What are the risks of aggressive fat loss for athletes?

For athletes, aggressive fat loss (over 1% body weight per week) is generally ill-advised due to the critical need to preserve lean mass for performance. It can lead to Relative Energy Deficiency in Sport (RED-S), resulting in quick performance declines, hormonal disruptions (like amenorrhea and lowered testosterone), and increased injury rates, particularly tendon issues and stress fractures.

Do cheat reps build more muscle than strict reps?

The argument for cheat reps building more muscle is speculative due to limited direct research. Proponents suggest they can extend sets past strict failure, acting like a quasi-drop set, and potentially allow for heavier loads in the stretch position, which may be beneficial for hypertrophy, especially for time-constrained individuals.

Why might strict reps be better than cheat reps for muscle growth?

Strict reps are argued to be better as they emphasize a full range of motion, particularly at long muscle lengths, which is critical for hypertrophy. Poor cheat rep technique often neglects this, potentially overemphasizing shorter muscle lengths and increasing injury risk. Additionally, strict reps ensure the targeted muscle is maximally worked, preventing other muscles from taking over.

Should studies on beginners be considered for advanced lifters?

While adaptations differ between beginners and advanced lifters, initial findings in untrained individuals often generalize conceptually to advanced trainees. For example, higher training volumes benefit both groups, even if the optimal dosage differs. Dismissing beginner studies would severely limit the understanding of muscle growth principles, as beginners show quicker, more detectable responses, making research easier to conduct.

Is stability in exercises necessary for maximal muscle growth?

Theoretical arguments suggest higher stability allows better focus on the target muscle, leading to more effective training closer to failure. However, direct evidence is scarce. Practical considerations suggest that most common gym exercises are already 'reasonably stable' enough, and extreme instability (like wobble board squats) is not widely encountered or recommended for hypertrophy.

Does an 'optimal' training approach truly exist?

Theoretically, an optimal approach likely exists for any given outcome, represented by a local maximum on a dose-response curve. However, practically, defining and consistently hitting this 'optimal' is extremely difficult due to individual variability, constantly changing physiological responses, and competing goals, making the concept almost meaningless in a generalized sense.

Is self-experimentation beneficial for finding the best training style?

For lifters with some experience, self-experimentation can be highly beneficial for identifying training styles that yield the best results and align with personal preferences, even if it's not about micro-optimizing every variable. Research hints at significant individual differences in response to various training variables, suggesting that what works on average for a group may not be optimal for an individual.

What are the limitations of self-experimentation in training?

Self-experimentation faces practical difficulties: finite training time, challenges in isolating variables, and numerous uncontrolled confounders (e.g., stress, sleep) that significantly impact results. The subjective nature of measuring progress and the large measurement error in personal assessment can lead to false positive conclusions, where one believes an approach is better when it's not meaningfully different or even suboptimal.

Does modern exercise science only confirm what bodybuilders have known for decades?

While some core principles championed by bodybuilders (e.g., training to failure, high volume) have been validated by science, it's an oversimplification to say science only confirms past wisdom. Many historical bodybuilding practices were based on trial-and-error, with many being later disproven. This perception often stems from survivorship bias, where only successful or later-validated past ideas are remembered.

Is the 'pump' a reliable guide for auto-regulating training for hypertrophy?

Currently, the 'pump' is not considered a reliable guide for auto-regulating training for hypertrophy. While two studies showed a correlation between objectively measured muscle swelling (via ultrasound) and hypertrophy, these studies did not assess subjective 'pump' perception. There's no strong evidence that an individual's feeling of the pump accurately predicts muscle swelling or subsequent growth, and better metrics like weekly performance or recovery exist.

Is the overhead press or bench press the 'true' show of pressing strength?

The overhead press is argued to be the 'one true show' of pressing strength, often featured in World's Strongest Man competitions (not bench press) and dominated by legendary strongmen like Zydrunas Savickas. It involves a more standardized range of motion with less potential for 'cheating' through extreme arching or wide grips compared to the bench press, making it a better pure pressing strength demonstration.

Battle Royale 2 (Episode 139)

Stronger By Science

Sports5 min read130 min video

Aug 7, 2024|4,938 views|148|22

Save to Pod

Key Moments

TL;DR

Debates on fat loss, training methods, study applicability, and exercise selection.

Key Insights

Aggressive fat loss may be more suitable for recreational lifters than competitive athletes due to performance and hormonal risks.

The effectiveness of cheat reps versus strict reps for muscle building is debated, with potential benefits and drawbacks to both depending on execution.

Studies on beginners can offer valuable insights for advanced trainees, despite potential differences in adaptation rates and magnitude.

Exercise stability is important but most common gym exercises are sufficiently stable for maximizing hypertrophy.

Optimal training approaches likely exist theoretically but are practically difficult to find and maintain due to individual variation and changing circumstances.

Self-experimentation can be useful for finding a personal training style, but should be guided by evidence and reasonable starting points.

While bodybuilders often develop effective training practices, science plays a crucial role in confirming, refuting, and explaining the underlying mechanisms.

The overhead press is argued to be a superior measure of pressing strength compared to the bench press, supported by strongman competition trends and historical context.

While muscle pump may correlate with hypertrophy, performance and recovery metrics are more reliable guides for auto-regulating training.

AGGRESSIVE FAT LOSS: RECREATIONAL VS. COMPETITIVE

The discussion on aggressive fat loss, defined as losing over 1% of body weight weekly, suggests it may be more beneficial for recreational lifters. Research indicates faster initial weight loss can improve long-term maintenance. For competitive athletes, however, aggressive fat loss risks performance decline, hormonal disruption (RED-S), and increased injury rates, making slower, more controlled approaches preferable to preserve lean mass and performance.

CHEAT REPS VS. STRICT REPS FOR HYPERTROPHY

The debate centers on whether cheat reps or strict reps build more muscle. Arguing for cheat reps, the idea is that they allow training closer to failure, potentially extending sets beyond what's possible strictly, akin to a drop set. This can maximize hypertrophy within time constraints and potentially handle more weight in the stretch. Conversely, strict reps are favored for emphasizing control, potentially better targeting specific muscles, and avoiding the neglect of long muscle lengths or increased injury risk associated with momentum-driven or range-of-motion-limited cheat reps.

APPLICABILITY OF BEGINNER STUDIES TO ADVANCED TRAINEES

The proposition that studies on beginners should not apply to advanced trainees was debated. While adaptations in beginners and advanced individuals differ in rate and magnitude, concepts like optimal training volume often translate. Beginners may show significant gains with lower volumes, while advanced trainees require higher volumes for similar proportional results. The distinct initial adaptations in beginners (e.g., muscle damage, recovery timelines) tend to normalize relatively quickly, making their findings conceptually relevant for advanced lifters, especially when considering the practical limitations of studying advanced populations.

EXERCISE STABILITY AND MUSCLE GROWTH

The effectiveness of highly stable exercises for muscle building was discussed. The argument for stability suggests it allows greater focus on the target muscle and reduces energy spent on stabilization, potentially facilitating training closer to failure safely. However, current research indicates that instability, within reasonable gym contexts (e.g., dumbbell press vs. machine), does not significantly hinder hypertrophy compared to more stable exercises. Most common exercises are considered sufficiently stable, and true instability risks are rarely encountered in typical training.

THE EXISTENCE OF OPTIMAL TRAINING

The existence of an 'optimal' training approach was debated. While theoretically, optimal outcomes (like hypertrophy) exist for any given stimulus, practically defining and achieving them is challenging. This difficulty stems from individual variations in goals, anthropometrics, training history, and the dynamic nature of the body's response, making 'optimal' a moving target. The consensus leans towards 'optimal' existing in theory but being elusive in practice, emphasizing personalized, evidence-informed experimentation over the pursuit of a single, universal ideal.

SELF-EXPERIMENTATION VS. EVIDENCE-BASED APPROACHES

The statement 'everyone's different, experiment and stick with what works for you' was analyzed. While individual responses vary, the practical challenges of controlled self-experimentation—finite time, numerous confounders, and measurement error—limit its effectiveness for definitively determining optimal training. The speakers suggested that while personalized adjustments are valuable, starting with evidence-based principles and making minor, tested deviations is often more productive than attempting to discover a uniquely optimal approach from scratch.

SCIENCE CONFIRMING BODYBUILDING WISDOM

The role of science in validating bodybuilding practices was explored. While it’s true that science has confirmed many effective bodybuilding techniques (e.g., higher volume, training close to failure, lower intensity training), the statement that science merely confirms what bodybuilders have known for decades is contested. Science aims to understand the mechanisms behind these practices, and there are also instances where bodybuilding dogma has been proven ineffective or incorrect by scientific research, highlighting that while bodybuilding offers valuable practical insights, science provides the critical explanatory power.

THE OVERHEAD PRESS AS THE ULTIMATE PRESSING TEST

The overhead press was championed as the true measure of pressing strength over the bench press. Arguments included its consistent presence in strongman competitions (like World's Strongest Man), the dominance of overhead press specialists like Zydrunas Savickas, and its more standardized, less technique-variable range of motion compared to the bench press, which can be influenced by wider grips and arches. While bench press involves significant musculature, the overhead press is argued to be a purer test of functional, whole-body pressing power.

THE PUMP AS AN AUTO-REGULATORY GUIDE

The utility of the muscle pump as a guide for auto-regulating training was questioned. Despite a potential correlation between muscle swelling (a proxy for pump) and hypertrophy observed in limited studies, the measurement of pump is subjective and not precisely correlated with actual muscle swelling via ultrasound. Given the preliminary evidence and the availability of more reliable auto-regulatory methods like monitoring recovery and performance, relying solely on the perceived pump is deemed premature and potentially misleading for optimizing training volume.

Mentioned in This Episode

●Books

●Studies Cited

●Concepts

●People Referenced

Common Questions

Yes, aggressive fat loss (losing more than 1% of body weight per week) can be beneficial for non-competitive lifters, especially those with significant weight to lose. Research suggests that faster initial weight loss may lead to better long-term weight maintenance and can help sustain motivation. However, competitive athletes should generally avoid it due to risks like muscle loss, hormonal disruptions, and injury.

Topics

Training Intensity Strongman Overhead Press Bench Press Muscle Pump

Mentioned in this video

studyMurphy and Caller Meta-analysis

A meta-analysis and meta-regression on energy deficiency, indicating that greater calorie deficits increase the likelihood of muscle mass loss during resistance training.

personMarius Pudzianowski

Strongman and MMA fighter, mentioned as having the second most international strongman wins after Zydrunas Savickas.

personBrian Shaw

Strongman, mentioned as having the second most combined World's Strongest Man and Arnold Classic wins after Zydrunas Savickas.

personCharles Poliquin

A strength coach, mentioned implicitly for his type of training (8x8 approach) which was considered high volume at the time, although not explicitly named for 8x8 it fits the context.

conceptRED-S (Relative Energy Deficiency in Sport)

A condition discussed in the context of competitive athletes aggressively losing weight, noting quick performance declines, hormonal disruptions, and increased injury rates.

personHany Rambod

A famous bodybuilding coach, mentioned implicitly for his type of training (8x8 approach) which was considered high volume at the time, although not explicitly named for 8x8 it fits the context.

personSerge Redding

Weightlifter, mentioned for his impressive strict overhead pressing, jokingly contrasted with Alexev for perceived cheating.

personVasily Alekseyev

Weightlifter, jokingly referred to as a 'dirty cheater' by Greg concerning his overhead pressing technique compared to Serge Redding's strict press.

studyCommon et al. drop set meta-analysis

A meta-analysis on drop sets, indicating that doing only 30% extra sets with drop sets can yield similar hypertrophy compared to straight sets.

personStoltman Brothers

Strongmen, mentioned as modern strongmen who are perhaps less media-savvy than others but still relevant.