When’s it supposed to happen?
The one thing you can say about Eddie regardless of how annoying he is. When he sets his mind to something his level of focus and commitment to that task are incredible.
Yeah, I’d probably recommend something like that if people don’t have excess to cheap protein shakes. But then it just became absurd. People started asking, “Should I do GOMAD? I’m gaining 10lbs a week and turning into a fat fuck.” and the SS kids would be like,“If you don’t, you’re not doing the program.” or some nonsense like that when a normal, sane answer would be something like ‘cut it down to half a gallon and check your progress after a week. Increase or decrease depending on results.’
3 Likes
Of course… the Gomad mentality will bite most in the ass. Thats why I gave the example I gave.
1 Like
Newbs jumping on a Gallon of Milk a Day is pretty much dudes jumping into a cycle of gear first thing: the former camp just doesn’t want to deal with illegality. It’s both cases of guys that don’t know how to eat and train looking for shortcuts to success. They think they reached their “genetic limit” in the first year or two of screwing around in the gym. The idea that their lackluster results are a product of a total lack of effort is unfathomable.
I remember hopping on the gallon of milk thing during Super Squats. It was QUITE the experience. A good lesson is just how much MORE there always is to dig for.
3 Likes
Interesting you bring up genetic limits…
I have been thinking about the concept of someone being a hardgainer or easy.
I throw this out there to speculation on. Take 2 indviduals and let’s say everything hypothetically is on point in regards to their own individual program.Effort … recovery…nutrition everything.
Yet the rate of gains are significantly different.
Is one a hardgainer and the other one isn’t?
Or based on my speculation are their rate of gains equal in proportion to their genetic ceiling.
Just something to ponder.
1 Like
I mean I’m just always advertising for him but John Meadows latest videos are just AMAZING. So creative and fun, in the like of a “Be your own hero” book. You can create your own workouts, Mountaindog style, where he explains everything, and indicates rep schemes and techniques. For now, only the chest and the push workouts are out, but he’s going to do vids for all bodypart for the Bro split, the PPL, and the Upper lower splits.
And this is all free, incredible!
@T3hPwnisher if you want to see about his phylosophy (which he explains in details) and look at how his workouts and programs look like (I created my own, gruelling 7 freaking exercises push workout ahah)
4 Likes
Appreciate it man. If he ever writes it down, I will devour it, haha.
Love me some Meadows
I like how he’s showing people how seasoned bros train instinctively - like there’s an underlying structure behind what they do(not everyone does the same shit, though). This was something those writers over the last 2 decades who don’t look like they train pushing the “scientific” stuff couldn’t grasp and thought bros were just making shit up in the gym and their gainz were made in spite of what they did.
1 Like
I’d like to state for the record that I’m not “anti-science”. I do some science and shit for work myself. Actually, quite a bit depending on the projects. It’s why I find things like “peer reviewed” emg studies done in some bum’s basement a little… I’m just gonna stop here.
1 Like
So - 2 guys. Both start at 150lb - fairly lean. One has the potential for 30lb of lean mass to be added, the other 50lb.
Your theory is - if they both train and recover identically (impossible but hypothetically) then each year they should progress at the same % rate. So for easy numbers, end of year one - both have made 50% progression towards their max potential.
One guy adds 25lb of lean mass the other 15lb.
The guy with the 15lb gain declares himself a hard gainer. Where as in reality - God wants him to be small. For ever.
Interesting. Ultimately VERY difficult to prove. It would require a long term (5y+) study. And I can see issues around participant honest. But I think its a fair shout. You’re not a hard gainer. Your just never going to be big and strong. You are making progress in line with your genetic max.
Again - I will contest that I’ve never meet at hard gainer. Everyone I have meet (in person) that has been a hard gainer has been lazy in they gym and or lazy with their food.
And only 1 guy on here has ever come close to convincing me they are a hard gainer.
30 cum laude 
(according to US grades, I think it should be A+ or something)
4 Likes
I have accepted that…
But yeah people usually think they’re hardgainer where they have just a fast metabolism and aren’t eating enough
He’s not anti-science either, he often states research or studies when explaining his stuff. But yeah bros were doing stuff instinctly (like chasing the pump) before it was proven to be efficient
Honestly, I’m not a fan of “chasing the pump” for muscle growth. The pump should come naturally as a by-product of proper exercise execution.
It’s pretty simple, actually. If you can’t get a medial delt pump(lol) while doing side raises with a normal lifting tempo within a normal 8-12 rep range, you’re doing it wrong. Compensating this with dropsets or sets of 20+ reps don’t solve this problem.
1 Like
I’m a civil engineer. I make science “work”. Only in a limited context. Most of my science is “more concrete” or “bigger pipe”. But sometimes I can get fun stuff to.
But the fact is - I can read and appreciate a scientific study.
I would hazard a guess that 99% of the studies I read on exercise are pointless if read in isolation.
Example - get 100 guys to do their max 5x5 squat on Monday. Add 2.5kg to the bar.
Have 50 of those guys do the higher weight on Tuesday
Have 50 of those guy do the higher weight in 10 days time.
The study will show more people were able to do the higher weight after 10 days. Internet reads - wait 10 days between doing squats.
The gaps in that conclusion are massive. But no one cares. Its an easy to digest strap line.
I mean the EMG just shows attempted muscular activation. Saying “this exercise shows 10% more bicep activation on the EMG than curls” is meaningless by its self. If that exercise is the deadlift no one got 19 inch arms from JUST doing the deadlift.
To be fair to Coach PC this was something he brought up a few times on his forum. And he is 100% right.
Unless someone’s walked you through one of these things leave them alone. Its not an a snob thing. But these studies are dangerous in the wrong hands. And lead to people getting the wrong end of the stick.
3 Likes
Good points. There are some pretty big issues with using EMG to draw conclusions in exercise research, and good authors and analysts will typically point these out and say that EMG’s just give directional hints and clues.
For one EMG is just a proxy for muscle activation, which itself is only a proxy for load on a muscle and you have to go through a whole chain of assumptions that higher EMG = Higher activation = higher load = more hypertrophy and that can break down at each step.
Another is that EMG measures a peak and different exercises have very different EMG curves which don’t always closely correlate with the force curves that muscle will usually be under.
A good example is squat vs hip thrust for glute activation, the EMG curve peaks massively at full contraction and you often see higher EMG for glutes in hip thrusts vs squats, however while the EMG is very high at peak contraction the strength / force curve for glutes is completely opposite with the glutes being weakest at their fully stretched position.
Rule of thumb is it can be useful if you are comparing similar movements, targeting similar muscles with similar weights. So comparing straight curls and hammer curls for different bicep heads is probably useful, comparing high bar and low bar squats for quad activation can be useful. Comparing curls and chin ups will not be useful, likewise with squats vs hip thrusts.
5 Likes
100% agree. But when you get someone with a little bit of knowledge - IE Higher EMG is good; they take this out of context.
And that the issue - science takes things out of context. It removes as many different variables as possible. Then tests a few different systems and produces results. Once you understand the limitations of the study and parameters of the test - its easier to appreciate where this moves our understanding to.
The one that REALLY grinds my gears is Tabata. The Tabata protocol is a good HIIT protocol. But is it the best? Its give a lot of reverence. But to be fair the study compared 2 systems. Just the two. One had 30min steady exercise 5 times a week. One had 5 (well 4 1/2) HIIT sessions a week and 1 30min ride.
They are SO polar opposite. And people used this study to ditch almost all low intensity work. There is a lot to be said for a 30min bike ride or row. Many a great body has been built doing LISS.
Confession:
Right this one is a big one. Because as a coach and a person I love Dan John. The way he talks on his Facebook account he seems like a really nice guy and his info on T - nation is priceless. But when he (an others) write about Tabata front squats, press ups, thrusters ETC I get angry.
You can not reach 170% of your VO2 max doing a weighted exercise. You just can’t. The load needed to do this is so high that limiting factor would not be the heart and lungs but the strength of the body.
I’m not saying it does not work. 20 seconds of front squats 10 seconds rest x 8 sounds brutal. But its your legs that will burn. Not your lungs. And if your lungs are not burning - you did not reach 170% of VO2 max.
2 Likes
True, by design these studies are taking things out of context to study things in isolation. The biggest problem is that exercise and nutrition research is, relative to other fields of research, pretty young, poorly funded and poorly executed most of the time.
3 Likes
I love Tnation.
I’m taking a research methods course and the last 5posts or so (~5min reading time) did a better job explaining construct and internal validity than my professor’s 45min lecture 
1 Like