Why do average training results not apply to everyone?

Studies often report average outcomes. While two training methods might show no significant difference between groups on average, this can mask large variations in individual responses. Some individuals may thrive on one method while others perform poorly, or vice versa.

What did the Carneiro et al. study find about rep ranges?

The study found that while average lean body mass gains were similar for moderate (8-12 reps) and low (27-31 reps) load training in post-menopausal women, individual results varied greatly. Some saw significant decreases with one method and large increases with the other.

What is the takeaway from the lack of correlation in training responses?

The lack of correlation in how individuals responded to moderate versus low load training suggests that success with one protocol doesn't predict success with the other. This highlights the importance of individual experimentation rather than relying solely on average findings.

Should I disregard scientific findings if they conflict with my personal experience?

No, conflicting personal experience doesn't automatically invalidate scientific findings. It might mean you had an atypical response. However, it also suggests that you may respond differently than the average person in the study, making individual experimentation valuable.

What are some 'non-optimal' training methods that worked well for individuals?

Some individuals have found success with methods like the 'bro split' (low frequency, high volume per session) or 'Bulgarian style training' (daily maxes). Greg also found 'breathing pause squats' highly effective for personal squat improvement, though not universally beneficial.

Will we get better at predicting individual training responses?

Yes, researchers believe that within the next 5-10 years, there will be significantly more clarity on inter-individual differences in exercise and nutrition. The goal is not only to quantify these differences but also to find useful predictors for personalized training.

Key Moments

"No difference" on average ≠ No difference FOR YOU

Stronger By Science

Sports3 min read31 min video

Sep 21, 2022|5,890 views|296|26

Save to Pod

Key Moments

TL;DR

Individual training responses vary greatly, so averages don't predict personal results. Experimentation is key.

Key Insights

Training interventions that show similar average results in studies may produce vastly different outcomes for individuals.

Research often relies on group averages, potentially overlooking significant inter-individual variability in responses.

Crossover and unilateral study designs are crucial for understanding individual differences in training outcomes.

Content creators should be cautious about generalizing their personal experiences or group study findings.

Consumers of fitness information should consider their own unique responses rather than solely relying on average findings.

Future research aims to not only quantify individual differences but also identify reliable predictors of training response.

THE DANGER OF GROUP AVERAGES

The core argument presented is that while research often highlights average outcomes for training interventions, these averages can be misleading when applied to individuals. A common example used is the finding that moderate-rep sets (8-12) and high-rep sets (27-31) to near failure result in similar muscle growth on average. However, this aggregate finding masks a wide spectrum of individual responses, where one person might thrive on moderate reps and another on high reps, with significant differences in their outcomes.

BEYOND THE 'NO DIFFERENCE' FALLACY

The discussion emphasizes that concluding 'no difference' from group-level data is a fallacy when individual responses can vary dramatically. Just as in sports, where different training regimens (strength vs. conditioning) might yield similar team performance on average but are clearly better suited to individual players' needs, the same applies to resistance training. Relying solely on averages ignores the potential for one intervention to be significantly more or less effective for a particular person.

THE CARNEIRO ET AL. STUDY ILLUSTRATION

A key study by Carneiro et al. (2022) involving post-menopausal women is used to illustrate this point. Participants underwent 12 weeks of low-load (27-31 reps) and 12 weeks of moderate-load (8-12 reps) training in differing orders. While leg lean mass gains were virtually identical on average (around 3-4%), individual responses showed extreme variability. Some decreased mass with one protocol while gaining significantly with the other, highlighting that average efficacy doesn't predict individual success.

THE LACK OF PREDICTIVE CORRELATION

The study's data, visualized as a scatter plot, revealed a weak or non-existent correlation between how well individuals responded to the low-load versus moderate-load training. This means that performing well with one training load did not predict performance with the other. This lack of predictability underscores the challenge of using group averages to guide individual programming and suggests that optimal training prescriptions may be highly person-specific.

IMPLICATIONS FOR CONTENT CREATORS AND CONSUMERS

Content creators are urged to be cautious about generalizing their personal experiences (n=1) or studies showing average effects. Similarly, consumers should avoid the positivity bias that leads them to interpret 'no difference' as 'neither works well.' Instead, they should view these findings as an invitation to experiment and discover what works best for their unique physiology, recognizing that an intervention that is ineffective on average could be highly beneficial for them, and vice versa.

THE SPECIAL SNOWFLAKE VS. AVERAGE RESPONSE

The traditional 'you are not a special snowflake' ideology, often cited from Fight Club, promotes the idea that people are fundamentally alike and should respond similarly to general advice. While there's truth to shared genetics and basic physiological principles, this perspective can downplay the significant, often unpredictable, individual differences in response to training and nutrition. This can lead to dismissing personal experiences that conflict with research findings, when in reality, those unique responses might be valid for the individual.

PERSONAL ANECDOTES AND 'WEIRD TRICKS'

Both hosts share personal 'weird tricks' or training methods that worked exceptionally well for them, despite not aligning with general evidence-based guidelines. Eric found success with a high-volume 'bro split,' while Greg saw significant gains from breathing pause squats on his squat form. These anecdotes highlight that what may be suboptimal on average can be highly effective for specific individuals, suggesting the need for personalized experimentation.

MOVING TOWARDS PREDICTIVE MODELING

The discussion concludes with optimism about future research directions. While current research excels at showing average differences, the next frontier is identifying reliable predictors of individual responses. The goal is to move beyond simply observing variability to actively predicting which training protocols will be most effective for specific individuals, thereby enabling more personalized and effective training and nutrition strategies.

Mentioned in This Episode

●Software & Apps

●Tools

●Studies Cited

●Concepts

●People Referenced

Individual Responses to Low vs. Moderate Load Training (Carneiro et al., 2023)

Data extracted from this episode

Training Protocol	Average % Lean Mass Gain	Individual Range (Min/Max % Gain)	Notes
Moderate Load (8-12 reps)	~3.5-4%	-5% to +13%	Average gain similar to low load, but extreme individual variation.
Low Load (27-31 reps)	~3.5-4%	-5% to +10%	Average gain similar to moderate load, but extreme individual variation.

Common Questions

On average, moderate (8-12 reps) and high (27-31 reps) rep ranges, when taken close to failure, yield similar muscle growth. However, individual responses can vary dramatically, meaning one range might be significantly better for you than another.

Topics

Individual Differences Response Variability Evidence-Based Training Research Interpretation Personalized Fitness Crossover Study

Mentioned in this video

conceptBulgarian style training

A training methodology involving daily maxes and multiple daily squat sessions, which Greg found highly effective for improving his squat, despite being theoretically suboptimal.

toolBreathing pause squats

An exercise technique where a lifter pauses at the bottom of a squat for an extended period (up to a minute or two) to improve bracing and comfort, which Greg found transformative for his squat.

studyCarneiro et al.

A 2023 study examining different load and intensity schemes for lean body mass gain in post-menopausal women, used to illustrate inter-individual responses to training.

conceptBro split

A training split characterized by low frequency per muscle group but high volume per session, which Eric found effective personally despite not aligning with some evidence-based guidelines.

conceptCSCS exam

A certification exam for aspiring strength and conditioning professionals, referenced for its traditional infographics on strength, hypertrophy, and muscular endurance ranges.

companyVeritasium