue with the people, I don't understand that peer review literally means review by your peers, review by other people who have worked in the same area. Okay. The response that I gave that was provocative was that I don't see myself engaging in popularity contests and a lot of people went nuts at me and sent me a lot of direct messages saying peer review is not a popularity contest and that's literally what it is. It's literally exactly what you get messages people argue with here by that kind of thing. People were trying to tell me that peer review is an integral part of science, which is not, it's absolutely not, it's a modern phenomenon and actually it's closer to scholastic activity than it is to science activity is just in terms of fundamental ideas. I always thought peer review was exactly as you described it. It's exactly what it says it is peer reviewed. So your buddies are sitting around like, it's a good paper. Basically saying, do these ideas that you're presenting support our current narratives or do they know? Yes. Okay. That's what it does. I do know of scientists who've tried to publish papers in fields related to what we talk about and they've found it incredibly difficult because the result that they happened to discover in the process of their experiments was not insipelated or the people would be on the peer review. Narratives. Yes. And people, what people don't understand, I think, is they think that peer review should function in a certain way in order for science to be, you know, kind of advanced. And that's basically a teleological view of how you think that it works. That's not actually how institutions work. Let me help work in order for something to happen. They work in line with the incentives that exist within them. So let me give you, I was making a joke earlier about a biblical canon, but the reason that books of the Bible were picked was because they could literally be validated in specific ways. So if there's a book in the Bible that's specific about here, this tree was here and whatever, and they could verify that that was accurate, then they could talk about the accuracy of that scripture. So if they had books, the canon was looking at, and they're like, well, there's no way this could have happened because this person didn't live during this time. And the places they're talking about, none of these things were there. In other words, they could find inaccuracies within those books to say these can't meet the criteria. And it was based on not, oh, I believe this stuff. So we're going to exclude some things and include some things based on stuff that was actually you could, that was, could be validated. So if you do scientific data, how people think peer review works is exactly as you're describing. There's some people with no biases sitting around, they look at the outcome and they see whether or not the study was done with a methodology that's good, sound, that your measurements were done in this specific way, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, and then they look at it and go, here you did all these things in a way that has integrity in the process on this kind of stuff. And here's your outcome. You know, we're going to pass it based on all these standards. And so obviously, not how it works. And the fact that you have people arguing with that as well to me because they'll, they don't understand in peer review, there's a reason why you see the same people getting papers published through the same channels because they all share the same ideologies. I don't know why they don't understand this. It's a popularity, I love back to being you. It's a popularity contest. Yes. And that's what got me an enormous amount of pushback from a certain proportion of my readership. And they were saying, you know, science or peer review is not a popularity contest. It is. Science isn't. Science is not. But peer review process is a popularity contest in so far as the incentives are aligned in that direction. You know where you know where you see peer review less like that is in physiology. You see, I think more in the exercise science work is physiology you go and exercise science is outcome data, longitudinal outcome data. We need to see that your outcome data shows what we already believe. My favorite, my favorite example of where it does happen in the physiology data is actually the muscle damage stuff because when you read enough muscle like you do and probably I do and very few other people do, but when you read enough muscle damage research, you realize that it's all calcium ions. I mean, basically calcium ions do everything and it becomes very clear that that's what's happening. - But, hold on, I'm not interrupting. Did they used to say they was hydrogen? No, I don't think so. Somebody brought it up to me yesterday, and I've never found that one time. I think some people in the endurance, maybe endurance or maybe in the running community, believed that the post-workout muscle soreness was caused by hydrogen ions, as in acidosis. I think that was kind of a thing for a while. Because they often tied in domes with muscle damage. There you go. Okay, so here we go. So when you do enough reading around muscle damage literature, realize everything is just calcium ions, and when you kind of really just read and read and read and read and read and read, you can kind of start to pause the phrases and comments that the researchers use in their discussion and introduction sections. Because basically you know that they know that it's all calcium ions, but they will still make reference to tearing forces here and there just to make sure that paper gets through peer review. So you can kind of have these really weird papers where it's absolutely screaming obvious from the results and the way in which the study was done, that it's yet another paper supporting the calcium ion hypothesis of how muscle damage works. And yet you'll still see them referring to, you know, kind of tearing forces pulling the fibers apart, and there's absolutely nothing in the paper that would let you even imagine that that was happening. And even though you've got a whole ton of it, and it's like you read these and when you've read enough of them, you can kind of see them that almost like passwords. Yeah, I don't get through peer review without saying these passwords. I remember when years ago, who were when I decided I was like, I'm gonna debunk everybody's nonsense about muscles torn down a bit like bigger. And I think that that theory started around 91, that was when it was kind of put into paper, it was around 91. And you can go back around 91 if you find papers on that stuff. It's consistently there's a language used in there about mechanical damage, you know, the cellular destruction that's happening at, you know, tearing forces and blah, blah, and you'll find these this language over and over. And I remember going through it and I was like, but this doesn't even exist. Like they just made it up and wrote it out. Like this is what and even the papers that are referencing it don't have anything to add to it at all. It's just literally a thing that they have to say to keep their colleagues happy when the paper goes to peer review. And when you've seen, when you expose yourself to enough of this stuff, you start to kind of become a little bit more kind of, you know, I don't know. Jaded isn't the right word because I've come out the other side of jaded. You know, I think I'm absolutely in the, if you kind of kind of treat these kind of processes as the Kubleros kind of scale, I'm absolutely acceptance on everything. You know, I have accepted how human beings are. Some people when they talk to me, they think I'm very pessimistic. I'm not. I've reached acceptance on this stuff. So I know the stuff you're pessimistic about. This is what I want to know. But again, that I've always got, for the last few many years, is that you're just at a place of, I'm like that with a lot of things because people will be like, they will send me stuff. Look at what this person's saying. I'm like, I don't care. Do you get those? They're like, look at what this person's saying. I only get stuff when people, they send me stuff and say, "Oh, look, look what this person's saying about you." And I'm like, actually, I don't want to. I don't care. I draw them not no, actually. Yeah, but I mean, I just don't even care. You know what I mean? What am I going to do about it? Yeah. Exactly. What do you want me to do? Because people send me something and like, look at what this person is saying or whatever. And I'm like, I don't care. I literally don't, if somebody's talking about me, if somebody is making like, like, contradictory content about something, I said, I literally don't care. Well, who else are they going to talk about in the moment really? I mean, nobody. It's basically you and I, like, kind of up on this person, whether or not people think that's arrogant or not, I really don't care about that anymore either. But essentially, it's everybody either taking our content and making content off of it or people taking shots at us. But at the same time, I always like, cool, give me a citation. I don't ever see shit. I just see a bunch of ad hominem's. It's just ad hominem's, ad hominem's, ad hominem's, you know, just like throwing insults at me. I'm like, that's great. I get it. You think I'm a clown or like a tool bag or that I'm an asshole. But refute what I said with some data. Can you do that? We don't run into those problems. We run into, remember I said you that one Facebook thing. Oh wow, that was definitely an afternoon event today. And that was wow. Those guys were abs. I mean, they they are just like, we are living rent free in their heads. I mean, like just unbelievable. Well, the guy was like, can you guys, this is like, yeah, he goes in and he's like, can you guys tell me what they're actually saying? It's wrong. And everyone just goes, bang, and you just hit the explosions as their brains just combust. It was a bunch of people writing these long word salads and I wrote them all and I'm like, not a single person was able to refute anything. It was just long word salads just that meant nothing, just people mad. And they're like, well, they say, they say too many absolutes in gray areas, cherry picking blah, blah, I'm like, we do a podcast where we talk about every study that comes out every two weeks. People who accuse me of cherry picking when there's two thousand two hundred and two thousand two thousand two hundred in for graphic of studies on my Instagram page. I don't believe that anybody who criticizes me and accuses me of cherry picking has even read two thousand whole FAQ that goes over. I don't know. Did you ever make an infographic of that maltriceps study though? You didn't do that. I did. I just didn't publish it because I cannot find a way to you can't put words on it. Display in a way that actually makes sense. So I've done the infographic just sits there in like a done kind of folder and I'm like, how do I publish this? Because I can't explain the results. So I'm not adding anything on that. I mean enough people send me screenshots of that study. So I mean it's not like I'm asking about it every single week. I just gave up on it. So back to the high reps and low low because we got off of the tangent. It was fun. But my theory is as you said, we need a wash out period. If we had like a 12 week study, we'd have to use trained people. It had to be trained people, 12 weeks, 10, 12 week study and then something like four, five, something like Manjean did almost like just like what Manjean did but just with the long rest periods for the higher rep group. But I wouldn't want to say something like 15 reps. I think we really do need heavy loads. We need five and six rep maxes being tested against like classic bodybuilding 10 to 12 rep maxes. I think we really need that study. And I think but also it will be useful to see another. I mean like I would use what to do the same thing and compare maybe six to eight rep maxes with 15 to 20 just to show them to make the point physiologically. You know, I can see that it's less interesting from a practical perspective because you know, I mean, I don't think many people are training with 15. I mean, I think there probably are people but there's definitely still bodybuilders out there and hearing to the hypertrophy zone of eight to 12 reps, 100%. And I think it would be really cool to test that against something like six rep max. I'd be really, very cool because there's so little actually testing that end of the spectrum. So basically it is the Manjean study. So I think if you look at it. Didn't he use three to five then? He did use three to five but was crazy. I'm a bit twitchy about because I would much rather have the full five reps on each set. I was going to say I like to use the word twitchy. I wouldn't feel good about three reps against 10 to 12. And I'm not criticizing using three reps. I'm not even saying if I don't use the thing. Yeah, I mean, if I'm using a study where I'm trying to get good hypertrophy outcomes, I would use I would want to pit a five to six rep max against like a 10 to 12 because I think 10 to 12 is like where they say, you know, the hypertrophy zone. I know they don't say that anymore, but that was what they said forever. And that's fascinating, isn't it? When you kind of like you watch these trends occur in terms of the tendencies to use certain terminologies. And it's like what we've always said is that when ideas go into the sort of institutional part of the fitness industry, they're never walked back. They're just diluted down into into insignificant. And then another idea kind of quietly replaces them. There's never a moment where somebody comes out and says, "You know what guys, we got that wrong. We need to replace it with this new idea." Nobody ever does that because that would. And when you see that kind of thing happening, it starts to again change the way you see the world working. What's the, there's that meme where the character is like side-eyeing the camera and then looks straight ahead after that. That's what the exercise science guys do. is once their stuff starts to fall apart, they. They kind of sighed, "I everybody," and then in order to just not, they just talk about it anymore. They just look straight ahead and then they start, and then what the house of cards that's falling down, you said this a year ago, you said, "I wonder how they're going to start walking back to the stretch ship when more data starts coming out." And then they did stick their next out a very long way on that stuff. And now I think, like, really, it's not his bad. A lot of them have stopped talking about it because it kind of fall. It's falling apart, which we had to deal with a lot of hate for about two years over that. But that new, there's going to be a new bicep study that's going to drop, that's going to show exactly what we predicted. "Woo, those are words we've never used before." And that is, the length of the bicep really doesn't matter. So, training it at a longer length, like the BeAsian curl or whatever they call that, where the arms and the shoulders and hyper extension, and the bicep is really stretched out. It didn't grow anymore than a cable preacher curl, as long as they match the torque curve. Which is only what we said this whole time. The resistance profiles are the most important because when you match that out with new mechanical matching, we're going to know what's doing the most work. So interestingly, somebody did make this point to me the other day, which is that the shoulder position probably does affect the. "I saw that you said leverage of the biceps bracket in terms of its ability to perform elbow flexion. And I think that is probably true, but I don't know any data that actually has given us that information." "I saw that you said that, and I pondered on that for a while. I think that you're thinking that in a similar way as we see the triceps gain or loosen leverage against the core or the biceps from a short head going from a lying leg curl to a seated leg curl." "Yes, well because in a lying leg curl, the stretch position, yeah, the changing the length of the two-joint, not the single-joint muscles, where you'd get the same effect at the elbow flexors. But I don't know what it would do. "I don't either. It's crazy how much data that we don't have sometimes, just like on stuff that we spit ball about. I mean, the triceps we know because we have basically a pretty massive reduction in activation of the long head when you get in that overhead position. We know that there's definitely. And then we know that there's a reduction in force production because I mean, just as it has sufficient overlap in that stretch." "Yeah, you could do the same methodology that London did for the calf muscles and the triceps, and you could do that on the biceps." "You know what? We don't have. We don't have really. I don't. I look forever and I can find anything on any moment of our data when you're in a shoulder hyper extension, like on anything crossing a shoulder." "Yeah, but you know that when we look at the moment arm day, they tend to stop 10-20 degrees before the anatomical position, just simply because it's too hard to take measurements in that zone. So getting past that point is not going to happen." "There's always limitations on that. Even like Aklan only went to 120." "So that's where London's methodology is more interesting because you literally just stick someone at the dinomometer and you put them in any position you want. You electrically stimulate the muscle and it gives you a torque measurement. You write it down on the graph and you're done. It's that simple. It's awesome." "I like that in some ways a little better." "So much easier than chopping up cadabas and like you know kind of building a whole building a whole diorama." "Diarama. I'm a machine to put an arm in and like connected to the liars. You can do the moment arm data like land and he should have done more work. He could have done it." "It's fantastic." "Yeah, because I mean it's." "This is triceps stuff." "But the triceps also has definitely has a movement arm through horizontal abduction too." "I know that it does but we don't have the data on." "I actually think because of the difficulty and the level of speciality and expertise that's necessary to do moment arm studies with cadabas." I mean that is a very very specific skill set. I actually think that and also given the none she had just a number of dinomometers that there are spread out across universities in the world. All you need to do is to add the expertise for providing electro-stimulus to specific muscles. Then you can literally do any experiment you want at that point. You get any "we weigh cheaper than doing cadabas." "It would be way cheaper, way easier and actually once the base level of expertise is there for electrically stimulating the muscle which is obviously not to be underestimate." "Oh and the interesting thing about that is that you could do it on multiple people cheap and then you could kind of get a range that you're looking at." "You could do all of that different kind of like. " "Literally you could spend one week doing like hard-on-old shoulder adduction and like doing a little bit more than a week." "Well what I mean is if you had you could literally just be if you had people that you're looking at for one week and let's say you had ten people." "Oh I see you could like do multiple kind of muscles sometimes. You could do all of the stuff you could do the triceps biceps or you could do loads of interesting stuff." "That's what I was saying I was saying you could do one week where you're just looking at the packs for hard-on-old shoulder adduction where you just like have multiple people and you're kind of looking at hey." "If any research is looking at this I just based on this information you could publish ten papers on this like within no time whatsoever. This is like several PhDs worth of material." "That's true." "Several PhDs worth of material." "Yeah and then you would have data that has not been done yet." "And it has absolutely massive practical implication for bodybuilding and strength training in general and functional side of things." "And functional." "It would even have the I mean it could be extrapolated all out to even like surgical stuff." "This would go a very long way much further than these ridiculous studies that are currently being done in the stress media. Where are we?" "Yeah we're we have stress media, stress media, stress media, and then there's hundreds of thousands of dollars to tell us stuff that I could predict you know." "We did predict, we've predicted every single time. It would have really good practical applications everything from like I said surgical procedures to strength training to rehabilitation. It would do a vast amount of things. I mean that's why people like Akland didn't be like hey let's go figure out. "Nur明chanical matching like they wanted to know like where where did these muscles have the greatest leverage in these joint angles. Like there's a lot of reasons why we need that data not just for bodybuilding or people are kids arguing with each other on TikTok." "Totally totally. I think they lose sight of the fact that hey these studies were not really even done for like you know programming for. " "They're done primarily to provide data for biomechanical models." "Yeah so and we need that for a multitude of reasons but this would actually you could do this and it would be because even Akland himself said hey they had to articulate certain movements like manipulate the idea of like the scapula moving with like stuff right and they did that with wires. I think they did that with some of the wires where they were like creating uh it was rotation of the humorous and this and stuff scapula movement. They were having to kind of like artificial. " "Very messy." "Yeah but it's still the gold standard because nobody's anything even close to it. There's no reason to do another one in my opinion. That's as close as we're going to get right now unless we get a tag." "It'd be really cool to do the model of experiment that landen has been doing." "The landen did across to. " "Yes. No I could have it already. So if you did landance methodology and then you just contrast it against the Akland study you can see okay so here's the Akland study what we get on measurements where we're like taking cadavers and then here's the landen study and we get we have this outcome data here and then we kind of we put them on top of each other layer and kind of look and see is this is this really what we're seeing with like live people." "Well this is a point that Brett has made for a number of years which is that if you look at live people they tend to have much bigger muscles than cadavers. I mean it sounds like a fairly obvious statement. It's important because it changes the shape and shape is everything that comes to life." "It does because when you look at a live person you could even. here's would be the others thing you can bring in bodybuilders, well developed bodybuilders, they do are we getting big changes?" "We are absolutely because I mean that's a study that you know Brett was actually instrumental in putting together with Andrew and I was involved in the paper as well but basically they the increase in the size of say for example biceps or triceps in the case of strength training will cause a very very big impact on the moment times." So I think we would see that but whether it changes relative sizes is the question. "That was actually something I thought about when I was everybody was coming at me about the bulking stuff was that I think intercellular water glycogenal that kind of stuff if you get a very full muscle that you're going to get better internal leverage too because it's going to bulge out away from the joy." "Power lift has talked about that for years, absolutely, absolutely." I mean, that's actually something that crops up in the West Side conversations all the time is that they would deliberately try and load, you know, kind of like hydrogen and water to a workout because it would allow them to lift a heavier weight. And just like that sort of absolute 100% focus on just making sure they lift a heavier weight, it caused them to all kinds of weird stuff. So, one of the great things, first of all, there's definitely a reduction when you put a bunch of fat on and then your muscles are fuller. There's two things going on there is that you do have a reduction in range of motion, which even if you reduce range of motion by an engine or lift, it's a big, it's a drop off and there's a reduction in torque as per you see. But then the other thing is you create a better internal leverage because when you have really full muscles with lots of water, lots of glycogen, they really bulge out away from joint. And if you look at some of the physiology and I don't know if you're going to look at this part, one of the genetic advantages for people who people ask, "Why is this guy so much stronger and he's smaller?" Well, if his insertion, if his tendon insertion is further down the bone away from yours, then he's going to have better internal leverages because he's got to produce, he produces less force to lift a bigger weight. Again, most people's idea of strength is again, like that video game character we were talking about before. I mean, they don't think in terms of torque production and kind of systems of leverage. It's all just like, you know, what's your strength level on your kind of video game sprite? Yeah, you got. So I think that's. Take the damage you got that health build back up and then over the course of the game, you build like a more stronger or older character. Absolutely, Matt. So we would need a. If we had a study. Here's my thing about this. I don't know how different biodegrad 6 reps would be outcome-wise from 10 to 12. Do you think there would be a significant enough difference at 5 to 6 and 10 to 12? I think 12 to 15 would be different, different enough. I would really, really interesting because you remember there's a study, do you remember there's a study which shows that if you do heavy loads for a couple of weeks, don't three weeks, and then 5 or 6 weeks worth of moderate load strength training, that is superior in untrained people to doing the whole kind of 8 weeks with moderate loads. And that's basically because you increase recruitment faster in the heavier load training. So I think if you did give beginners kind of 5, 6 rep maxes and then compare that with 10 to 12 rep maxes, you might actually see superior hypertruity because of the recruitment gains being bigger. Maybe it would be better to look at beginners to see because I don't know. The reason why I pick is people keep saying it's a range of 5 to 30 reps the same muscle growth. That's there's no way that's true. There's no way that's true. Why are you smirky? Do you not think it's. I mean, I think it's more or less true. It's just I don't think it's 100% true. I agree. Well, I say, I don't. Okay, because the way they phrase it, and I'm being for dantic here, but I'm saying the way they phrase it is. It's ironic given that I'm the guy with the stimulated rapist model, and I'm saying I think it's probably not true, and they don't have a model that just makes up. Hold on a minute. Hold on a minute. It's not true, and I meant to bring this up before. The stimulating reps model, let's get back to the core of it, is saying. No, you're right. You're right. Recruitment plus tension. Yes, I agree with you. The stimulating reps model doesn't just explain to you why. That's an interesting discussion now. So the stimulating reps model just explains if we're trying to maximize high parts of your ore, we're getting reps that are stimulating to fibers that can continue to grow, we need a couple of conditions to make. It doesn't say the last five reps of a set of the 30. I'm the same. No, I know. But no people say that shit. I know that. I'm like, no, that's not. Here's what I'm getting at with that. Okay. You know what? I'm going to just go ahead, just like when before, when you gave me some push back on the demon stuff and you had to run, I got that right. I'm just going to go ahead and I'm going to double down on this one, like you double down before telling people, make a model. I'm going to say, it's not close. I'm going to say if you did four sets of 30 reps and the other group was doing four sets of five reps, there is no way in hell. I'm doing. This is because I'm saying they keep saying the range is five to 30. I'm like, okay, cool. If you have one group doing 30 reps sets and they do four sets of 30 and the other group is doing four sets of five to six reps, I do not believe after 12 weeks the muscle growth will be designed. We need that washup period. You have 100% with that washup period. If you're doing four sets of 30 repetitions, you are absolutely getting cooked by that. Just actually, just let me just kind of pause on that one because what we've been talking about so far is literally just intrat workout differences in MoT unit recruitment. We've not talked about recoverability of the workout. Correct. So if you look to Chris, the thing is they don't talk about that when they present these things. I already was just rooting as fatigue problem. The only problem for them when they want it to be a problem is when they want it to be as stimulus. They would bring that up for that study. They would be like, well, there was no way. I'm like, you don't talk about this for the other time except when it's this is proving. I already put a push all that through the noggin. If you had four reps of four sets of 30 reps, you can't do that. You can't do that in the week and recover. No. You would need to be doing two sets of 30. See, the problem is that from a purely selfish point of view, I would want them to do more sets because I know that their diminishing returns are going to be greater and greater and greater in more sets that they do. So really, from my perspective, I'd rather they did like four or five sets and got cooked towards the end of that workout and weren't able to get much benefit from it. But equally, I do kind of want to be as fair as possible from a setting of a study design point of view. Just thinking about it, what data have we got for light load strengthening recovery? We know from the Faroe paper that one set of very light or not very light, but at the top end of the light load spectrum, one set I think is more than 48 hours. I think is it? When we broke this down, the recovery before that was when we were able to outline the model for these various different things that were creating long lasting fatigue effects. That was when we were able to figure out, okay, so the stretch positions are pretty much the worst. And then after that, I wouldn't say it was higher reps that were most significant and then failure because you could do failure at a low rep set and it's bad, but it's not like doing failure at a higher rep set. So the Faroe study was I want to say four days for a set of was it 15 reps? Just pulling it up now. Excuse me. So yeah, fatigue is still there at 48 hours with one set of 40% of max force, which is. Was that a 40% velocity levels? No, so they did a single set to failure with 40% with a load equivalent to 40% of maximum voluntary isometric contraction, which is probably around 45% of one max. So that's probably somewhere around 20. I would say no, I'd say it's 30+ reps, I would guess. I was going to say 25. I think it's probably more like 35. Oh, but to guess, without looking at the subject. That one, because I'm trying to, I'm drawing off memory you got in front of me, so it was more than 48 hours. Yeah, you can see that the reduction goes. It hits about a 15% drop-in strength at at 24 hours and it's still about maybe 8% reduction in strength at 48 hours. So I would say probably getting around baseline after three days, 72 hours. That was one set though. Yeah, one set. So you'd be talking about literally doing one set. No, no, no, no, we know for sure. It was the legging extension study and I was trying to find out when the other day. Remember the legging extension study we found where they were doing them every day in the fatigue, just like building and building and building. And it took a weeks to recover. But I think that was reducing the fatigue because I think they were using BFR. So that would reduce the amount of post-workout fatigue because it would and it would exacerbate metabolite accumulation and reduce calcium ion accumulation. That's why you tend to see reduce the fatigue. I was thinking about if you were doing four sets of 30, the amount of the amount of fatigue. If there's one set, one set of say 30 or 35 reps is still looking at roughly three days before you're back to business. Yeah, that's one saying. So like they're just going to do one set twice a week and they're not going to program that. No, I want them to get caught. Yeah, but then you're not testing what we're trying to set out to test because that's the very point I'm making. Because my point is it's like, they keep, they don't want to talk about fatigue. Okay, well, let's describe two separate studies there. Basically, there's the study that you would need to do to test hypothesis that rep range from a physiological point of view. You would do one set, you have to do one set of 30 twice a week or one set of six twice a week. The good thing about the one set twice a week is we already have data, good data showing where we're staying in a bottle like most of the week that way. So you could do one set of 30 twice a week and one set of six twice a week and you can compare the results of that after saying it in ten weeks. Yeah, I don't think that'd be the same. And if you wanted to do a study to actually show that the recoverability creates a problem as well, then you could do four or five sets. They would be absolutely cooked. I would like that from the standpoint of these clowns that argue is me that you can train six days a week. Look, we have to do a whole podcast on that. I'm so tired of it. Like they people were like, I train six days a week and I still see progressive overload and I this and I that and like, okay, I'm like, we only spent like two months going over the recovery data. Like it's just you have to train in such a limited fashion to truly be recovering. Training six days a week. Very, very difficult to do. Well, when you pull your infographic up about that because when we broke these downs, we broke these downs, we isolate them off. It's like a stretch position. I want to say it's three or four days. If it's a high rep set, it's at least three days. If it's a set to failure, you're looking at a few days. You're literally going to be doing singles, doubles or maybe triples with five rep max in order to make this work. In order to make a six day, I think we talked about it before to make a six day program work. Even if you could do four or five rep sets, but they need to be like two RIR that have to be I think you're pushing it with that to be honest. Do you think you're pushing it with a two? I do. I think you're probably going to be looking at the doubles or triples. Any stretch position or anything. No, not really. You really can't. So how are you going to train packs? How are you going to train? You have to train packs, biceps. I guess you could train. Honestly, the way my brain immediately goes when somebody says they're training full body six days a week. My brain immediately goes, oh, well, they're training for some kind of event or competition. No, no, no. I'm saying they always say push full leg six days a week. Well, that then is just kind of self-defeating because you kind of in a situation where you can't create any muscle damage because you've got supospinal fatigue then to worry about the following day. And you're just in a permanently subdued moti group and say, that's the part I think people don't realize. I don't know if people think that you and I literally sit around and what can we say this week? Just piss everybody off. It literally works like this. Some people don't buy the scenes is that you and I share information weeks at a time. We're like, look at this, look at this, look at this, look at this. And then we do think in practical application terms, I have groups that I need a program before. So I'm like, when we were figuring out the weekly and that stimulus model, that was the thing that really crushed. We didn't even get to the fatigue recovery stuff. I think it was third. We were looking at what we were looking at. My observation, we got past pretty fast and we looked at astrophed data. That's another thing people fight with. So look at astrophed data for weeks. Like here's the astrophed data. And then we notice people have got acquired about that. There was lots of pushback on the astrophed stuff. Now it's conquired. The reason why that has gone quiet really, I believe it or not, is thanks to the people that were warring with us for a couple of years because once they came out with that study that showed one set twice a week caused muscle growth even in train people no matter how miserable it was. If you were looking at three sets could only maintain it. What's going on the rest of the day and week? I've been saying for a while that the maintenance literature is the best proof that astrophie happens within a week. Yeah, well what I was getting back to earlier is like when I used to say the frequency stuff and I would repeat that to an uncrung inside, I've kind of felt like that for a long time about saying that all muscle growth is really similar between five and thirty reps. I'd get this cringey feeling inside because I'm like that doesn't line up with the physiology. It does not. It doesn't. You had to bend, you had to bend to me that I was right about the dimest stuff on the high the high volume stuff and that it was a hundred percent. A demon now that we got the strength data that they lined up with it. There's no other explanation. I don't think it's I think it's I don't I don't want to use the word dramatic. I think it's a bigger difference in saying they're similar. We need to wash out periods of all of so many training studies. We need wash out periods. Until we've got wash out periods all of this is just completely and utterly academic. So we were talking about two studies. One, I agree with you. If we're trying to prove or disprove what I'm saying, which I have no problem with either way, we'd need one set of like 25 to 30 reps twice a week, 10 to 12 weeks, and then we'd need one group doing five or six reps sets twice a week. Yep. Train your own trained. Well, I personally would want it to untrain people because I think that the recruitment increases would be beneficial to those people more obviously and therefore it would be clearer that you've got a difference between the heavy load group and the light load group. But it would also be interesting to see it in trained people because you would potentially get although you wouldn't get that same effect most likely. You would potentially get a clearer signal. I think the problem that you get with untrained people is that some people grow like a weed and some people don't grow at all and then you just kind of have a really messy set of data. You would need enough people doing it so that you could get. But yeah, if you threw enough people at that study, I could probably make that work. 30 or 40. You would need just from not being underpowered to get a good result. You need 30 or 40 people. And then repeat the same study but with excessive from the light load point of view, excessive workout volume. So, four sets. Yeah, four sets of five twice a week. Twice a week. Four sets of five. In my opinion, doable. It is four sets of five twice a week. I wouldn't be very happy, but it's doable. It's doable. It's the four sets of 30 which is not doable. You can't even have it being in that group that the government before sets the 30 twice a week. I would hate my life. You'd also need to give them both some pretty decent rest periods because ultimately, I would want to do there is I would I would I don't know how you would standardize it, but if you were doing four sets of 30, I would want to make sure. I don't know. Just let me let me rant on this because this is something that frustrates me enormously because and it's a trend that I see across exercise physiology for a very long time, which is that they think that by matching numbers, there's somehow standardizing stuff. And physiology doesn't, for these, physiology doesn't care about your numbers. So, if you say, okay, we're going to use four minutes of rest in the light load group, performing its arrest in the heavy load group, therefore we're standardizing rest periods. I'm like, no, you're not. Because the thing that actually matters about a rest period is the recoverability of fatigue from one set to the next. So, if I have a elevated Tata is now joining us as you probably heard. So, Tata can tell us about the film that you watched the other night, which I recommend. So good. That was one of the best ones you've ever recommended to me. And it was subtitled. I'll talk about it later. Tata's new favorite film. Yeah, it was. You watched the whole film with me. It was fantastic. Go ahead. So, you were saying we were talking about rest periods. And this is actually another reason we get on some of the good topics. Physiological differences. Physiological differences are important for you. You took this one. If I do 30 reps, my heart rate will be elevated and I'll have accumulated a bunch of metabolites. Both of those things are going to cause supospinal CNST. Until they dissipate, I'm suffering that impact. So, if you then start your second set with those still in place, that isn't a complete rest period. In the heavy load set, I'm not going to get any problems whatsoever. This is really such a great point going on. So, standardization should, for rest periods, should. And I've actually told people that they could do this. Literally, wear a heart rate monitor. When it comes back down to a certain level, then you can do the next set. Much better. Much better than standardizing based on, oh yeah, it's three minutes or it's four minutes or whatever minutes. It just garbage. It's like when people are trying to standardize work done or, you know, kind of volume load. I mean, the most ridiculous thing in the history of hypertrophy science is when they go, oh well, we made the two groups, you know, we matched their volume load. And like, that is the silliest thing I've ever done. Who cares? It tells us nothing. Volume load is never been related to hypertrophy. It's a history of mankind. It's literally pointless, the most pointless thing to even put in the research. We don't, I don't give a crap about volume load. literally tells us nothing. It doesn't tell us anything. But they think there being more scientific by matching volume load rather than matching the sets to play. So people say this. I know. They're like, it increased volume load. I don't care. I literally don't care. It tells me nothing. That's one of the very hard things actually to get rude to people on the internet. The hard-wrapped matter thing is fantastic because you could actually standardize, rest between sets way better. You could, because if you put the heart rate monitor on and you're really trying to progress overload, if you jot it down, your heart rate was. But they won't do this because to do this would have to accept what the physiological mechanisms are that cause negative effects of short to rest periods. We've literally set. One of the greatest ones because it's any cardiovascular effort is going to take up a ton of space in the corollary discharge. And the great thing is bodybuilders have actually said this. This actually clips out there of bodybuilders saying you don't want to reach failure because you're kind of breathing too hard. You want to reach failure because the muscle is not actually the muscle, but it's the central motor. You're okay. You can say the bodybuilder's stuff. You know. You know, it's about muscle to reach muscular failure. You don't want to be failing because you're out of breath. And people would say, and that's true, it's exactly true. What do you think? So how would we, if we standardize heart rate rate, clearly that would be individual ballistic? So honestly, in the case of this study, I would just give them really long rest periods and be done with it. But for other purposes, it was useful just to have. I'll leave you a practical application of this because that actually really excites me because I hate saying two or three minutes because here's the thing. If you do a heavy set of leg presses, let's say you had a good progressive overload at a curve, and then you went from say a five or six reps to say eight or nine. Because if I still have progressive overload at a curvy, if I have to push up because when I are, I'll still go ahead and take those extra reps. So let's say I hit nine reps. Well, my recovery on a heavy set of leg presses at nine reps is definitely longer than five reps. But like those. You probably wait until you can't feel any of that sensation. Don't you? I mean, that's basically what I was getting at. So I wait until. And I mean, good cardio vascular shave because I do, you know, five miles twice a week in the week, you know, until the weight of the vest. So my cardio is good. But I still need a couple of minutes after heavy set of leg presses or hacks quite a bit. The more muscle mass that you have, the more recovery you're going to need because you've only got one cardiovascular system. Right. You've got all this extra muscle mass. I don't think you will think about the fact. You know, we've talked about metabolites playing a role in after feedback and creating perception of effort, but the cardio vascular domain is the greatest. It's the biggest one. As soon as you do any multi-joint exercise, you are going to have a cardiovascular demand and you are going to feel that perception of effort associated with that until you give yourself a chance to recover from it. But I think the more muscle mass you have, the bigger that effect is going to be. Yep. Because of the lactate production. So you go into that's why you don't talk about such people. So if you try to go from like using antagonist supersets and you're doing compound motions, there's a massive amount of lactate that ends up getting pushed around that creates a big cardiovascular demand. And so while it seems, part of it seems catchy on paper, you're still creating a. I'm talking for compound motions, not like single-joint stuff like some curls or single-arm tricep the press downs. But if you're doing like an incline press or a machine minstress or something and then you're going to like lap hold downs, there's a massive cardiovascular. Exactly. There's a massive cardiovascular. So those are just not good things to kind of pair up. But the heart rate monitor thing, because you can get one of those straps around your chest. I mean, you can check them on your myelic mine. I know that there is, but really, really easy to get these things. I would be interesting to see kind of what range you'd get up to. This is how you do it. It have to be an individual effort. I just figured out my head. So as soon as the set's over, you need to check what it's at. And then when you feel mentally ready that you've recovered, so you're not breathing hard again, you're like, I'm ready to do my next set, then you check what your heart rate has come down to. And then you would have to kind of look at that. And I'll bet you money that you could set it at that heart rate on an exercise for exercise basis. In other words, it wouldn't vary. I think you'd always come back down to the same heart rate as a recovery period. That's super interesting. I don't know why people would never talk about it. And I think anybody can do that. They just have to look at it and notice when the perception is put in my groups because I think that's the best way to judge your recovery between sets is to figure out your heart rate zone where you feel because we talk about perception of effort. It literally is when you feel mentally ready to do the next set. So what is your heart rate? What did it come back now to when you feel? I think the first thing that I would probably do is have people go through the process of observing that to start with. So like the first time I did it, I'd be like, just make a note of what the number is when you are kind of definitively feel like you've got rid of all of that cardiovascular demand from the previous kind of exercise. And they should notice a trend of a certain number appearing or at least a range of a band of five beats per minute or whatever. Yeah, it doesn't have to be exact, but just in the range. Yeah. And then they know what they're looking for and then they can just eyeball it. That's what I was needing to say. So what I was saying was you did a heart set of leg presses, it's eight reps and your heart rate comes back now to say, we'll say figuratively, that's since 98 beats a minute. And you do triceps, one arm triceps push-downs. What I'm saying is I'll bet for sure for reception wise, the heart rate is going to be within the same kind of zone in regards to the exercise that you come back down to when you feel mentally ready to go again because it's cardiovascular. So I think you could probably do one workout and almost find your zone. So there is, I mean, you will get heart rate drift, you'll get day-to-day differences, you'll get varied. And it will be used for a few people a little bit of time to figure that out. If you have other things, like if you're doing other activities that create HRV problems, like in other words, if you are, if you're somebody that's running, doing like running 10 miles on the weekend or you're doing multiple runs here in the week, so your heart rate variability is going to change a bit. So you might have more fluctuations there for somebody who's doing. Low or moderate intensity cardio. But you could probably be really interesting to get someone who specializes in circulatory system and just talk to them about the things that affect heart rate. I'd be really interesting actually. We should do that because I'm very now very interested in this topic because I think it would be super helpful programming wise to find a way to get everybody into their proper recovery zone set to set. In which case, let's stop talking about HRV. If you try and connect the words HRV with recovery, we're going to have all kinds of problems. Okay, but we covered heart rate recovery. That's heart rate recovery. I'm literally talking, but what I would say with HRV is that if you had variances, how do I express this? If there's a cardiovascular demand in the workout, which when you're using lower rep sets, heavier load, there's not as much of a move. But if there's a cardiovascular demand in the workout and you've done some cardiovascular works a day before or whatever, that's created something in the auto-tomic nervous system that has created fatigue there. You would probably have some differences show up in your resting heart rate stuff because of the HRV. Am I making sense? Because of the autonomic nervous system, which you might record using HR. Honestly, HRV is not the kind of the tall people think it is. I mean, it doesn't get overblown there for a few years. It tells you something about your autonomic nervous system that has absolutely zipped to do with muscle damage recovery, just to be 100% clear. What I was saying was we know that if HRV, if you created fatigue in the cardiovascular respiratory system, and that's currently existing, then you go into that workout, that is going to have a negative impact if you're doing something that has a cardiovascular demand with it. If it is even fatigue, I mean, it's a change in the autonomic nervous system regarding the cardiovascular system and the way it operates. I mean, I'm really hesitant to describe that as fatigue because fatigue is, as we've discussed previously, a temporary reversible reduction in exercise performance. I think that shift in the autonomic nervous system might have an impact on long distance exercise or aerobic exercise type performances. It absolutely doesn't affect strength training performances in the same way that I talked about sleep. Unless the street training you're doing high reps, et cetera. Unless you're going to do high-reand, you've got the short-respoot situation going on simultaneously. That's what I was trying to say. If you can do something that has a cardiovascular cap, then you're going to run out of energy. run into it with your HRV stuff. You are. But if you're doing HRV stuff is not going to. So I think we've already kind of figured this out. So you don't really need it. I think we kind of had it right the first time. I think, unless we talk to somebody that really specializes in stuff that we're missing something, I think if you track your heart rate, if you monitor your own perception of effort, when you feel like you're recovered between sets and then just track its set to set to set, work its set to set. For a week, you might find a pattern. Oh, I'm quite confident that that would be the case. I think people will find a kind of a 5-beat per minute kind of band in which they're noticing that's the kind of number that they feel that they need to get back to before they're very ready to do the next set. I think that would occur more quickly with the single joint stuff and I think it would occur more slowly with multi-joint stuff. Sometimes when we go through this stuff, we come up with stuff that nobody's talked about or done for and I wonder why that is. Because people don't read the fatigue literature. Because ultimately everything that is interesting that has been, well, okay, maybe the soccer meridinist is stuff, but honestly, I think that soccer meridinist is guys knew what was happening. It's just it needed to be brought into the life. Nobody fights us on that anymore either. The fatigue stuff, people just ignore because they know that to actually even have the conversation, they need to do the work and it's had absolutely ton of work. And you're one of the very few people in the world, I believe, who's actually gone and done that work and you know how long it takes to do it. And it's just a monstrous undertaking. So people just simply ignore things with the fatigue research. That was the number where there's so much of it that has been, it goes forever. Like you could just insane. For everybody who wants to actually really understand most of it, I think Mokora, his work is probably Mokora is the key to understanding fatigue really. I think if I'd known that when I was starting reading it, it would be. That's okay. It's a lot. If you just. If you don't need to go through all this stuff, just read the Morkor literature and you're pretty much going to have it. That's kind of the gold. He's kind of the gold standard for figuring that stuff out. But the reason why this led us into this interesting part is because I always feel like there's something else right. There's always a step to make training slightly more productive. That 2% or 3% or whatever that can still make training more productive. The respiratory thing has bothered me forever because it used to be, I said, take three minutes rest periods and people would like, well, if you're a beginner doing a one-on-try set push down, if that's in your program, probably don't need three minutes. You're not creating a significant cardiovascular demand between sets for doing five reps. I don't think that's what I believe didn't happen. I can tell you if I do a heavy set of six-on-curls, I do get a cardiovascular demand. If somebody else, it's like a. There's a lot of muscle mass and they do heavy set of six-on-curls. They're fine within like 30 seconds. If I do a heavy set of curls of six, I definitely need two minutes. It comes back to that you're creating a lot of lactate. You have a lot of muscle mass. You have created a lot of lactate. If you talk about VO2 maxes and lactate thresholds and all that kind of stuff, well, there's your cardiovascular demand. It just would be interesting. That would be such an easy way to unlock that for people. Take your first week of training, establish mentally where you feel like you're ready to do the next set and then just make a check of what your heart rate is at that time. Now you should. You have figured out your rest periods. Because then your rest period is based around your physiology. It's not based around a clock. That's a way more productive. That got us into. We got there because we were talking about the. How would we. If we did the study of four reps of 30. Four sets of 30 reps. You can't standardize rest periods very easily in that scenario because I think you would just end up having to give them really long rest periods, five minutes. Five minutes. And you would end up having to use exercises that were like. I mean, I would probably just go with the classic knee extensions or something like that. So you used to do leg issues, so we can. You know, you can't do all of these. I mean, honestly, I could just visualize doing four sets of 30 knee extensions and I would hate my life at that point. But you got to come on twice a week. There was five sets anyway, not four. We decided on five sets. This is where we were going. Why would it be five sets? Because you can. If you're doing six rep maxes, you can come in and do five sets. Twice a week. If you do. Five or six rep maxes. If you can do five sets twice a week, they'd be pushing it. So it's either four or five. And, I mean, you could actually do four on one day and five on the other. I mean, it doesn't really matter. The point is that this would be a test not only of the no-t unit recruitment side of things because ultimately that is the thing that we're arguing is fundamentally different between heavier and lighter loads. It's like this fact that the heavier you go, the more recruitment you're going to get there for the. It's just from a stimulating rep point of view, it should be superior. When you then add in this concept of, you know, kind of a higher volume is not being recovered in the lighter load group, then we're adding in weekly and that stimulus model concepts. I mean, that's where it gets interested. That's fundamentally how it's going to go. I had somebody send me some work that they've done on this, showing basically the different effects because I've always argued that the exact data set that we use to drive dose response in a workout, it doesn't matter whether you use the Schoenfeld data, whether you use the Pellan data, whether you make up your own data set, it doesn't matter as long as the dose response curve is non-linear, you will end up in a place whereby more frequent training is better than most frequent training. Just axiomatic of how that concept works. But if you start comparing different volumes, then the picture is different obviously. So, incidentally, I didn't know, but apparently, if you use Brad's kind of metronasis as the source of your dose response curve, then one set twice a week is better than doing eight sets once a week. But if you use the Pellan data, then that isn't the case. You actually get a better result doing the eight sets once a week compared to the one set twice a week. I'd never actually really thought very much about mismatching volumes in that way because I've always been like, well, you know, let's just talk about frequency in terms of weekly volume being the same and then just compare the differences in the process. But that line up with the D-training data. If you take the D-training data, eight sets or nine sets once a week, it would be close. Nine sets once a week still produce high-perch fee. And then once a twice a week produced high-perch fee. So you'd have to get in there and actually look and see how much high-perch fee. So if we assume that three or four sets is kind of not doing anything for you because it's being. You end up with four sets positive, don't you, across the week. So I know we have the one. So if you look at the. The meta regression said that four sets once a week was kind of the starting point for finding a little bit of detectable high-perch fee. I think it was. And then there was a recent D-training study from last year that showed four sets around maintenance. I think that those are probably kind of saying the same thing is that it's either very small or not detectable depending on the individual. So you know what I mean? I think it's just four sets once a week might give you some, but it's just not going to be much. Do you agree with that? It's probably. Yeah, no, I agree. That's one so we probably are not getting anything. It's very difficult to tease apart those tiny designs. Exactly. So I think four sets once a week is probably. That's why I like to use ranges. Three, the four sets once a week is probably around maintenance. I say around because I try not to be as dogmatic as people say that I am because I usually like to use ranges. So three or four sets once a week, I think it's around maintenance, potentially like a little. You could get a little bit out depending on individual variances. One set twice a week, that was used. The reason why I like that study is because it was used on training individuals and the hypertrophy was very detectable and it lines up really pretty with the myostata. So when you get physiology that looks this way and then your hypertrophy outcomes look this way, when they fit, I think that becomes. Okay, we can set that aside and understand it works that way. If you look at the same detraining data that used nine sets once a week, which is one of the studies we like because they went from the 24 sets to the nine sets to the three, the nine sets still produced hypertrophy. We're still producing hypertrophy. But if one set twice a week is still producing hypertrophy, I think you just have to come back to the magnitude of the hypertrophy outcomes. So anyway, go ahead and. So somebody was telling you this is that a set once a week according to the palindata was showing better results than one set twice a week if you're looking at that the mathematical model of how they did the Duster's Montrelationship. Is that where you're going? Yeah, because I mean, you can put the parent data. to set into the weekly stimulus model if you understand the basic math sobbit, it's not complicated. So, obviously that was done and it pumped out this number, which is that actually, which is really interesting because I don't have any strong kind of emotional attachment to either dataset. I mean, I think both of them look a little bit squiffy. I think the sort of the pelland data looks definitely too aggressive in their sense that it seems to imply that I think the latest sets in each workout are better than they actually are. But the pelland data is fine. The shown field data. The pelland data looks fine to me. I think both of them have problems. I really do because the evidence is overwhelming that shorter or longer rest periods produce different hypertrophy outcomes. Trying to smash them in there together, I think makes for a messy, messy meta analysis. In my opinion, I don't think smashing in one study that's looking at quote unquote hypertrophy with one minute rest periods and smashing it in with another study that has two or three minute rest periods. I don't know why you do that. So I think that you have to, when you break them out and we've seen this over and over because the crager did it, when you're looking at longer rest periods, you have very different outcomes based on the dose response, okay? So if I'm smashing in the pelland data and the shown field data, I think if you took those two apart and you broke all of that doubt and did a regression and a review of what's rest period you would have very different looking pictures. But getting back to looking at that, the reason the one thing I like about the pelland data is that they took the hypertrophy strength outcomes into account, that felt like that gave us a very clear picture of what's going on. The reason why the pelland data goes through the freaking into the stratosphere on the graph is because of what I've said this whole time. It's the edema swelling effect. I don't know. Maybe it's because he had more data with those really, I think when shown field did his major regression, there was only like one study looking at those super high crazy volumes. - Well, this is the same thing that happens with training frequency 'cause if you go and look at the training frequency metronalysis, one of the earlier frequency metronalysis that was done showed actually the higher frequencies were better than lower. - Higher rimmers. - And then when they did a whole bunch of super high volume training studies and dumped those into the mix suddenly, now the frequency metronalysis show, if you stick around long enough, you see these things happening. Basically, the later frequency analysis shows basically that there's no difference. So it's like, well, you know, just throw enough volume into the program so that everyone is blowing up like a water. And yeah, no, it's not gonna give you sensible answers anymore. They put that they use that's true 'cause there was that old one that showed that frequency clearly made a difference and then it got squashed out by, yeah, it doesn't matter. As long as you're doing 20 sets a week, you're like, what? When you think now, like, why would you do 20 sets a week? If you can, like, it's not possible. 20 sets for a muscle, when they've been on that number for so long and I'm like, you can't possibly expect to keep you. - You can kind of reword it, Kanye. You can say, as long as you do enough sets per week and you'll create so much muscle damage and swelling that you won't know that you won't notice. - You won't notice. - The difference between you and the pro. You won't notice the difference between this program. That's true. You actually end up saying it out loud. It's like, if you do enough sets in the week, you won't notice the difference with any of your hypertrophy programs. - Because you have so much muscle swelling. - Because you have so much swelling and so much fatigue that you won't really see that any one program does better than the other. Your progressive overload is gonna be pretty much minor in both of that. And people are still saying that swelling doesn't happen in trained people. - Yeah, there's one particular guy and we don't use names on this podcast as really gotten under my skin because he clearly. - I mean, the horn study shows that it does. - horn said it, I highlighted the fact that horn. - Literally, did the whole investigation. - Yeah, he went out and said, it's clearly there because the people looking at elderly people are trying to discern how much sarcopenia that they're struggling with, cannot do that because we do not have a technology in place that can separate out extracellular water. An intracellular water, in my opinion, is a bigger problem because if the cell is damaged, where do you think that the intracellular water is called intracellular water? So it's inside the muscle cell. So you. - Well, we've got muscle damage studies showing that the muscle cells swell. So I mean, that's without. - Of course, so you can't. So when you have a cross-section area measurement of muscle damage in place, your intracellular is just measuring swollen tissue. That's why all of those look like that. But back to this is interesting. So if you plug in the pellum data, so how do you feel about that? - I don't know. I think actually, when I kind of looked down, do I think that a brosplit devotee who's following, you know, kind of the traditional. I say traditional, not very traditional, but, you know, like a brosplit type training program. You know, if they're doing eight sets once per week, do I think they're gonna get better results than me doing one set twice a week? Got to feel, I think they probably are, but I don't think it's that close. - Here's where I don't agree with you. Because that's an isolation. So if I do chest on Monday, and I don't do anything the rest of the week, I'm gonna come back and do chest on the next Monday. You could be right. If you do chest for one set of Monday, one set of chest for Thursday, you could be right. I might get way better results than eight sets for chest on Monday. - But it's gonna torpedo the rest of your training program. - There we go. - And so here's the part where all that stuff gets messy and nuanced is because even if six sets are kind of the precipice for kind of getting myops to the maximum amount, and we do know this, myops is gonna be higher at nine sets. It is gonna be at three sets. Because of the D training studies that show, we're still getting significant hypertrophy at nine sets a week and we're not getting anything at three. So we definitely have to have a higher elevation of myops occurring from nine sets at three sets. There's no way around that. The issue is, you can't do nine sets for every day in body part. You will think, you will absolutely create so much fatigue at that point. Because again, it comes back to you if you're gonna do, if I'm doing nine sets for chest on Monday, and then I do nine sets for quads, what I'm doing, if I'm doing a roast, I'm gonna do a nine sets for chest on Monday and nine sets for quads on Tuesday, and I'm doing nine sets for back on, this sounds awful, nine sets for back on Wednesday, and I'm doing nine sets for shoulders on Friday and nine sets for arms. You see what I'm saying? So when I start talking it out, you can't, it's not practical. It's not practical. And not only that, this is something I thought about too. We have spitballed this whole one, but I've had fun today, a lot of fun. If we understand progressive overload is the expression that adaptations have occurred, neural or muscular, don't really care. If we train long enough, we can understand they're gonna be muscular at some point. If you have, you have a cap on the number of sets in the workout that you can see progressive overload occur. If you have extra sets on top of that cap where you're never seen progressive overload, those are literally doing nothing but creating morphine within the training. So when we talk about volume, there's two ways to talk about it. There's talking about how much volume gets me to a mild fibroofrotein synthesis expression to where it's maximized. And then we're talking about volume is, how can I put together a training program where I train my whole body? And I'm getting the greatest amount of myops for those muscles, but I'm also not creating so much damage and fatigue that the program is still works. Am I saying this in a way that makes sense? - No, absolutely right. I just wonder if like in the future, social anthropologists will look back on this and kind of study us as a thing as such. You know, it's like people really do bodybuilding very seriously at this point in the 21st century. - I don't even think for me anymore, it's bodybuilding, for me it's the physiology. It's like a puzzle I love continuing to kind of mess around with and putting together, 'cause I don't really even follow bodybuilding that much anymore. But that's such an interesting thing because whether you look at the palindator, whether you look at the show and felt data, what I look at is I literally turn it to my version of Father Hennessey as I room my finger crossed at you and I go, "But how does this fit into a program that works?" And you can't, if you were going to, if you were going to special really going to bring a muscle group up, then in my opinion, if you did something like, "I still think I'm gonna go." - Bonyum is not the cleverest way to do that. - No, that's not. It's not, but if you wanted to maximize my cerebral protein synthesis, you would have to bump your volume more than the lower, but everything else would literally have to go to like. And I don't even think maintenance is the right way, 'cause if you're doing three sets once a week for everything and you're doing nine sets for your other muscle group twice a week, but you know what I'm saying? You run into a multitude of problems either way. I've done all these things in my head. tons of times. So the amount of effective volume for a muscle in a week, I think when you talk about the way you can put it together in a training program, if you're training your whole body, if you're doing full body, it's one to three sets. And how many effective volume references we're going to see in social media? I'm not trying to learn, but I'm not saying those. Well, I said, if it's full body, and your body has a full body split, if you're putting it in a full body split, then the again, you're trying to maximize my up. So we know if one set's going to bring us up for 24 to 30 hours somewhere in that range, right? One set will. So we've got actually minimized as much as possible. And if you do one set, you're going to get 24 hours, kind of hours, when my up's expression produces two sets a little bit longer. Yeah, but I really wonder whether that's effect is because the duration of my up is longer because of the greater volume, producing a great hypertrophy stimulus that requires a greater duration of time, or whether it's because the muscle damage is starting to become prominent. Because if you compare heavier loads and lighter loads, your my up's duration is longer in the light. Because of damage. And that's damage. So the spillover of my up's elevations from day one to day two, I don't think has anything to do with the hypertrophy stimulus being, you know, kind of perpetuated longer. I think it's, the hypertrophy stimulus is probably getting processed in one day regardless of how many sets you do. I suspect. Well, then why aren't we going to have the white? But I don't think that can be the case, Chris, if you have nine sets producing hypertrophy when done once a week and three sets, not producing any, you're back, back to even seven days later. So what I'm saying, so there's got to be a, there's got to be a longer expression. Do you think the hypertrophy is just greater? It's not a longer expression of my up. So do you think the hypertrophy is just great? So the way that I see it based on the my up studies that I looked at is that the hypertrophy stimulus is predominantly being processed in the first 24 of the 48 hour window. Do I think that the anabolic window lasts the end of that 48 hours? Yes, I do, more or less, but I don't think there's much going on in that second. You have the front end of the backing and there's a different cellular. I think it's very much front-ended and you get a front loaded, sorry, and you get a, you get a tail in that second day of hypertrophy stimulus, but I don't think it's meaningful. I think when you see studies that are perpetuating my up to the 48 hours, they are all where the workout was damaging, whether because the volume was high or because they were using line loads or whatever else they were doing, eccentric. Okay, so let's go over longer. Hold on, welcome back to my upshrays. So if nine sets you're giving you hypertrophy over seven days and three sets are getting you, just keeping you at maintenance, is it just that the nine sets are just giving you more hypertrophy so that by the time the atrophy effect happens over, so it's because we did this in the weekly stimulus. That's what the weekly next stimulus model assume. It is, but you don't feel like in order to add more mild fibros that my upsh probably has to be higher because we do see. No, because if you look at the immobilization data and they do that eccentric workout before they do the kind of a two day. Yeah, you get protection for two days, but not longer. You don't get protection for any longer after that eccentric training workout and that was quite high volume. So if high volume workouts were giving you the section for a long time, those you had protection from the immobilization for 48 hours, that's it. No longer. That was such an interesting. So if high volume was giving you a protection for a longer period of time, it would actually show up in those seven day measurements, not just in the two day measurements. Because by seven days it's back to baseline. Sorry, it's back to the equivalent of no protection workout. We do have, okay, so I don't need to kick in study because that wouldn't show my upsell of eight or seven days. Okay, muscle down. Yeah, okay. muscle down, you're spilling out for a week if you really want to. Yeah, I mean, that's mean having. I keep saying, I keep saying that somebody will go and do a study showing that my ups is renovated for like a week and a half after their favorite high volume study. And I'll be running around with hands in the air going, hey, I've just been saying this long and I'm like, I'm about talking about elevated my ups rates because these kids, they learn the word my ups. Did you know I had some kid the other day asking me, he goes, did you see my story on this? He's like, how would isometric produce muscle growth when there's no slowing of contraction velocity? Dude, I like, this is one of the problems we have social media now is people catching onto a buzz word or like a catch phrase. They don't know what it means. I literally had to put up to force velocity relationship and go, there's isometric or right that's literally listed on, they've never even gone out and just looked at a graph of the force velocity relationship. I mean, they've literally listed on it. It's listed on it. I'm like, well, okay, it's maximally slow because you're not moving. And he's like, I was just confused. I'm like, because you just remember, yeah, because you're repeating a catch phrase and you don't understand how this works. And then they get mad at me. They're like, you're being a dude. I'm like, dude, I don't feel sorry for any of you. I had to go out and read and learn all this stuff and you have it all at your fingers. They could literally just read my face here. They could just read on the force velocity relationship. And if that's important to you, if it's that important to you, then go read on it. Go learn about it. Like stop just trying to get fine catch phrase on social media. Where was that what we were talking about before that my abstracts? My abstracts. So this is what has been going on in my head. It's like from the from the Phillips into Moss research, there's clearly, they've looked at different rates of my ups that are going on that are happening with different degrees of volume. So one set produces it for an experience that goes up first five hours is usually the crescendo, right? And then you kind of have this period and then the tail off and then three sets is producing it for an extra. Now, here's the problem. When I race here, where are you going with this? Sometimes when I say you say some shit, I start talking out loud. I'm like, okay. The issue is if the tail and it's just happening because more sets created more damage than we don't really care. Right. We're done. So if eight sets is producing, well, they're actually instant. But he did, he did, he did. He did. He did. He did. He did. He did. One of the things I looked at. So the way, how, Demost kind of did do this because he had the one where he looked at eight sets caused hypertrophy, but 12 sets caused higher degrees of my up celebration, but he didn't produce more hypertrophy. It means, of course, the my up. So it was just, it was just more muscle deals. So you think that the six sets or nine sets done once a week, you're just literally getting more myofibrals, but it has nothing. You don't think that there is some type of relationship between my up celebration and muscle growth because you think it's getting stacked in the early part of my up celebration. I do think that my hypertrophy process is front loaded compared to the muscle damage process. Not nearly that content. No, I think the extended time is reflected in the, I think that is reflected in the myup's studies. So as I say, if you go and look at studies, which you're used, I mean, you quoted it all the time. If you look at a single set, kind of my up response, it tends to be really kind of peaky in the first 24 hours and you don't get much after that. I think all hypertrophy stimulus, myup's curves look like that. They do. And I think that ultimately, if you increase the time line, my hypertrophy stimulus will just get bigger. I don't think we'll get longer. They do get longer, but I think they do. They do if you produce a muscle damage effect. That's the point I made. That's the point I'm making do. I don't think you're longer, but I don't think that's relevant for hypertrophy. No, it's not. And we know it's not relevant because of the mobilization effect. Because if you look at the mobilization study where they did the eccentric training workout and then they had 48 hours of protection, the muscle damage produced by that workout, we know from the other day to they presented in a different paper for the same. Like, eccentric training produced for teeth for like three or four days, maybe five days. So there was repair processes happening even though hypertrophy was occurring. So when people say to me, oh, yeah, muscle damage is producing, you know, my, it was right elevation. I'm still protected from hypertrophy. There's literally a study that shows that you're not. I think the crazy thing about that one is that you can, there's atrophy occurring and muscle damage is present. The fact that anybody thought muscle damage, every producer muscle growth is freaking crazy. But well, that particular delusion is very interesting to study actually, but that's a separate question. We have a ton to that data. Like that was the easiest one to ever look at. Like what we literally can watch muscle damage like has occurred and atrophy is happening while it still exists and is being repaired. Like it does nothing. But then you can also see sarcomer genesis happening while that's what they're doing. The ancient angle or is while atrophy is happening in the mouth every once in a while. Muscle loss is a case. Muscle loss is occurring as our community. So the two things that took us up and yet you've got people, they're going to be, absolutely not similar direct messages when I point that out. Okay, so you think. If you had to, if somebody's like, you knew God was going to come down to give you the answer, but you had to place a million dollars on it, whatever situation. Which one do you think is more reflective of the proper dose response relationship, the Bell and Marl or the show and film? I would probably go with the show and film, I was going to go more reflective, but I still, you know, don't feel 100% comfortable that it's, you know, perfect. And again, I mean, like, we've had to literally draw a kind of curve through a couple of data points. I mean, it's not ideal from anybody's perspective, but equally, I don't think that the strength data in the Pelland study is a good reflection of it either. I think that the streak stuff in the Pelland study is at least a step in the right direction. I don't know that it's like entirely 100% accurate because I don't, here's my feeling. I don't necessarily like either one of those made analysis for accuracy because it, here's two problems. All those high volume studies need to be thrown out. I think if you put the strength data into the week that stimulus model, it would tell you to only have a train with single set protocols. Yes. Because it would be pointless to do anything other than single set protocols. But I do feel like that because when you line up the strength data from the Pelland stuff on the long-rest period stuff, it's almost the exact curve. Like the long-rest periods of hypertrophy, if you line up that, that data set with the strength set, it's almost exactly the same. Why are you smiling like that? It's smiling because we can't dismiss it out of hand and it has a horrible attraction to it. I think probable. Until we get rid of this swelling issue, nobody's going to know the answers to this question. Okay, so here's one thing that has to happen. We actually need a whole another 10 years of redoing hypertrophy. We do. Of redoing hypertrophy studies with a wash-up period at the end. I think what will happen is that somebody will eventually go and do a wash. Although as I've said before, the fact that I've said it means that it probably won't happen. No, I don't agree with you because researchers from the. I don't think that's true anymore. Because the researchers. I told you there's researchers that do the curl- -iceps study. -Yeah, absolutely. They took into account the stuff we talked about. They follow us and they love our work. And they were, I think they were more than overjoyed to write in the bottom there, to just say that it's clear that biceps do not benefit from longer muscle lengths. So we're definitely getting, we're making a headway. And I think that a wash-up period is going to take one or two people to include a wash-up period to show. And then when it shows that there's a big impact of it, suddenly everyone can just look backwards - to all of that previous data and go, yeah, maybe not. There's the two problems I have or the really high volume studies that are included in those meta-analysis. Brad doesn't have as many, which is why I think he's probably more accurate. They need to start doing it until the last year's right. The bellendata has a bunch of, so that's why it goes to the stratosphere and looks messy. The, that and the fact that they didn't separate them out by rest periods. Because if you separate those two out by rest periods, you would have what I think would be four meta-analysis. You'd have Brad with two and Pellin with two. You'd have Brad with one with short and long rest periods and Pellin with two. And I think they would look totally, I think they would look the same. The long rest periods, I think they would look really well and short rest periods, I think they would look really well. But the problem with short rest periods is something that's been said too. This is another thing that's been said. If you're going to do a short rest period, you get the same amount of high-parts fee. You just have to double the sets. Well, Chris, that can't work either. That get people like, and I used to say these things, but the longer I do the work in the physio, I was just more on like, "No, you can't say that. That does not work. Do you agree with me? That doesn't work. You can't tell me, okay, if I'm going to do six sets, and then that's the tip of the iceberg of what I'm going to get out of the dose response relationship with long rest periods where I'm recovered. But if I'm going to do short rest periods, I just need to do 12 sets and you short rest periods. That makes no sense. Because each subsequent set with a non-recovered rest period means a less motor unit recruitment. And then that's going to become wildly exacerbated every set there compared to the longer rest periods. It can't work. It literally doesn't. It can't work. I think those are swelling studies too. You're doing 20 sets with short rest periods compared to 10 sets with long rest periods. Rest periods are really interesting when it comes to muscle damage because we can do this whole podcast with rest periods. I didn't know we were roast a flat passion about rest periods from clearly we are. They matter a lot. It's interesting. So the thing with rest periods is that you generally will cause a bigger metabolite-related fatigue impact when you use short rest periods related to calcium. So you've got the cardiovascular which we cover. So we have the metabolite-related fatigue that we're. Which goes in the direction of reducing recruitment, I agree. But what it also does is give you a bit more protection against calcium. I knew you were going to say that though. We're still doing the most complicated. It's not complicated. One metabolite that we have, they create a problem, but then they also create a benefit. Because now we're going to have in the next sets we have to hash this out in my head. So if we have. Do you ever notice how the body you cannot hack it? Like if you're like, I'll take long rest periods, number of covers. By says you're going to get more calcium-related fatigue. And then if you take the short ones, it goes, "Not here's some metabolite." You know what I mean? It's always got something in there to cut you off. If you take the shorter rest periods, the metabolite-related fatigue keeps as much muscle damage from occurring. Because if you have more metabolites in there, then you're not going to have the same degree of calcium ion influx that's going to be going on. But the problem is, so you don't deal with the problem of reduced fiber force that you're going to deal with with more calcium ion influx, but you are going to deal with the reduction of motor improvement due to the interference effect. So is it a wash? It just doesn't add up to me. If I have a greater cardio, okay, so if I have a rig, we both agree that the greatest one you're dealing with is cardio-respiratory domain. So a short rest period of 30 to 60 seconds is going to have a significant cardio-respiratory domain. So that's going to reduce motor interoccurring the muscle. It's going to be a training status effect. It's got to be. We've got to have a way bigger problem of short rest periods in more well-trained people. Much bigger. If you have your new, and that's what also muddies those studies, because if it's untrained people, they can do shorter rest periods. Oh, I just thought about this. If you have untrained people that are going to mix in all those studies, then the cardio-vascular domain between sets, so they can do a shorter rest period. You see where I'm going with that? So if I got it untrained people, take a short rest period. This is why actually knowing physiology is more important. I'm being being an amazing statistician. Yes, those guys just smash a whole bunch of studies together and say, "Oh, look, we've created this kind of result that tells you X, Y, and Z." What's weird is, I already have thought about all that in my head, but a non-til we've kind of sometimes we piece this together in conversation. So that's another problem with smashing those untrained people and when trained people into those short, long rest period studies. So if it's a long rest period study, we train people versus so, Manjee, back, boy, Manjee, didn't go to work. He needs to do more research. We need to contact him and be like, "What do you need for funding?" He used trained people and the lower reps long rest periods be the breaks off the people with high reps to short rest periods, but that makes so much sense physiology-wise. Manjee was good, man. I'm going to end up having the contact. He was good. But if you used untrained people, that study might look any different at all. Because the untrained people, if they use one minute rest periods on a 10-a-rept max, they might be getting some amount of routine or recruitment as the group did to doing, how they might actually get better results than the group doing three to five reps with long rest periods. Now they wouldn't, because I think it'd be a wash for all reasons where we talked about, because the group using the heavier loads would have climbed up to the motor unit or group in the scale faster. So it could have been a wash. Yeah, but it would have been a lot of sense in the biology. And it's not a very serious thing. You don't take in stuff like, so a rest period that's a standardized in the study is going to be really impactful based on training status. That's why these mid-analysis are not great. You're happy? have to splice them out now, I have to splice them out again. You have to splice them out by trained versus untrained. And then you take the train one. - But again, we're still throwing data into a metronasis, which we believe has a swelling related problem. So how much more good is gonna come from doing metronoses compared to just doing a new hypertrophy study with a deep. - Made it out with a washout period. - I think metronozoses are really overdone and not really that helpful anymore. They used to be kind of a standard. I think they're more helpful when we're dealing with singular issue stuff where. - I think it's a replacement for thinking about the physiology. I think that people want to improve their technical ability, which is good and important. But they're doing it instead of just reading physiology and trying to figure out how stuff works. You know, and I think you can't do that. I don't think you can throw. You know, you don't think you can throw math at the problem and go, "If I just do enough complicated stats, "I'm gonna find the answer." No, you're not. You're just gonna end up being more confused than you currently are. You actually need to understand what's happening physiologically and then go and do studies to figure out what is missing in the data sets that you've got. And I think what's missing at the moment is studies that control for swelling. - Mm. And I think. That's the next step in any of the longitudinal hypertrophy data is that if we don't have a measure for controlling or measuring or counting for swelling, then they don't really mean anything. They're not useful. They're really aren't. - And that's the point I'm making about the metronelesis. It's like you can keep throwing these studies into metronelesis and expect to tell you something. I don't think it's gonna tell us anything. - It doesn't tell us if you don't account. If now that we understand that's what the Pellan made regression did do. - It did. - It absolutely did show we've got the swelling problem now and we don't account for that going forwards than these studies are garbage. So there's a whole group that keeps doing these incremental volume increases over the course of the study and are showing who each group that did more, except there was one recently. Does that send you that one where the group that did the, their normal amount of volume and then they had incremental, so they brought everybody in. They kept the one group doing their normal amount of volume for the week and then they had two groups that added 30 to 60% volume and then the group kept just kept doing their own shit and grew more, got stronger and then the group said, "As it were volume." But they dismissed those, they don't wanna talk about those. But these incremental studies where they're increasing volume, they're, if they can account for swelling and they keep saying swelling doesn't, it's not a problem. It's so wild that we have researchers out there spending time and money and literally saying the swelling's not a problem when we absolutely, no factually that it is. Factually, they don't even understand how the repeated bout of fake works. Anyway, so, I think we got, we did covered more in this podcast from a fun standpoint that we have ever. - I think people are gonna find that this is quite hard to follow, it's interesting to see. - I get people DM me all the time and they're like, I listen to every podcast you and Chris do, but I just can't follow everything you guys are talking about. - I then I get other people that love it. This is like, this is their passion. They're like you, the only guys that are doing this stuff. - Yeah, I mean, I think podcasts are fairly low in terms of the sense to information medium, really. - Most of them, they're catering to my people that are not like trying to work at on this level for the most part. So there's, there's, there's a few of us. All right, we're up, you know what I want to, close up on the movie 'cause, - Yeah, tell us about it. - So we haven't think we've ever talked openly a ton about the fact that you and I are both huge movie buffs. I wouldn't describe myself as a huge movie buff. - Okay, you have seen, I appreciate a few films. - You always try to downplay this. You have seen at least as many films as I have and we have talked critically about films. So that we, we recommend films that each other quite often. You had never seen no country full of men and then had to go back and watch it a second time before you actually appreciated as much 'cause the first time you watched it, you came back to me. - I didn't understand your life. - And I was alone away by the fact, I thought as like dude, you're gonna come back and be floored by how amazing this movie is. And you, I remember we talked about it. You gave me that thing, the thing you do where you don't say anything and you smile at me. I'm like if you shit on this movie right now and you went back and watch it later and was, it's like it hit you and you're like blown away by how many moving parts. I think that's probably the case with that movie the first time you don't really take it all in about how well it's done. So many parts and so much as a character development and there's like, you can go read on that movie. There's whole like long message-sport stuff about all the things that happened in it. And I think it took you the second watch for a hit you about all the things, you're just gonna miss the first time you watch it. So we recommend movies to each other. You recommended Ford versus Ferrari to me, which was freaking amazing. I've put that one off forever 'cause I didn't think I would like it and I almost watched it back to back. It was so good. I watched it two nights ago. It's such a phenomenal. Christian Bale was him and that was also a really underrated performance by Matt Damon. He was really phenomenal. Bale's also-- He actually plays a character in that film. I think a lot of the time he gets cast, especially these days, he just gets cast as the ubiquitous hero. And you kind of, you don't therefore get a personality there. Whereas I think in this particular film, as a carousel, he actually has a real personality. You know what I really appreciate? I loved about that movie that they did with it. Sometimes when you watch a movie, you want to see something out of the characters that mimics real life that you just feel. And like at the end, I don't want to spoil it for anybody who hasn't seen it. But his character is still struggling at the end of the film. It's like six months or a year later. Right, you know what I'm talking about. I don't want to ruin it for you. And I thought that was so, like it really got to me because that's how you would feel in real life. Like that's how most people would feel in real life. It's he was still struggling really hard with that loss. And I thought that was like really impactful. So the movie you recommended, the one you recommended to me was terrible, which one of your favorites in your set, I think I didn't make it through it. Was it the gentleman? I was going to say it's interesting that you liked Christian Bell's performance in Fort Buses Ferrari. Because for me, as a person, he was more irritating than Hugh Grant's character in the Dengplan was to you. I actually found him really aggravating. I really aggravating. You found him aggravating a four horse. Really aggravating. Yeah. All because you mean because he was kind of belligerent about like the racing again and stuff. He was unnecessarily belligerent in ways that just went absolutely beyond. He was formed and wasn't. Like kind of after they had the fight in the street, which was an amazing part of the movie. It's one of the best best best parts in cinema, cinematic history was when they had the film, the fight in the street. But the I couldn't was a Hugh Grant. Hugh Grant's character in the Dengplan was so. Is so over the top caricature. It's just silly. I would not get through it. It was easily one of the, I was just one to punch myself in the crotch, the whole, I don't even remember how much I got through it. There was another one. You every once in a while, you and I will, we definitely differ every once in a while on certain films. And there was another one you recommended to me that was so long boring. I also did not like what was the, I hated it. Set through the whole three hours. It was so unbelievably slow and bad. The, um, the nuclear war movie. The guy that created Fat, Fat Man Little Boy. Oh, you mean up and on, up and high. And I'm. Um, that movie hasn't seen that. It's three hours of, it goes to no, it's so slow, long boring. I remember because I did my cheap meal that night. It was like fight because if I have a little bit of a car of coma with the movies, good, I'm alright. But if I have a little bit of a car of coma in the movie sucks, I really struggle. And that night I remember I barely made it through that movie. And I kept waiting for something to happen because the reviews on it were amazing and all that kind of stuff. It was just so you should definitely watch it though because it might be one of those times where you come back to me and say that you like, I thought it was terrible. Did you ever see there will be blood? No, for the same reasons that I'm not interested in watching up and on. Exactly. But the same movie. The same movie. I remember when I said, this is the only time I've ever truly felt like this in my life because do you remember the reviews on there will be blood? If you go look up there like over this, like it's like one of the greatest films of all time and blah, blah, blah, blah. It's the only time in my life I've completely felt this way. When the movie was over, I was so upset that I just lost with like three hours. hours of my life. And when I say people say that all the time, it was a legitimate feeling ahead of the time. I was like, I just wasted three hours of my life on the worst movie I've ever seen. And Daniel Day-List was horrible in it and people say, "No, he wasn't. He was horrible." Like, I love Genghis for New York. I thought Daniel Genghis for New York was phenomenal and actually loved Daniel Day-List as a method actor. I think he's one of the greatest actors of any generation. But he was his people say, "Well, he was a perfect character." I'm saying it was just not a good movie. Like, it was an interesting, pacing was terrible. It was slow. There wasn't any likeable characters in it. It was just a lot of bad stuff with it. And basically, there was an undercurrent of the oil company is evil and everybody should hate it. And that was he was the physical representation of that, right? So, and I hate those kind of political movie messages. I'm like, I'm just watching to be entertained. Stop putting your political bullshit on me. Just like to. I think you're underselling that slightly when you say you're just watching to be entertained. I think, I mean, I think you do bring a extraordinarily high level of critical analysis to the films that you watch. I mean, you can pull them apart and sort of explain how the plot is working and how the characters' developments are working and that kind of stuff. So, I think you're probably bringing a little bit more than that attitude just wanting to be entertained. Okay, so I wouldn't be entertained. I'd need for the film to focus some type of emotion out of me too. And I think that requires writing, pacing, the score. A sympathetic story, basically. Yes. So, you have a good story. So, the movie you recommended to me was Black Dog and you said, I think you said you saw the write-up for it or you saw the. Was it the trailer or the write-up? It was a write-up that I was just looking for something to watch and it was. it just jumped up at the top of the list of things that were recommended for me. And I kind of scanned it and was like, not actually perfect for me, but I think it would probably be perfect for you. So, it was. It was a subtitle film. What was really interesting is the. the protagonist almost did not talk the whole movie. So, there wasn't very much to subtitle for him. But he did such a good job, despite the fact that he really didn't talk almost the whole movie. He was still super interesting. So, there was a. It was such a good film. I could probably go on about it forever, but we've actually done one of our longest podcasts. But it was so good, like for me. And I'm not even like a big subtitled film guy because I find I'm distracted by the reading, but it helped because he didn't talk much. And yet, he did an amazing job of his character for a trail. And that's a hard thing to do when you don't have a lot of lines, right? Is he had to let you get to know him without really speaking a lot. But he was a super likable character. Had a lot of really good qualities. I. People were mad at me because I said, "I hated the sopranos." I hated the sopranos because every damn character on the show was a total piece of garbage. And if I don't have a character, I feel like I can attach to for the movie, I'm just done. Like, if I can't. There was nobody on the whole sopranos. And I don't care about if it was studied and it was this, and it was that I don't care. Every person was reprehensible. But back to Black Dog. He was such a really likable character. And I don't want to ruin it for anybody, but like his dad was in the hospital. And what's going on is he gets out of prison because he actually murdered a guy. And but he goes to work because they have like a dog problem of rounding a dog. So there's this one Black Dog that's like. Nobody can catch it. And there's like a big reward. He's. He needs money. So he goes at it. This dog. Wow. He goes out and pisses on the side of the building where this dog is. Because the dog will come out to piss over where he piss. And they will chase him and attack him. It's such a phenomenal move. And as you might expect, he ends up like. I'm not gonna say how, but him and the dog end up together. And he falls in love with the dog. And the dog is phenomenal. I don't know who trained the dog if they just being a task of dog. Here's my only problem. I end up crying for like 20 minutes to finish the movie. Yeah. On two different times. So there are two different things happening. So. And even what got me to is he was so. He didn't talk much in the movie. He is up crying in the end. And when he cried, that got me to. So like. So like when you got a character that's pretty stoic. But he had such. I know he murdered somebody, but he had such other good moral qualities about him. He was such a likable character. Like really liked him as a character. That was what made it. But he was. he didn't. He didn't. There were so many interesting and intriguing things about it. You should watch. I think you would still like it. Because he doesn't talk much. And the other characters were super interesting too. So there were so many. You picked the go. And one of your best ones you've ever picked. Different than four versus Ferrari. But to just whoop that one out. And I think it did a bunch of awards at one of the independent film festivals. Yeah. That was definitely on the right tap that I saw. It's all of these awards plastered across there. And I can see why it was done so well. And a lot of times with those because they're low budget, there's not a lot of scenery. Like they have to. They didn't do that. They. it was done so well. Like they were all over the city. So I don't know what the budget was for the movie. But it didn't come across as like low budget or whatever. It coming. They had. I mean, location. Hopefully they shot a location. I don't know how they did. They had dogs everywhere for this thing. But they were rounding up dogs. But anybody has a dog person, it'll definitely get to you. We'd like Reck me for the night. But in a good way too. It did. It absolutely wrecked me for the night. But then they closed it off with a happy ending. Yeah. So it was really good. Tintin, tin, tin. One of the. I'd probably say it's my most favorite film you've ever recommended for me at this point. Because for Forces Ferrari, I would definitely taste his favorite film. That was the best thing. Tater watched the whole movie because there was. There was that photograph you posted on Instagram. She did that the sh*t. Like I've had. She was just stuck in the hole. She did that the whole two hours. So the dog, the main dog in the movie was very vocal. Yeah. Was always making noises. So she was literally glued to the TV for two hours like that. And set there on me watching the movie. That was actually like a video because I shot it for her. And I kind of shot the whole two hours. She just looked at. watched that and would watch it and then she would lay down and stand up and look. It was. And so it was fun watching the movie with her. So it was very cool. She was interested in that. So Tintin, I don't know if I'd be able to top one. I think you should watch it. I think you'll like it too. It was really fun. All right. So we'll wrap up. This is. We did almost three hours today. We've never done that. But we actually. One of our rules was never have time limit. I actually enjoyed just like the spitball. And stuff today. I don't know what I'm gonna. I'm gonna call this one. But I think there's a lot of really good information. Call this one up. Okay. So here's. I'm gonna go ahead and get you. Call you out on the carpet. Do you think. 30 reps says produce the same amount of high-perch vs. 5 reps says? No. Okay. That's the whole fuck. That's not really. We covered a lot of good stuff today. A lot of good stuff. All right. As always, I appreciate you being on with me today, bud. For everybody who made it this far, thanks for sticking with us. And I hope you got a lot out of this. Chris, I'll see you next time, bud.