Why?
Cause it would be the ultimate debate on volume and muscle growth
Why would it? This presumes that these two are the foremost minds on volume and muscle growth. They are prominent and well known, but that might be a stretch.
There is an episode on Iron Culture Podcast where Dr Brad Schoenfeld, Dr Brandon Roberts, Dr Juha Hulmi and Dr Eric Helms discuss specifically the science of hypertrophy. What makes you think this discussion would be in any way inferior?
@Pinkylifting has described perfectly why it wouldnât be perfect. Iâm not convinced it would even be much of a debate. Iâd imagine theyâd both give their point of view once and then end up off topic within 5mins. Which would honestly be far more entertaining all round, theyâre both pretty entertaining guys by all accounts.
I have a lot of respect for Pauls experience and perspective as an in the trenches coach. I have no doubt he knows what works. I do not think he is inclined to âdebateâ anyone on any topic. It would either be finding places where other people will concede heâs right, or him calling them names for not agreeing with him.
Dude Iâm not going to go out and text Jim to tell him this. FML.
Iâm debating someone on the topic this week actually. The fact that I caught your little undertone that Iâm an âin the trenchesâ guy means youâre implying Iâm not a science guy, which is funny. I laughed.
In case youâre not aware LOTS of guys in the âevidence basedâ field have almost no experience with training people and the practical application of principles. The lack of that means their ability to teach is quite incomplete and having some letters in front of their name doesnât make them âscience basedâ.
22 college age kids doing some made up training routine in a lab three times a week isnât the final word on training, in case you didnât know.
I am aware, I donât listen to those or respect their opinion. I do yours.
I did and couldnât agree more
It means youâre an in the trenches guy, itâs a complement actually, for the very reasons youâve outlined above. If I want to know WHAT works, I will absolutely look at what you have to say on a topic. If I want to know WHY it works, there are other people I would look to first. Nothing more meant by it than that.
I think itâs almost necessary to not be too evidence based to be as effective as possible because otherwise half of your answers would have to be âwe donât really know for sureâ. Itâs a different skill set fulfilling a different need.
The only undertone was that you arenât very good at debating, youâre good at arguing.
Debating IS arguing. The terms are semantics.
The rest of what you said thurr, I agree withâŠ
Right now, weâre in kind of a weird time where thereâs lots of âevidence basedâ fanboys who just follow real researchers and donât pick up on little words like âmightâ âcould beâ âmaybeâ and such. And then they read an abstract and proceed to vomit all over dissenting opinions about how itâs not evidence based.
Honestly the term makes me sick now because itâs not what it used to actually mean.
As far as the rest, thank you for the words. I get so many trolls coming through my social media now itâs hard for me to discern at times when someone is being snarky or being sincere. Just the nature of prose online.
This podcast with scott stevenson knocks it out of the park and will save ppl time arguing with paul if they listen to it.
People like to harp on the differences while ignoring what Paul and Jimâs training methodologies have in common. Both emphasize a small number of high effort sets on the big lifts. The only real difference is the approach to assistance work. You could easily do a 5/3/1 style main lift and Paul style assistance. For your main lift you could do 5/3/1 pyramid style. Go for a PR on the top set then on one or both of the down sets. Follow that up with a couple assistance lifts using Paulâs 350 method. Easy. No drama.
Regarding âevidence basedâ fanboys, recently I was reading trough this Chris Beardsley âhow to trainâ series of articles and It confused the hell out of my when I tried to put it all together in terms of programing and I came to conclusion âfuck it, train bodypart two time per week with low-moderate volume with honest effort-intensity and forget about everything elseâ. Iâm just sucker for all nuances like âdelts are actually bigger than latsâ
hahah I love Chrisâ stuff tho.
Here let me make this easier for you for triceps -
Since the elbow is a hinge joint and only moves in 1 direction, simply focus on the long head.
So pick a movement to train it in the short and lengthened position. Most heavy pressing work is still going to sufficiently stimulate it in the mid-range position so donât sweat that.
The best short position to train it in are the dual rope or cross body extensions, and then simply use a dual rope overhead extension of cross cable overhead extension.
The seated version is best imo with one of those short padded seats that only go upto your mid back. With the seated overhead cross cable tricep extension you can really push the weight as opposed to when your standing youre fighting for stability. Set the cables just below shoulder height.
Also, i think we forget if your a PL or a guy who wants to improve the big 3, more reps during training will help âgrease the grooveâ as they say.
If you want to be a better squatterâŠsquat. if you want to be a big OHPer you have to OHP. but to build big quads and shoulders, there are better ways then just adding volume to those lifts
Style referred to here Log into Facebook | Facebook
Looks greatâŠor You Can ask someone to push You lol
Thatâs 100% a rhomboid bias movement.
No this is incorrect. You donât want to do more reps to âgrease the grooveâ.
You get better with repeating a motor pattern in the manner in which you want to execute with it.
Youâre doing more reps youâre building more fatigue. This is why that training with more volume and submax loading but explosive reps work best for weeks or months at a time with the powerlifts.
No more than 5 reps per set .