Full transcript
0:03so the reasons i'm unclear on the
0:04previous version of this got tagged by
0:07instagram for inciting violence
0:09i'm guessing that one of mike's little
0:11followers got their fee wings hurt and
0:13reported it so i'm gonna re-cut this and
0:15fix a couple mistakes but i'm gonna make
0:17sure i'm talking nice baby language so i
0:19don't hurt anybody's seawings again
0:23god i think big muscular people would be
0:25better able to deal with language and
0:28mean words on a screen but i'd be wrong
0:30all right let's get to it
0:34hey kids it's time for everybody's
0:36favorite training topic training to
0:39muscular failure or not
0:41let's go
0:45so before i get started i want to
0:47clarify something because there seems to
0:49be a real inability of people to
0:51understand the distinction between
0:54discussing the nuances of training to
0:56failure
0:57and advocating training to muscular
0:59failure
1:00this is not helped by the fact that
1:02people like mike due to their inability
1:05to address my actual criticisms of what
1:07their claiming zero reps reserve are
1:09like to obfuscate and confuse the issue
1:14by arguing against something that i
1:16never actually said
1:18so let me make it clear
1:20i am not and have not
1:23ever
1:24advocated that people necessarily
1:26trained a muscular failure and certainly
1:28nothing in my videos last year
1:31ever said i was saying people should
1:33train to failure
1:34quite in fact i said the exact opposite
1:37time and time and time again this did
1:40not keep mike from claiming that lyle
1:42advocates turning to muscular failure
1:45but he's as intellectually dishonest as
1:47they come
1:49during his hour with the lifting
1:50dermatologist he said that lyle
1:53advocates all people trained to muscular
1:55failure for all applications
1:57that is a bold-faced lie
2:01let me say it again
2:03even though i'm going to discuss the
2:05topic of training and muscular failure
2:06in this video
2:07nothing i'm going to say is advocating
2:10that you should or should not train to
2:13muscular failure
2:16now
2:17there are times when trying to muscular
2:19failure can be valid there are very
2:21successful training systems such as dog
2:24crap that use training to failure that
2:26have generated bodybuilders with more
2:27competition success than mike will ever
2:29have
2:30there are other systems of training that
2:32don't utilize muscular failure
2:35there are times to train to failure
2:36there are times
2:38that you shouldn't train to failure
2:40that is a separate discussion
2:42now so far is the claim that i advocate
2:44trying to failure
2:45this is not true
2:47quite in fact here is something i wrote
2:49in my first book back in
2:511998
2:53it's a little hard to read but the last
2:54sentence says this author feels that so
2:57long as the trainees are training within
2:59a repetition or two of failure such at
3:01least 10 repetitions are done when 12
3:02could have been done in good form
3:04progress should occur
3:061998 and i've said nothing in contrast
3:10to that in the last 30 years
3:13quite in fact anyone who's read anything
3:15i've ever written
3:16will see that in general i advocate
3:18against training to muscular failure on
3:20a constant basis
3:23this is especially true when people are
3:25doing multiple sets of an exercise if
3:27you want to do say four sets of a chest
3:30exercise
3:31you had better start somewhere between
3:34one and three reps from failure
3:35depending on your individual recovery
3:37and rest interval
3:38now by the fourth set you may hit
3:41muscular failure
3:43but that is a consequence of the fatigue
3:45that has occurred it is not something
3:47that i am recommending people chase
3:49is that clear
3:52now
3:53in recent years one thing i have
3:54suggested to people is that every three
3:55or four weeks
3:57you might take uh the final set of an
3:59exercise
4:00and do an am wrap in as many reps as
4:02possible and go and go to failure but
4:03this is to gauge where you're at
4:06if your goal is
4:09eight reps with two reps in reserve and
4:11during that am rep you only get 10 well
4:13you're in the perfect spot then that
4:15amrep you get 12 you need to add weight
4:17of course assuming you have trained a
4:19muscular failure and know where it is
4:21as part of
4:23learning to train hard you can use bar
4:25speed and don't even need to do that and
4:26i point out there's lots of training
4:28systems that use amraps like that some
4:30use it at every workout which i would
4:31never recommend
4:34so the fact despite mike israetel's
4:38claims
4:40lies to the contrary
4:43i have not
4:44ever advocated that people trying to
4:46muscular failure all the time much less
4:48for all applications
4:49you need to know where it is you need to
4:51spend some time doing it
4:52because if you haven't trained zero reps
4:54in reserve
4:55you can't know what one or two reps
4:57reserve is and that is not a statement
4:58that is even debatable by anyone who's
5:00actually a real coach
5:02mike only debated it because he was
5:05too chicken to admit that he was wrong
5:07sorry new puppy
5:09so he had to make it about something
5:10else
5:12and he didn't even defend it by
5:13addressing it directly he did it by
5:14lying about me
5:16let me say it again
5:18i am not and never have advocated that
5:20people always train a failure for all
5:21applications all the time and i defy
5:23anyone to show where i have
5:25i said that people need to have spent
5:26some time doing it to know where it is
5:30but once you know where it is
5:32you know again it depends on volume it
5:34depends on frequency it depends on the
5:36whole bunch of factors that are the
5:37topic of a different video i'm going to
5:39do the nuance
5:41that people don't discuss when they make
5:43absolute statements
5:44all i'm saying here is nothing i'm going
5:46to say today means that i'm advocating
5:48you trained to failure and anyone who
5:50hears that needs to go order hooked on
5:52phonics
5:53and if mike now claims again that lyle
5:55advocates trying to failure just realize
5:57he's lying again
6:00as a second example
6:02i currently train an elite female
6:04powerlifter she holds
6:07state national and world records in two
6:10different weight classes in two
6:11different federations in both the open
6:12and masters category
6:15last year on top of setting new records
6:18she qualified for the arnold in the
6:19strict curl during her first competition
6:22factually she accomplished more in her
6:23athletic career last year than mike has
6:25in his entire career
6:28but in her training
6:30i never have her deliberately go to
6:32failure
6:33and i mean never
6:35we don't do amraps we don't go to limits
6:38ever
6:39now
6:40she may miss the occasional rep
6:42usually during the strength cycle when
6:44we're doing maximum singles
6:46but if over a 13-week training cycle she
6:48misses two total repetitions out of the
6:50hundred she did
6:52that's a lot
6:54i do not and i'm not advocating that
6:56people train to muscular failure
6:59at all times for all applications
7:02and for mike to have claimed such is a
7:04bullface lie
7:06are we clear on this before i move on to
7:08the actual topic of this video
7:12i sure hope so because i can't make it
7:14any simpler
7:17without bargaining
7:22so a couple weeks ago someone made me
7:24aware of a
7:26post mike isrtel had made on his
7:27instagram was sort of a chortling so you
7:30see you don't have to train the muscular
7:32failure to grow which i still suspect is
7:35him being butt hurt over me it's still
7:37him misrepresenting what i said because
7:39i never have and never will say anyone
7:40needs to train the muscular failure to
7:42grow
7:43but that's really neither here nor there
7:46um
7:48that post was shared from james
7:49krieger's wall and as far as i could
7:51tell mike only posted
7:54part of the image the the little
7:56infographic that uh people on instagram
8:00with their short attention spans um like
8:02but i wanted to see the original
8:04so
8:06james
8:07likes so many
8:09wood babies in this industry has me
8:11blocked because you know they can't
8:13address my criticisms directly either
8:16um
8:18but let's face it we've all got that one
8:20instagram account that we use to look at
8:2230 pictures and since i don't use it to
8:24post on anything nobody's aware of it
8:26which means james couldn't have it
8:27blocked so i went and found the original
8:29post on his wall which i have
8:33put here
8:34and what you can see is he's presents
8:36data from a study
8:38comparing train to failure to not
8:40training to failure and in the bar graph
8:43you can see that uh
8:44the failure group showed an average
8:46growth of 13 and the non-failure group
8:4818 which seems to suggest a very big
8:51difference
8:53now if you actually bother to read the
8:55text
8:57he does state that differences between
8:59the two were statistically
9:00non-significant
9:01in my opinion
9:03he could have probably indicated that
9:06a little more directly because as it's
9:08shown seems to show that not trying to
9:10failure is way better
9:13it were me
9:14i would have added this to the image
9:17because i know
9:18just like james knows people don't
9:21bother to read the little itty bitty
9:22text they look at the emirate image see
9:25the infographic draw their own probably
9:28incorrect inferences and move on
9:31so i would have made it extremely clear
9:33in the image that these were not
9:35statistically significant differences
9:37but i believe in transparency
9:40whereas many others in this field i'll
9:42just say to be polite
9:44do not
9:45now again assuming you can read the text
9:48james indicates that he first looked at
9:51this study in his weightology newsletter
9:53and i have not read that nor am i going
9:55to and even if i had i am concerned with
9:58what was presented on instagram and
9:59instagram only
10:01um but one thing you might notice
10:04is that as far as i can tell james did
10:06not provide the actual reference in his
10:08instagram image if i missed it then
10:10that's on me
10:12um and i find this
10:15interesting
10:17because by not doing that it makes it
10:20difficult for many people to actually
10:21find the paper
10:23i've seen other people in this industry
10:24deliberately misreference something by
10:27putting the wrong author name first
10:29author name on a paper
10:31oh henselman
10:32because it makes it harder for people to
10:34find it and actually check what's being
10:35claimed but being me i had no trouble
10:38finding this paper nearly immediately
10:40just based on the data set
10:42here's the full reference
10:43the full paper is santaniello n at all
10:47effective resistance training of
10:48muscular failure versus non-failure on
10:50strength hypertrophy and muscle
10:52architecture in trained individuals
10:54published in biological sport december
10:562020 volume 37 page 333 to 341
11:00and uh here's a link if you want to go
11:03find it and see if i'm representing it
11:05accurately which i always do
11:07so let's look at the study
11:12okay
11:14the study lasted 10 weeks
11:16good
11:1812 plus would be better but so be it
11:20this is the nature of exercise science
11:22they started with 18 resistance trained
11:23men they had an average training
11:25experience about five years
11:27good
11:2814 finished all right fine
11:31um
11:32they measured a bunch of different
11:34things i'm only going to focus on the
11:35muscle growth which they measured muscle
11:37thickness by ultrasound good
11:41and the technician was actually blinded
11:44now that fact alone puts it heads and
11:46shoulders than most research in this
11:48field where
11:50they can't seem to figure out how to
11:52blind the assessor to the groups
11:55brad schoenfeld just put out a recent
11:56meta analysis number one he used the
11:59pedro analysis scale
12:01hey mike you remember when you said that
12:03stuff like cochrane weren't applicable
12:05to exercise science well maybe you
12:07should tell brad because you were making
12:09stuff with them too but in it he
12:11actually says that we're not even going
12:12to use the criteria for blinding because
12:14it's so hard to do in exercise science
12:16now
12:17it's absolutely impossible to blind the
12:19subjects who are on different exercise
12:21programs
12:22but to blind the assessor of the
12:23ultrasound is trivial it can be done
12:26brad can't do it but other actual good
12:29researchers who care about quality
12:32science and avoiding bias
12:35who don't feel the need to make excuses
12:37when they get criticized for it can do
12:39it
12:43okay so first it took their
12:46previous weekly volume
12:48and it bumped that by twenty percent and
12:50this is not the first study to do this i
12:52think it's probably the same group and
12:53it might even be the same data analysis
12:55from a previous study the reason they
12:57did that is to be like well we want to
12:59make sure something happens so we're
13:00going to train a little bit harder than
13:02they're used to so we can get some sort
13:03of growth response
13:04fine all right
13:07um
13:09that was interesting about this study is
13:10that it was an inter-subject design
13:13right most studies will take a group of
13:1410 and have them trained to failure and
13:16another group and have them not trained
13:17to fail in their compare groups a
13:19current trend
13:20is to have one person do both
13:24and by that i mean what they'll do is
13:26they'll have one leg or one arm do one
13:28type of training and the other leg or
13:30the other arm do the other type of
13:32training so each individual acts as
13:34their own comparison
13:36and rather than comparing one person to
13:38another
13:40and there's a lot of good reasons to do
13:42this
13:43for
13:45and i'll explain why that is later in
13:46this video another really smart thing
13:49they did was to randomize which leg did
13:51which work out and this was to avoid the
13:53potential issue of a dominant hand
13:56dominant leg
13:57thing right we all tend to favor one
13:59side and that side might be stronger
14:01might be bigger and if every trainee did
14:03one workout for their dominant leg and
14:05the other one for the non-dominant leg
14:07that might affect the responses so they
14:09randomized it
14:11it almost looks like the group of
14:12researchers
14:14sat down wanted to make a good workout
14:17design
14:18decided to blind the assessor like they
14:20should
14:21to actually do quality science and i
14:24probably could have guessed that by
14:25looking at the author list because brent
14:27schoenfeld's name isn't on it all right
14:30moving on
14:34they took the subjects and had them
14:35train quads twice a week they did two
14:38exercises
14:40one legged 45 degree leg press one
14:42legged leg extension fine
14:45having initially tested their one rep
14:47maximum on each exercise they had them
14:49use the resistance of 75 of 1rm
14:52as they described here
14:54um
14:56repetitions were performed to the point
14:58of inability to complete a repetition
14:59with a full range of motion 90 degrees
15:01knee extension it's evaluated by the
15:03researchers familiar with the protocol
15:05so the workout was overseen
15:07for the non-failure protocol
15:09participants were previously instructed
15:10to familiarize with the criterion for
15:12muscular failure they were instructed to
15:14interrupt repetitions voluntarily
15:16according to each own's perception of
15:17fatigue before reaching the known point
15:19of muscular failure independently of how
15:22many repetitions short of failure they
15:23stopped does that make sense workouts
15:26were overseen they took one leg to
15:27failure and the other leg they were told
15:29to stop short of failure voluntarily
15:32and just jumping ahead
15:35so what you see in this image is that um
15:37the failure group did an average of like
15:3812 reps which is right about what you'd
15:40expect at 75 percent of one rm and then
15:43the non-failure group was a little bit
15:44less than that uh in the data they state
15:46it's like 1.6 plus or minus 1.8 reps so
15:49like one to two reps less for the
15:52non-failure leg
15:53you can also see the volume load and was
15:55all like 11 lower for the non-failure
15:58leg
16:00so
16:02you're less reps a little bit less work
16:04as you'd expect for the non-failure
16:06versus failure so this is actually a
16:08super valid comparison in terms of real
16:10world training it is trained in muscular
16:13failure versus stopping one or two reps
16:15short of failure
16:17most studies in this area are absurd
16:20they do things like we compared three by
16:22ten to failure versus fifty percent as
16:24many repetitions so they're comparing
16:26three cents to failure versus six form
16:28upsets
16:29this actually has relevance to how
16:32people do well not do but at least
16:34should train so far in the video i got
16:37no problems whatsoever this is actually
16:40one of the better studies i've seen in
16:42this field
16:44moving on so just to remind you they
16:46train twice a week
16:47for eight weeks um doing both exercises
16:52for each individual leg with each
16:53individual protocol at each workout one
16:55thing i really wasn't clear on and you
16:57can see here is they state that a two
16:58minute rest interval was allowed between
17:00sets in both protocols
17:02i'm not 100 sure if that means two
17:04minutes between each of the individual
17:06leg or two minutes for sets for each of
17:08the legs i did reach out to the
17:10researchers the email try to get
17:12clarification did not hear back so i'm
17:14going to assume it means two minutes
17:16between each leg so leg to failure two
17:19minutes leg knots failure two minutes
17:21leg to failure i could be wrong about
17:23that
17:27the results as indicated
17:31the average growth response
17:34was
17:35so you can see the results here looking
17:37at the cross-sectional area measured in
17:39square centimeters um
17:4132.9 plus or minus 5.3 centimeters
17:44square to 37.2 plus or minus 5.6 for the
17:47failure group that represented 13.5
17:50percent growth with a range of 7 to 20
17:53percent
17:54for the non-failure group it was 32 plus
17:56or minus 5.9 to 37.5 plus or minus 6.6
18:0018.1 percent average growth uh 9.4 to
18:0326.8
18:05and the effect sizes of 0.7 and 0.8 were
18:07both very similar the other data if
18:09you're wondering that's pinnation angle
18:10fascicle length uh 1rm leg press one arm
18:13leg extension i didn't talk about those
18:16because they too were all on average
18:18identical with no statistically
18:20significant difference between the
18:22failure and non-failure group in any of
18:24this data
18:25so again only focusing on muscle growth
18:27growth
18:29uh
18:30moving on so fine in terms of every
18:32parameter measured muscle growth
18:34pinnation angle fascicle length one arm
18:36for the two different exercises there
18:37was no statistically significant
18:39difference in the results between
18:41failure and non-failure
18:42boom
18:43least for this workout
18:47there's no need to go to muscular
18:49failure to get results something i have
18:51never said to the contrary or argued to
18:53the contrary which in 1998 i said
18:55exactly that as long as you're within
18:57one to two reps you're fine
18:59and we could even go three to four
19:00depending on a whole host of factors
19:03now one thing they do mention the
19:04discussion is that this conclusion only
19:06holds for heavier sets something else
19:09i've been writing about for like 15
19:11years
19:12when you're talking about the low load
19:13sets the sets of 25 to 35 with low
19:16percentages we do know that you need to
19:18go to muscular failure or the growth
19:20response isn't the same so this data
19:23does not hold across the board it holds
19:24for heavy sets in whatever the six to
19:27eight clearly up to the 12 rep range
19:29maybe a little bit higher but as you get
19:31into lighter stuff you do have to go to
19:33muscular failure and again
19:36i've never said anything to the contrary
19:38in fact if you take the time to go read
19:40what i wrote on my website about this i
19:42flat out said
19:44this is based on recruitment rate coding
19:46the effective reps model that you do not
19:48have to go to muscular failure for heavy
19:50sets and you do on light sets so
19:53mike your lie is not withstanding
19:55i've never said any that you had to go
19:57to muscular failure to grow
19:59i defy anyone to show me where i did
20:03um they did present the individual data
20:06which i've shown here
20:08one of the things you can see is that
20:09the non-failure group had this one
20:12epic responder
20:16because like i said the the range for
20:17the failure group was like seven to
20:19twenty square centimeters and the
20:22non-stereo group was nine point four to
20:23twenty six point eight so that one guy
20:25got like six point eight square
20:27centimeters more and i'm willing to bet
20:29you that if you took out that one hyper
20:30responder the averages would be
20:33basically identical
20:35um
20:36and whether that's true or not it still
20:38makes the point going to total failure
20:40versus stopping one or two reps short of
20:41true failure generates the same growth
20:44response
20:45repeating four heavy sets this does not
20:48apply to the light load sets clearly for
20:51heavier sets whether you're at failure
20:52one or two reps short of that you get
20:54the same growth response and yet again
20:56i've never said anything to the contrary
20:59mike's lies notwithstanding
21:04so honestly so far so good
21:06right uh the study was
21:08long enough had enough people used a
21:10good design blinded assessor because it
21:12can be done albeit not by brad um so you
21:16ask what's my problem well irrespective
21:18of the study and again focusing on what
21:20was presented on instagram i might
21:23gently argue that uh james
21:27i wouldn't say deliberately but somewhat
21:29misrepresented the data by not making it
21:30clear that it was statistically
21:32insignificant
21:33in terms of the differences because he
21:35knows people don't read the text just as
21:37i do differences i want people to be
21:39very aware of what i'm saying he also
21:41didn't provide the reference so far as i
21:43can tell make a little bit harder
21:45to find even if i can always do it i
21:48find this disingenuous but that's pretty
21:50much par for the course in this industry
21:52for all i know
21:54james addressed all this in detail in
21:56his waitology newsletter i haven't read
21:58it i'm not going to read it i wouldn't
22:01pay for it
22:02i couldn't even bother to pirate it
22:04and even if i did i'm less concerned
22:06with that and more concerned with how
22:09this is presented on instagram which is
22:10what i'm focusing on on top of the study
22:13itself
22:15but you ask
22:18lyle what is your actual issue
22:20with this study and why are you wasting
22:22our time with this nonsense
22:25here
22:26is my issue with this
22:30the problem i'm going to
22:32discuss is less to do with this specific
22:34paper although i think it has this
22:35problem so much as a general trend i see
22:38in a lot of papers that certain
22:39evidence-based fitness professionals
22:41accept uncritically because it fits
22:43their bias without really thinking about
22:46it and i guess my title card kind of
22:47gave it away it's the impossible workout
22:50problem
22:51because you might remember said they
22:52took these subjects they took their
22:54weekly volumes for quads and they added
22:5620 to that to make sure they got a
22:57response which i fundamentally have no
22:59issue with
23:01what i didn't mention yet was how many
23:03sets they were doing before
23:05or during the study for the start of the
23:08resistance training period participants
23:10reported their weekly number of sets
23:11typically before the quadriceps
23:13uh in their previous resistance training
23:16routine
23:17this was an average it was 19.1 sets
23:19plus or minus 8.5 with a range of 7 to
23:2342 sets per week
23:25for the quads
23:26let me repeat that
23:29the subjects did anywhere from a low of
23:317 sets per week for the quads to 42 sets
23:35per week for the quads
23:3742 sets
23:40i mean it's not even brad's 45 sets per
23:44week but still 42 sets per week
23:47okay
23:49but then they bumped that by an
23:50additional 20
23:51based on individual training logs each
23:53participant had their weekly number of
23:55sets increased by 20 percent to better
23:57explore individual adaptive responses
24:00and increase the precision of resistance
24:01training effects on muscle hypertrophy i
24:04already said that i have no fundamental
24:05problem with the twenty percent increase
24:08but we need to do the math on that so we
24:10can reality check it so seven sets per
24:13week plus twenty percent is one point
24:14four cents let's call it eight to nine
24:16sets per week because you can't do point
24:18four of us up
24:20the 42 per week group at 20
24:23that's just over eight sets that's 50
24:25cents per week
24:26for the quadriceps
24:2950 cents per week
24:30for the quadriceps
24:32one more time
24:3450 sets per week
24:36for the quadriceps
24:38just the quads
24:4050 cents
24:42for the quads
24:43not the legs
24:45the quad
24:50all right let's do some quick maths so
24:52we had a range of 8 to 50 sets per week
24:55for the quadriceps this is divided into
24:57two workouts that means 4 to 25 sets per
25:00workout for the quadriceps this was
25:03further divided into the one-legged 45
25:06degree leg press and the one-legged leg
25:08extension so we take 4 to 25 sets per
25:12workout and we get two sets
25:15the leg press leg extension at the low
25:17end and
25:18call it 12 and a half so whatever
25:21however they divided it
25:22for the leg press and the leg extension
25:25in the highest volumes does that make
25:27sense
25:28four to fifty sets per week two workouts
25:30per week two exercises per workout we
25:33end up with a per workout range
25:36of
25:37two
25:38to twenty five sets
25:42for the quadriceps
25:43now here's how they describe it and it's
25:45a little bit different but it's saying
25:47exactly the same thing so they state
25:49that after the 20 increase sets were
25:50equally distributed between the 45
25:52degree leg press they said kind of 11.5
25:54plus or minus 5.1 range of 4 to 25 this
25:57is per week and leg extensions that's
25:5911.6 plus or minus 5.2 range 4 to 25. so
26:03what they're saying is that the subjects
26:05did
26:064 to 25 sets per week on the leg press 4
26:09to 25 sets on the leg extension again
26:11divide that by two per working
26:13so per workout the subjects did anywhere
26:16from four at the low end to 25 at the
26:19high end
26:20total sets
26:22where one leg went to muscular failure
26:26the other leg went stopped one to two
26:28rep short of failure on average
26:3125 sets to muscular failure at the high
26:34end
26:36alternated with 25 cents just short of
26:38muscular failure across two different
26:40exercises
26:41obviously i'm making a point about the
26:43extremes and if you look it says that on
26:45average the subjects did like 11 and a
26:48half let's call it 12 sets per workout
26:50per leg so six leg press six leg
26:53extension
26:55i'm looking at the extremes especially
26:58the 25 sets per workout 50 sets per week
27:01because
27:02it brings up an important question
27:07so i have a genuine question
27:09do any of y'all believe that this is
27:10possible
27:12that someone could actually do 50 cents
27:14per week or 25 cents per workout to
27:16complete muscular failure for one muscle
27:18group i'm genuinely asking
27:21because this brings me to sort of my
27:22general commentary that again this study
27:24is exemplary of there is this refrain in
27:28the fitness industry that goes through
27:29phases of uh turning to failure is bad
27:32because it causes excessive fatigue
27:36and this is always kind of asserted
27:38without data but with pretty graphs and
27:40yes i have read the big meta analysis
27:43about this and if you actually go read
27:45the individual studies it's always stuff
27:47like 3 by 10 rm versus 6x5 at the same
27:50weight shocking three sets of 10 to
27:53failure is more fatiguing than six
27:55warm-up sets
27:56those are not ecologically valid
27:58comparisons like this study actually was
28:01and there is another recent study that i
28:02don't have time to get into buddy of
28:04mine paul sarafini was one of the
28:05authors if you want to go look it up
28:07they compared failure to stopping a
28:09couple reps short of failure and showed
28:11that fatigue was no different at least
28:12in the test that they did
28:14when you do artificial comparisons
28:17you see this issue
28:19but when you do real world comparisons
28:22that most studies have not
28:24maybe not so much
28:26so once again study we're looking at
28:28very ecologically valid in my opinion in
28:30terms of comparing training to failure
28:32versus one or two rep short
28:36but here's my issue
28:39if you're going to say in one breath
28:41the training muscular failure causes
28:43excessive fatigue either in the short
28:44term or between workouts or cumulatively
28:49then you have to explain how these
28:51workouts in any individual workout are
28:54possible and how the studies are
28:55possible
28:57in this specific study the highest
28:59volume group did 25 sets of muscular
29:00failure twice a week that's 50 cents to
29:02failure for 8 weeks that's 400 sets to
29:04muscular failure
29:06and they grew
29:09was muscular failure bad or was this
29:12workout impossible
29:14and not done as described
29:16in brad schoenfeld's volume study the
29:18highest flying bruce supposedly did 45
29:20sets to failure across three muscle
29:22groups three times per week that's 135
29:26cents to failure per week for eight
29:27weeks or maybe it was 10 i think it was
29:29eight regardless
29:30800 sets to muscular failure
29:34was failure bad
29:36was the study invalid was the workout
29:38actually not to failure brigado has a
29:40paper out there 32 sets per week to
29:43muscular failure
29:46across 8 or 10 weeks 240 to 300 sets to
29:49failure
29:53the simple fact is this
29:56either
29:57training the muscular failure causes
29:59excessive acute
30:01and or long-term fatigue meaning either
30:03during the workout or between workouts
30:06or these studies
30:10are impossible
30:12to complete as described and cannot be
30:14valid
30:16you cannot have it both ways
30:19you cannot say that failure
30:21is bad and causes excessive fatigue
30:24and in the same breath say these studies
30:27which agree with what we already believe
30:29in terms of volume and non-failure
30:33are valid despite having literally
30:36impossible per workout per week
30:39per study volumes to muscular failure
30:42those statements contradict one another
30:47feel free to explain
30:52so let me ask the question again
30:54do the people watching this believe that
30:56at the highest volumes this workout can
30:58be done
30:59that someone can actually do 25 sets to
31:02muscular failure on one leg followed by
31:0525 sets to one or two reps short of
31:07muscular failure on the other leg
31:09and do that twice a week for eight weeks
31:12do you actually believe that it can be
31:14done
31:15because i'm willing to bet that you
31:16don't a couple years ago i did a little
31:19piece
31:20where i said that i think that
31:22these workouts or at least a workout in
31:24these studies should be videoed and put
31:26online
31:27and this is the reason
31:29because
31:31anyone who is actually
31:33trained hard
31:35and trained to the point of real
31:36muscular failure
31:38can look at these workouts
31:40and know that they are factually
31:42impossible to complete
31:44one of the brigado's studies is eight by
31:47ten repetition maximum that is two
31:49failure in the squat with a 60-second
31:51rest interval followed by 10 sets in the
31:55leg press
31:56to failure on 60 seconds
31:59that workout cannot be done
32:02it can't
32:04by the second or third set to true
32:06failure you wouldn't get off the floor
32:10these workouts should be videoed to
32:13prove that they are being done as
32:14described in the paper
32:16because i don't believe them and i don't
32:18think any of you believe them
32:21but if you do believe them and if you do
32:24disagree with me
32:26then it's very simple
32:28prove me wrong
32:31now it's always about this time in these
32:33videos that i i know that the people
32:35watching it who don't like me uh or who
32:38idolize mike or whatever like
32:41lyle doesn't know what he's talking
32:42about he's just out of touch and old and
32:45blah blah blah blah blah
32:47and to which i say that your words don't
32:49matter
32:50if you think i'm wrong
32:52prove me wrong
32:54and the only way you can do that is by
32:56taking a video of yourself doing this
32:59workout
33:01i've said this before in other videos
33:04if you disagree with me
33:06prove me wrong
33:08and yet whenever i do that
33:10nobody ever steps up
33:13it's been a year and i'm still waiting
33:14for mike to send me a video of him doing
33:16a single set to limits he has spent
33:19hours
33:21deflecting obfuscating insulting me
33:24boldface lying about me
33:26instead of taking the three minutes to
33:28shoot the video
33:30that a man would have stepped up to do a
33:32year ago
33:34if you disagree with me and you think
33:35this workout is valid here's what i want
33:36you to do you're going to do 25 sets
33:43half of which are done on the single leg
33:4545 degree leg press
33:47half of which are done on the single leg
33:49leg extension
33:50you will take one leg to muscular
33:52failure which means you cannot complete
33:53the repetition no matter how much effort
33:55you give
33:56last two minutes do the other leg to two
33:59reps short of that
34:01just repeat back and forth
34:03shoot a video
34:04one video no edits
34:08the hell it'll take you like 90 minutes
34:11and send it to me at the email address
34:12that you're looking at right now
34:15if you do that i'll put it online and be
34:17the first to admit that i was wrong like
34:20i said whenever i issue challenges like
34:22this i get exactly zero emails
34:26because i'm right and you know i'm right
34:29this workout is impossible
34:32once a week much less twice a week much
34:34less twice a week for eight weeks and
34:36you all know it
34:38and if you think i'm wrong prove me
34:40wrong or admit that i'm right get me
34:42wrong i'm not saying we should dismiss
34:44this study obviously the low volumes
34:46this workout is absolutely doable
34:48do i believe firmly that guys did four
34:50sets in a workout to failure to online
34:52press tone like extension absolutely
34:54maybe even up at eight to ten sets it
34:56could be done with some level of quality
35:00but 25 sets in a workout to concentric
35:02muscular failure on one leg alternated
35:04with one to two reps to reserve on the
35:06other leg
35:07no way
35:09no way it's not possible it can't be
35:12done
35:13i know those of you listening to this
35:15agree with me and if you wouldn't say it
35:17and if you think i'm wrong take a video
35:19and prove me wrong
35:21it's really just that simple
35:26and that's my issue with this
35:29now let me repeat again i don't actually
35:31disagree with the results i have never
35:34said one must train the muscular failure
35:36to grow again light mike's lies about me
35:39not with standing for heavy sets one or
35:42two rep short of failure is fine failure
35:44may occur but you shouldn't chase it
35:45unless you're doing very low volumes
35:47but if james is going to report on this
35:49study without nuance without explaining
35:51that i'm sure somebody will but if not
35:53somebody make james aware of my video
35:55maybe he'll unblock me and come look at
35:56himself although i highly doubt it
35:59and just tell him this
36:01james if you think the workout in this
36:03study is possible with the highest
36:05volumes
36:06i want to see a video of you doing it
36:09put up or shut up it's that simple if
36:10you think this is possible if you think
36:1225 cents to muscular failure alternating
36:14with 25 cents one or two reps short in a
36:17single workout much less two workouts a
36:19week for eight weeks is possible
36:22you send me the video of you doing it
36:24if you don't want to do this study you
36:26send me that of you doing brad study
36:29the one you defended so heartily
36:32do the bragato study i don't care
36:34do one of these workouts that anyone
36:36with any actual training experience
36:39would know is completely impossible and
36:41completely invalid
36:43but which all of you take completely at
36:45face value despite the fact that you
36:47should know that these workouts can't be
36:48done
36:49james you send me a video of you doing
36:51the workout you reported on the study
36:52you prove it can be done or any of the
36:54other evidence-based fitness
36:55professionals that take these studies at
36:56face value
36:59send me a video of you doing the workout
37:02i want to hold my breath
37:04i never get videos from you guys or your
37:06little followers when i issue this
37:08challenge because you think that insults
37:10and excuses mean something
37:13take the video prove the work out can be
37:15done and that'll prove me wrong
37:18your silence indicates that you know i'm
37:20right
37:21even if exactly zero of you would ever
37:23have the guts to admit it publicly
37:25because then you might be seen agreeing
37:26with the big meanie of mcdonald who hurt
37:29my
37:30you big cry babies
37:33alright let's wrap up
37:37wrap it up originally i had some other
37:38thoughts but i i trimmed them this got
37:40too long as always and
37:42i'm already bored of this as i'm sure
37:43you are
37:44let me say it again
37:46i don't actually disagree with the
37:47results of this study despite mike's
37:50lies i have never said anyone must train
37:52to muscular failure to grow and i defy
37:54anyone to show that i have
37:57i can show you that over 30 years i've
37:58said actually the exact opposite
38:00starting back in 1998 and continuing
38:03through today i've never said that i
38:05think only hit guys still maintain that
38:08it's obvious that for heavy sets
38:10in the whatever 6 to 12 15 rep range
38:14failure rep or too short of failure is
38:15the same
38:17for light load sets you do need to go to
38:19failure that's in the research and
38:20that's not arguable either
38:23so i don't necessarily disagree with the
38:24study per se it was actually extremely
38:26well done by the incredibly poor
38:28standards of the exercise science
38:30research realm
38:33i don't disagree with the conclusions
38:36mainly i was using it to a give me a
38:38chance to really clarify where i stand
38:41on the muscular failure thing so
38:42hopefully mike isratel can no longer get
38:44away with this out and out lies about me
38:47but b to point out the issue with the
38:50impossible study designs the impossible
38:53workouts the
38:55contradictions of the fitness industry
38:58where they say that failure is bad which
39:01it can be
39:02but that these workouts are possible and
39:05these studies can be taken at face value
39:07because they tell these folks what they
39:08want to hear
39:09i'll say it one last time
39:11if you think that 25 sets to complete
39:14failure for the quads can be done in one
39:15workout alternated with sets to rep
39:18short of failure
39:20take a video
39:21no edits send it to me at this email
39:23address and prove me wrong
39:25otherwise just admit that i'm right
39:29because you all know that i am
39:32and that's where i'll wrap up and i hope
39:34that i didn't hurt anybody's little
39:36feelings by being too mean to them