[@RenaissancePeriodization] Exercise Scientist Responds: Sam Sulek Slams "Science-Based" Lifting

Link: https://youtu.be/iBybbU4PRsE

Short Summary

Dr. Mike from RP Strength analyzes a discussion on science-based lifting, highlighting the pitfalls of both extremes: rigid adherence to single studies versus dismissing science altogether. He argues that effective training combines scientific principles, personal enjoyment, and consistent hard work, emphasizing that real science actually promotes challenging oneself to the limits of recovery.

Key Quotes

Here are five direct quotes from the provided transcript that offer valuable insights, interesting data points, surprising statements, or strong opinions:

1. "Like their whole thing is this is right, you are wrong. And that's not even true because there's so many people that get so many different results doing so many different things." - This quote highlights the issue of dogmatism within certain training methodologies and emphasizes the variability of individual responses to different approaches.

2. "Real science in review after review after review says all other things being equal if you can recover. Going closer to failure in each working set is going to yield more hypertrophy than getting far from failure." - This summarizes a core principle of hypertrophy training backed by scientific evidence, emphasizing the importance of proximity to failure when volume and other factors are equal.

3. "The amount of training volume per muscle per week, like how many sets of quads do you need to train with to get the biggest quads you can, is a number the top end of which we have yet to reliably find... the top end of which sits almost certainly north of 40 working sets per week roughly to failure every week for weeks on end to get your best muscular adaptations on average per any given muscle. if your whole system can recover from that sort of thing." - This provides a surprising data point and challenges common beliefs about training volume, suggesting that optimal hypertrophy may require significantly higher volume than many people currently perform.

4. "Science is shining the light into training. The reality is the most hardcore training shit that almost no one does is actually the shit that grows you the most." - This directly connects scientific findings with the often-avoided intensity and volume needed for optimal results, suggesting that effective training is often more demanding than most people realize.

5. "Pick what you like out of what probably works according to science and experience... what I don't want you guys to do or suggest you try not to do because this is going to be a failure point is you have the stuff of what's effective and you look to the right of it and you're like what I what I like to do is right here. It's out of what's the most effective booball band nonsense bullshit and you go I'm going to do that but remember are you in the gym to just do what you like. No, it should be what you like, but it's not just what you like..." - This emphasizes the importance of aligning personal preferences with scientifically-backed methods, suggesting a balanced approach where enjoyment doesn't overshadow effectiveness.

Detailed Summary

Okay, here's a detailed summary of the YouTube video transcript provided, broken down into bullet points:

Key Topics & Arguments:

• Science-Based vs. Bro Training: The video explores the dichotomy between evidence-based/science-based training and traditional "bro" training. It argues that both approaches have positive and negative aspects.
• Elitism in Training Subcultures: The video identifies elitism within both science-based and anti-science-based training communities. It suggests that some embrace science-based training as a form of intellectual superiority, while others reject science out of pride or intellectual insecurity.
• The "Easy Science" Fallacy: A central argument is that some people misuse "science" to justify easier, less demanding training. The video strongly argues that legitimate science actually supports harder, more challenging training than many realize.
• The Reality of Science Based Training: It's argued that the science points towards high volume, training close to failure, and consistent deep stretches, which are often very uncomfortable and demanding.
• Finding Balance and Enjoyment: The video emphasizes the importance of finding a training approach that is both effective and enjoyable, stressing that long-term adherence depends on a sustainable and fulfilling experience.
• The Role of Drugs (Implied Steroids): The video jokingly acknowledges that combining science-based principles, hard work, and pharmaceutical enhancement is the most effective path to maximizing results.

Detailed Summary of Key Points:

• Introduction:

  • Dr. Mike (RP Strength) will react to Sam Sulek's (and Chris Williamson's) opinions on science-based training.

• Sam Sulek's Initial Take:

  • Some people are "gimmicky" about science-based training.
  • Younger lifters might gravitate toward it for "clout."
  • Older lifters may stick to what has worked for them.

• Good and Bad Approaches to Both "Bro" and Science-Based Training:

  • Good Bro Training: Hard work, challenging ranges of motion, strict technique, honesty.
  • Bad Bro Training: Partial reps, ego lifting, bad technique, inconsistent training.
  • Bad Science-Based Training: Misinterpreting single studies, oversimplifying, justifying easy training.
  • Elitism on both sides, from the science based and the "no science" crowd.

• Elitism and Neuroticism:

  • Science-based training can breed intellectual elitism.
  • Those against science-based training can be proud of their lack of thinking.
  • Many into science-based training are neurotic, concerned with safety and insurability of results.

• The Pursuit of Perfection vs. Accepting Imperfection:

  • Striving for perfection is good, but pretending you have it already is a problem.
  • Be open-minded to new ideas, even if they are not "super #science."

• Starbucks Analogy and Versa Grips Hyper Belt:

  • Dr. Mike jokes about a Starbucks interaction and segues into promoting the Versa Grips Hyper Belt, which he helped design.

• Lowering the Difficulty is a mistake:

  • There is a lowering of difficulty in training where you're afraid to push yourself or raise the bar.

• The Myth of Easy Science-Based Training:

  • Some science-based lifters hide from difficulty.
  • Hardcore "bros" need to portray science-based lifters as weak.
  • Real science says to progressively push your limits and test your recovery.

• What Science Actually Says About Training:

  • Going closer to failure yields more hypertrophy.
  • Higher training frequency (per muscle) is generally better.
  • Deloads are needed less often than commonly believed (every 8-12 weeks).
  • The upper limit of optimal training volume is very high (potentially over 40 working sets per week).
  • Deep stretches are important.

• Science Mandates Hard Training:

  • Science shines light into training.
  • True science-based lifting is very difficult.

• Rebuttal to One-Set Mentality:

  • "Bros" often talk about one hard set, which is not science-based.

• The Role of "The Pill" (Implied Steroids):

  • Combine the efficiency of science, the desire for an "easy" solution (like drugs), and hard work.

• Importance of Enjoyment:

  • The gym should be a place you enjoy and want to return to.
  • Find an effective, dependable system that yields results.

• Finding the Intersection of Effectiveness and Enjoyment:

  • Stay with what's effective by science and your own intuition.
  • Avoid doing things that you like if they're outside of what's most effective.