@OTay I appreciate the response. I read the thread again and the graphs always confuse me so I just looked closer. 1 set twice per week produced greater gains than 8 sets per week, considering 48 hour atrophy. Huh. I thought it was slightly higher (4 sets per week=optimal). There’s no mention (that I see) regarding RIR. Do you know what he suggests based off the data? I’ve got to rethink this.
He appears to be annoyed 24-7. My friend and I wonder what drives this.
I actually never knew who was the Chris he routinely referred to.
1 Like
Chris is brilliant… Paul is too but gets testy and is easily annoyed which I completely understand
3 Likes
Paul’s mechanics on his lifts are a little cringeworthy too. He seems very disconnected with his body. I am pretty much on board with his programming ideas, although I do find value in intensifiers. They’re fun and time efficient!
1 Like
I remember back in the day he put up some videos with impressive free-weight lifts.
I now see him only post machine exercises with low reps, as low as three sometimes.
Something he routinely expresses annoyance with is his followers commenting on his form.
1 Like
The machine chest presses are especially bad, he’s got his back arched like crazy and his chin tucked into his chest and I have noticed he’s very sensitive about feedback. I know he’s got a lot of experience and might feel like there’s nothing left to learn but let’s face it, his chest is definitely a weak point and I feel like the way he performs his lifts definitely plays into it. He has “biomechanics” in his bio on Instagram but his lifts display a lack of understanding in that area.
I’m not the be-all end-all expert on that topic by any stretch of the imagination, but I’m still trying to learn, apply and improve in this area every day.
2 Likes
Most of his recs. that I have seen are failure or 1 RIR.
1 Like
I think it is in part from not really understanding the science. It is easier to get “annoyed” with “dumb” questions then to get into the science of it. He understands enough to put it into practice with the help of Chris but, not to explain in based on the studies or get into in depth discussions. So, it is either you blindly follow him, or you can fuck off. He will also just block people so they can’t comment.
He saw Mike Israetel and all the other evidenced based guys go the high-volume route. When Chris started going deeper into the studies and promoted lower volume, he hitched his wagon to that. He is the brute of the two. Chris does not get into arguments.
Paul was a Bro most of his lifting/coaching career. Big on intensifiers and bulking but, pushing “maingaining” and much lower volume/easier training allows for more people to sign up to his group coaching. Which means more $$$.
2 Likes
They can be fun but really only accumulate fatigue / damage. if pressed for time…antagonistic super-sets or a mechanical drop set might be good.
I’ve seen no issue with his lifts
1 or 2 RIR and occasionally to failure but is really hyping the RIR now
I think it’s genetics largely… I see guys with excellent chest development that use lousy technique. I have poor genetics for delts but good genetics for other body parts
From what I remember, he mostly gets annoyed by internet jockeys asking questions that clearly show a lack of critical thinking skills. These also seem to be the same ones critiquing his form in his videos. I can’t blame him for that, but he does seem to interrupt Beardsley almost constantly in the podcasts I listened to. always two sides of the coin
I disagree that his training is “easier.”
For the stimulus to work, you have to put 100% RPE into every rep of the sets you’re doing.
Most people can’t do that or even know or imagine what this actually feels like. If this style of training feels easy, you’re not putting 100% intensity in
Edit: to add to this. CT has posted in the past that many trainees do not know how to really push hard in training. And he endorses a different training approach than Carter
I feel like we’re all forgetting that Paul had his own subforum here. You can see exactly how he interacted with some of our regular members.
3 Likes
Paul may be an incredible programmer and great exercise demonstrator; I don’t know, because I don’t follow him.
Based on his forum posts on this site, I saw ad hominem attacks (which I believe demonstrate deep personal insecurities), complete absence of rhetorical defense, and a total inability to interpret data beyond simple regurgitation.
On the other hand, it’s clear the style really resonates with some folks; more power to him, I guess. It doesn’t appeal to me, but that certainly doesn’t mean there’s no place for it or that he’s an idiot or anything of the sort. I just don’t understand why his brand has become something of a scientific evidence based persona.
I did see some recent meta-analyses both on volume and intensity that I found interesting. I should find the references, lest I be an absolute hypocrite following my post above, but I’ll take the risk and follow up with detail later. Basically, the conclusions were that sets become linearly more effective as they approach failure. Volume also improves hypertrophy, but with diminishing returns. Although this analysis didn’t necessarily show it, individual papers certainly have shown there’s also a point of regression (when we’re outrunning our ability to recover).
So I think there’s two ways to interpret this: yes, volume matters, but volume of what? Obviously we’re going to get more out of those sets closer to failure.
To me, the second interpretation is more practical application: how can we best build our day? Let’s say we need 80 “units” of hypertrophy stimulus; 70 will be too little and we won’t recover from 90. A compound failure set maybe is worth 50 units, but our single arm cable isolation movement is only worth 5: we can manipulate our day to include enough of each to hit our perfect hypertrophy stimulus zone.
I think an analogy of a sales rep could make sense: prepping a great pitch for a big account gets you closest to your commission, but it takes time, you can only get so many meetings, and it won’t take you all the way to your goal. On the other hand, it’s easy to run around making quick calls, you can do it all day, but if you only do those and no big accounts, you won’t hit your number. Your solution is to prioritize the day around the big pitch (failure sets) and fill in the rest of your day with quick calls (easier volume)… closing up shop early enough that you can prepare for tomorrow’s big pitch (recover).
It makes sense in my head, but my son and I also just came back from a dumb movie so maybe my brain didn’t make the trip.
3 Likes
Late to the party but honestly this looks not only boring to tears but you would explode after a couple of weeks if you’re not a complete beginner.
This structure reminds me of CT’s the Best Damn Program for Naturals ™️ which I did 3 times and is fantastic and completely in the lines of very high frequency/very low volume.
I’d suggest you try this for a few weeks. Really, it’s great.
I still remember his interactions with Greg Nuckols here on the forum, or his take on the deadlift…
He’s smart and certainly understand that being polarizing is great for social media, but I tend to observe him from a distance and with a grain of salt, because his way of being is completely biased towards social media : only talking in absolutes and being polarizing.
1 Like
@aldebaran so it gets your seal of approval? I started yesterday. Felt right.
1 Like
I fear no fatigue monster! I don’t know if you’ve ever done a Fortitude Training Muscle Round but you’re accumulating a lot more effective reps than you would during a single regular straight set and has less “non-effective reps” than just doing 6 straight sets and certainly less fatigue!
1 Like
Straight sets seem to be the most optimal actually. Not familiar with FTMR. Can you explain?
@marine77 Using your 10 rep maximum, do 6 sets of 4 reps with only 10 seconds between. Ideally you would fail on the last set. At least that’s what I recall.