The BIGGEST Mistakes You Probably Make (ft. Dr. Mike Israetel)

Summary

In this insightful video, Dr. Mike Isto, a renowned Sports Science doctor, addresses common mistakes made by science-based lifters, such as over-analyzing and frequent program changes that hinder progress. He emphasizes the importance of understanding exercise science as a tool for broader principles rather than a strict formula, advocating for a balanced approach that combines empirical data with practical experience and intuition. Dr. Isto also dispels myths about training to failure and the application of scientific findings to real-world training, encouraging lifters to use science as a guide without becoming overly reliant on it.

Takeaways

• 🧐 Science-based lifters often make mistakes not due to science itself, but due to the analytical and obsessive nature of the individuals who tend to engage with it.
• 🤯 Overthinking, such as debating between sets of six or seven, can lead to increased cortisol levels and hinder progress, emphasizing the need for a balanced approach.
• 🛠 The spirit of science is experimentation, but many lifters treat their bodies more like laboratories than final products, which can be counterproductive.
• 🚫 Avoid 'paralysis by analysis' by sticking to a well-planned program without constant second-guessing to ensure progress and enjoyment.
• 🔬 Emphasize the importance of viewing the body as a 'combat-ready' entity rather than a test vehicle, suggesting stability and consistency in training.
• 🔄 The recommendation against 'program hopping', as it prevents adequate time for a training stimulus to lead to muscle growth and effective assessment.
• 📚 Advise against being an 'early adopter' of every new scientific finding in the fitness world, as many findings are not replicated and can mislead.
• 📈 Encourage the use of science to build a foundational program and make incremental adjustments based on well-studied and understood principles.
• 📉 Discuss the potential misuse of exercise science by directly applying study designs to personal training, rather than extracting and applying concepts.
• 💡 Highlight the importance of understanding the broader concepts from exercise science, such as volume and intensity relationships, rather than focusing on specific study outcomes.
• 🛑 Advocate for the use of exercise science as a tool to inform and complement personal experience and intuition, rather than as a strict rulebook.

Q & A

What is the common mistake that science-based lifters make according to Dr. Mike Isto?

Science-based lifters often make the mistake of over-analyzing their training programs, which can lead to increased cortisol levels and a decrease in enjoyment and results. This is sometimes referred to as 'paralysis by analysis.'

Why might science-based lifters experience 'paralysis by analysis'?

They tend to be analytical, particular, and sometimes obsessive-compulsive, leading to excessive second-guessing and stress over details like the number of sets to perform, which can hinder their progress.

What does Dr. Mike Isto suggest as an alternative to constantly changing training programs?

He suggests sticking to a well-planned program without constantly second-guessing oneself, allowing the training process to accumulate muscle growth over time.

How does Dr. Mike Isto compare the approach of a science-based lifter to handling an F-35 fighter jet?

He compares a science-based lifter who constantly changes their training program to handling an F-35 as a test platform, where parts are constantly being changed without regard for its performance, unlike a frontline combat-ready F-35 where modifications are strategic and specific.

What is the recommended approach for incorporating new scientific findings into one's training program?

One should build a program on core foundations and then integrate new findings gradually, replacing one or two elements at a time to observe the effects over a long period.

Why should one not be an early adopter of every new finding in exercise science?

Many new findings in exercise science do not get replicated and may not be reliable. It's better to wait until there is a consensus from multiple studies before incorporating them into one's training.

What is the issue with taking the exact workout from a study and applying it directly to one's training?

Exercise science studies often use specific conditions and populations that may not apply to everyone. Directly applying these workouts without understanding the underlying concepts can be ineffective or even harmful.

What is the '52 set quad study' mentioned by Dr. Mike Isto, and what is the misconception about it?

The '52 set quad study' was a research that suggested high volume training can be effective. The misconception is that people believe they must do 52 sets of quads to grow, rather than understanding that it was part of a broader concept that high volume can be beneficial within certain contexts.

How should one view the results of exercise science studies in terms of their training program?

One should view the results as a distillation of concepts and principles that can be applied to their training program, rather than taking the exact methods or numbers from the studies.

What is the role of intuition and personal experience in applying exercise science to one's training?

Intuition and personal experience are crucial as they help in applying the concepts from exercise science in a way that is practical and suitable for the individual, avoiding the trap of literalism and ensuring that the training is effective and sustainable.

Can exercise science be harmful to one's gains if misused?

Yes, if exercise science is misused by taking it too literally, not understanding the broader concepts, or by constantly changing training methods without giving them time to work, it can lead to suboptimal results or even hinder progress.

How does Dr. Mike Isto suggest using exercise science to inform training to failure?

He suggests using the aggregate data from multiple studies to form a hypothesis about the effectiveness of training to failure versus training with reps in reserve, and then testing this hypothesis in real life while considering personal recovery and preferences.

What is the importance of understanding the broader principles from exercise science rather than focusing on specific study findings?

Understanding broader principles allows for the development of a more effective and sustainable training program that is based on a comprehensive view of how different factors contribute to muscle growth and performance, rather than relying on potentially incomplete or specific findings from individual studies.

Outlines

00:00

🔬 Science-Based Lifting Mistakes and Over-Analysis

In this paragraph, Dr. Mike discusses common mistakes made by science-based lifters, often stemming from the analytical nature of the demographic. He highlights the tendency for over-analysis leading to increased cortisol levels and the negative impact of 'paralysis by analysis.' He emphasizes the importance of having a solid plan and sticking to it without constant second-guessing. Dr. Mike also touches on the spirit of science as experimentation but advises against treating the body like a laboratory, suggesting that consistency and process are key to gains rather than constant program hopping.

05:03

🛠️ Applying Exercise Science to Training: A Balanced Approach

Dr. Mike addresses the issue of applying exercise science directly to training routines, cautioning against using study designs verbatim. He advocates for understanding the broader concepts and principles distilled from multiple studies rather than the literal application of a single study's findings. The paragraph emphasizes the importance of using exercise science to inform and refine one's training program with a focus on long-term application and gradual adaptation of new findings, rather than rapid and frequent changes that can disrupt progress.

10:03

🏋️‍♂️ The Role of Exercise Science in Program Design and Intuition

This paragraph delves into the practical application of exercise science in program design, suggesting that while empirical evidence provides a foundation, it must be balanced with practical considerations and auto-regulation. Dr. Mike argues against the literal interpretation of study findings, such as the infamous 52-set quad study, and instead promotes the understanding of the underlying concepts that studies reveal. He encourages the use of exercise science as a tool to inform broader principles and to guide training within a range of effective practices.

15:05

🎓 The Integration of Exercise Science with Practical Experience

Dr. Mike discusses the integration of exercise science with personal experience and intuition, emphasizing that the two should not be seen as mutually exclusive. He argues that exercise science should be used to inform and refine training practices, rather than to dictate exact programming. The paragraph highlights the importance of understanding the meta-analytic distillation of studies and using this knowledge to make informed decisions about training intensity, volume, and the like.

20:06

🚀 The Impact of Exercise Science on Gains and Practical Advice

In the final paragraph, Dr. Mike addresses the question of whether exercise science is detrimental to gains, arguing that it can be if misunderstood or misapplied. He suggests that exercise science should be used to inform best practices and to avoid counterproductive training methods. The paragraph concludes with a humorous anecdote about Dr. Mike's YouTube channel and a playful reference to his appearance, providing a light-hearted end to the discussion.

Keywords

💡Exercise Science

Exercise Science refers to the study of physical exercise and its effects on the body. It is central to the video's theme, as it discusses how scientific principles can be applied to optimize training and muscle gains. The script mentions that many lifters, particularly those who are analytical, can become overly focused on the minutiae of exercise science, leading to analysis paralysis and potentially hindering their progress.

💡Cortisol

Cortisol is a hormone associated with stress and can have negative effects on muscle growth if present in high levels. In the context of the video, it is mentioned that over-analyzing training variables like set numbers can lead to increased cortisol levels, which may counteract the gains made from exercise.

💡Paralysis by Analysis

This concept describes a situation where overthinking or over-analyzing prevents action or decision-making. The video uses this term to illustrate how science-based lifters can become so caught up in the details of their training programs that they fail to make progress due to indecision and overthinking.

💡Stress

Stress, in the context of the video, is related to the psychological and physiological strain that can be caused by overcomplicating training regimens. It is suggested that simplifying training and reducing stress can lead to better results and enjoyment.

💡Program Hopping

Program Hopping refers to the act of frequently switching between different training programs without giving any one program enough time to be effective. The video warns against this behavior, stating that it can prevent lifters from seeing consistent progress and understanding what works best for their bodies.

💡Volume

In the context of exercise, volume refers to the total amount of work done in a training session or program, often measured in sets and reps. The video discusses the importance of understanding the role of volume in muscle growth and how it can be manipulated within a program to achieve desired results.

💡Meta-Analytic Distillation

This term refers to the process of synthesizing findings from multiple studies to draw broader conclusions. The video suggests that instead of focusing on individual studies, lifters should consider the aggregate findings of many studies to inform their training practices.

💡Training to Failure

Training to failure means continuing an exercise until one is unable to complete another repetition with proper form. The video discusses research findings on this topic, suggesting that while it can be effective, it is not a universally superior method and personal preference and recovery capacity should also be considered.

💡Conceptual Frameworks

Conceptual Frameworks in this context are the overarching principles or theories derived from exercise science research. The video emphasizes the importance of understanding these frameworks to guide training rather than copying specific study findings verbatim.

💡Consilience of Understanding

Consilience of Understanding refers to a unified body of knowledge that is derived from multiple sources of evidence. The video suggests that exercise science should contribute to this unified understanding, helping to inform more effective and personalized training programs.

💡Literalism

In the video, Literalism is criticized as the approach of taking study findings too directly without considering the broader context or principles. It is suggested that this can lead to misguided training practices that do not yield optimal results.

💡Science-Based Lifting

Science-Based Lifting is the practice of using scientific research to inform and guide weightlifting and training practices. The video discusses the pitfalls of misapplying scientific findings in this context and advocates for a balanced approach that combines empirical evidence with practical experience.

Highlights

Exercise science and its impact on training discussed by Dr. Mike Isto.

Mistakes made by science-based lifters often stem from over-analysis and stress.

The importance of not second-guessing and sticking to a plan to reduce cortisol levels.

Dr. Isto emphasizes the spirit of science as experimentation with a structured approach.

Comparison between treating bodies like laboratories and treating them as final products.

The analogy of an F-35 fighter jet to illustrate the misuse of exercise science principles.

The recommendation against 'paralysis by analysis' and the benefits of a consistent training regimen.

Dr. Isto advises against frequent program changes and the importance of consistency for muscle gain.

The concept of not being an 'early adopter' of new exercise science findings.

Using exercise science to build a program on core foundations rather than the latest trends.

The discussion on the misuse of scientific studies for workout design and the importance of understanding study concepts.

Dr. Isto's perspective on the role of exercise science in informing broader training principles.

Critique of literalism in applying scientific study findings directly to training routines.

The importance of understanding the meta-analytic distillation of exercise science studies.

Dr. Isto's advice on using exercise science as an engineer would use data to build a functional system.

The role of exercise science in avoiding ineffective training methods and ensuring gains.

Dr. Isto's final thoughts on the integration of exercise science with practical experience for optimal training.

Transcripts

[Music]

welcome back to strong by science today

very special guest Doctor Mike isto

scientific doctor Sports Science doctor

and you've been talking about exercise

science and how to train on your channel

for a long time now in that time you've

certainly coached and seen many science

based lifs train in this video I want to

discuss what mistakes science based

lifters make and whether or not exercise

science is killing your Gaines first off

what mistakes do you see science based

liters make great question a lot of

these mistakes come out not of directly

accessing science but of the demographic

of people that tend to access science

first a lot of science-based lifters are

people that are analytical they're

particular they're specific and some of

them are a little bit obsessive

compulsive and some of them are

downright neurotic and they tend to

secrete a lot of area under the curve of

cortisol thinking should they do sets of

six or sets of seven today meanwhile the

Bros don't feel any cortisol because

they just do [ __ ]

all and that is definitely a situation

in which just relaxing more putting

together a good plan you've looked over

once and not second guessing yourself

all the

time um paralysis by

analysis that can save a lot of science

Bas lifters a lot of enjoyment give them

better results because they're not

freaking out all the time and that is uh

I think a thing that can can be really

taken well the spirit of science is

experimentation you try something it

works or it doesn't you try something

else it works or it doesn't you analyze

the magnitude of effect between the two

you move on and that's great but a lot

of people like to treat their bodies

more as Laboratories and less as final

products

if I have an F-35 fighter from the

United States stealth fighter and it's a

test platform we just keep it in the

[ __ ] hanger we can rip Parts out of

it we can put parts in we don't care

that it flies better or worse or that it

has no avionics anymore doesn't have

weapon systems we want to really try

some big [ __ ] so we can spend like 12

weeks trying to stuff a cruise missile

in there got to rip out tons of the guts

is that good for the plane is a bad for

we don't care very scientific whereas if

you have Frontline combat ready F35

Fighters you don't [ __ ] with them

they're approved for a certain load out

that you have certain missiles you can

put on it you know how to upgrade and

update the avionics you check up on it

you wipe it real nice every time and

there it sits until it's ready to go to

war because the level of preparedness

has to be high so you just don't muck

with it a lot whatever process we've

established for run the process run the

process in the process all the way down

to how you handle Battlefield

engagements there's a process for stuff

now of course there's room for

creativity but not a ton you look at

your body are you a test vehicle yes but

you don't want to be an F35 with the

[ __ ] front cut out and someone's like

does that fly you're like no it's not

flying right now you look at your own

body and you're like well I've tried a

bunch of programs that don't work and I

switch so fast between programs I can't

really tell what's working I get a

little bit of inkling but I'm more of a

test platform an experiment than I am a

design element uh I'm sure as they build

a new iPhone they experiment with a lot

of stuff but once they design the final

design they don't experiment much they

make make you an incredible phone and

when you're flexing in the gym you want

to be that incredible final model iPhone

you don't want to be the thing with

[ __ ] screws hanging out so yes it's

good to experiment but don't turn that

into psychotic program hopping if you do

something similar in sequence over and

over for weeks on end months even and

you slightly increase the stimulus by

increasing load or reps or maybe even

volume in some

contexts that's the underlying way to

make most of your gains and there's tons

of time to see what works and what

doesn't but you don't want to try

something new so often that you do two

things one you don't allow the process

enough time to accrete as much muscle as

it would and two you might not even

allow the process enough time to tell

you if it's reliably good at growing

muscle or not you just kind of get uh

switched to this switched to that that

happens in a few few ways one you may

just be availed to a lot of literature

and you try a lot of stuff two is you're

reading through literature for the first

time and you're like oh this new thing I

got to my reps finally in Dr Mike's book

about muscle I'm going to try all my

reps next week or as new studies come

out you're going to try new stuff and I

would have a different approach to

recommend to people build a program on

really core foundations of things we

know pretty goddamn well and as new

stuff comes out to quote you actually

Ste this quote don't be an early adopter

because most new things in the

science-based lifting World they don't

end up getting replicated literally most

new things are just a flash in the pan

you don't want to be the guy that tried

every [ __ ] new thing and has nothing

to show for but as evidence secretes

longer and longer a few studies a few

years then you're going to try it but

you're going to try it in a way in which

you cons serve most of the elements of

your program and you one or two elements

you replace with this new thing see how

it goes for a while give it a long time

then you're giving a long time for the

thing to cook you're doing really well

with it and you're seeing some change

but not so many changes that stochastic

process you can't detect what's doing

what now you have some interesting

causal inference where you could say I'm

actually learning something and you get

the benefit of like only inheriting

things that seem to pretty [ __ ] well

work instead of like hey this new study

on Cavs JK it doesn't work you're like

the [ __ ] did I spend six weeks in this

stupid study if it was going to come out

and the next study says actually it's

all bogers so it's cool to be

science-based but I would use science

more as an engineer building a

functional weapon system than I would as

an engineer at a weapons Factory that's

like wait I can break this up and put it

down doesn't matter you want to make

gains or do you want to practice what

strategies are best remember the people

in exercise science studies they're not

there to make gains they're there to

show us

mechanisms so moving on to my next thing

about how exercise science can get

screwed up using published study designs

for any of their

features workout

length uh program design what are we do

in Monday Tuesday Thursday exercise

selection

Cadence using workouts from the lab

verbatim in the

gym in whole or in part that is not what

exercise science is supposed to do

anytime we test anything in exercise

science the thing we get out of it is a

distill of incrementally more easily

visible conceptual

Frameworks so if I see a study on length

and

partials that was done on cable

flies and I see next week people are

doing cable flies with length and

partials in the gym I'm just like oh my

God but if the fourth study in length

and partial in multiple muscles shows

that they work well and I see you using

lengthen partials on a dumbbell fly

because you absorb the concept of it and

you're trying it out you get a slow clap

from me now is there anything wrong with

peace meal taking parts of exercise

science

study designs and putting them in your

program not really really you should

know your program so well and have it

really well

organized such that you're finicky about

doing anything too crazy or too new you

want to take from an exercise science

study the lesson that it distills for

you at the end which for most single

studies is a hint M for Aggregates of

studies and man analysis it's a good

guess you take the lesson and you apply

it as opposed to taking the exact thing

that study revealed for

example the 52 set quad study Infamous

people will say things like I'm really

supposed to do 52 sets of quads to get

big these exercise scientists are crazy

no you're just not that smart if you

read the study and you read the other

studies that it is similar to we have

Ronnie ellien colleagues Brad and uh

colleagues replication of that there's

like four other

studies what that study tells us

conceptually is that before you stop at

20 sets per week for a muscle and say

this anything north of this is just

nonsense I'm going to break down and die

consider the fact that multiple Studies

have found 20 to 30 30 to 40 even 40

plus sets in some context to be

effective now that's an interesting

concept now I notice my lateral raises

and and my side work I'm easily doing 25

sets a week and they're growing they

getting tired tied but I know I can beat

him up more hey try add some volume

that's what you get out of that 52 set

study it's just a piece of a puzzle and

the puzzle is CL to a concept it's not

like okay so so I do 52 sets now and

I've literally had people ask like is 52

sets the number now I'm like pencil in

the eye I'm kidding I don't get mad

about it but the literalism of taking

out of studies exact things and going

we're going to do this that's not what

studies are for they can't be for that

because you weren't in the study are you

a recreationally trained 22 y old

undergrad from ipsa University in Sweden

or no me

out why would I be that how dare you so

it it the literalism is a [ __ ]

problem and kind of taking on Al

together exercise science direct studies

on on exercises nutritional stuff and

everything is supposed to over multiple

studies from multiple slightly different

perspectives give us a consilience of

understanding about some deeper Concepts

Concepts which we take to our own

programming carefully look over apply

sort of one at a time for long lengths

of time to try to see changes that is

taking exercise science and funling it

into Sport Science I have a PhD in sport

Science not exercise science my job is

to make individual athletes

better while they're in their Sport and

doing it we can't play around and we do

this and we'll do that it has to be

calculated it has to be strategic and we

have to work on Concepts instead of is

it 52 sets or is it nine sets so no the

concept is there is a broad range of

volumes that work and our average higher

volumes work better than lower volumes

if you can recover but that's annoying

to remember all that can't I just say 52

you can if you want to hold the honest

position belief wise that exercise

science is nonsense it's totally

nonsense if you don't understand it if

you understand it it's an awesome tool

that complement theoretical knowledge

from earlier your own person experience

and the wisdom of other coaches and

athletes you add direct empirical data

to that and you got one hell of a sword

and one hell of a shield but if you try

to stab people with your shield and use

your sword to to block Spears you're

doing it wrong sure so just to summarize

it sounds like H view exercise science

or Sports Science as a means to glean at

broader principles word average truths

yes obviously we're not going to arrive

at an average truth away it will have

you but it's a way to arrive at that

versus pure

making the inference that 52 sets is

better than 32 sets it's more than that

one question I would have for you a

common claim is made that you can't use

excess science studies and apply the

finding St training you can't form a

training around exercise science do you

think that's true so first of all you

can you can just copy the studies they

did copy the program they did in the

research design and just do that you'll

get some fine gains if you're appraising

the studies properly

I would highly advise you that to the

extent that you want to make the best

programs you should be aware of the meta

analytic distillation of all studies

ever conducted in that field because you

don't want someone to surprise you with

like hey what about like length and

position you're like what's that you're

like I think muscles grow more when

they're stressed at length and state

you're like I never heard of that like

okay wow it's been around a while you

should look into it so it's definitely

true that if you go about it in a way of

just sampling

[ __ ] you can still get fine gains

and some of those gains will be just as

good as bro gains the problem with

exercise science done that way is you're

not getting a great program together

because you didn't use Concepts

principles and averages you just use

random cherry pick [ __ ] and also

sometimes you ignore

intuition because you know you're not

recovering from three leg workouts a

week at 15 sets each and you're like but

the 52 study said and then you just keep

going and the Bros are like dude you

feel like [ __ ] you should take a break

and subjects in a study to 12 weeks

straight that would be a problem

literalism is a big problem but if

you're using it properly and you take

exercise science and you apply it uh in

a way that it's a tentative thing it's a

guess but it's a good guess then you're

well in your way for example you take

the research on training to failure many

people in many studies trained all the

way to muscular failure got certain

amount of growth many people in those

studies trained to some prescribed reps

in reserve let's say two or three reps

in reserve and they got a certain amount

of

growth we also know that people in

exercise science studies train very hard

because they're under direct supervision

people are yelling at them they train a

lot harder than most people do in the

gym they train harder than most ifb Pros

because there's not you're not in a

study and there's three undergrads

yelling at you what the [ __ ] is going on

here am I safe even you can start to

piece together that those people

probably go pretty close to failure in

real life but let's say that we were

even skeptical of that let's say the

guys that do three reps in

reserve really do six reps in reserve in

exercise science studies and the people

doing zero reps in reserve or failure

really have three reps in reserve very

well so when you look at the volume

equated literature you notice that it's

not even true to say that failure is

superior if you have three sets of

submaximal two reps in reserve and three

sets of failure they on average give you

basically the same gains if that's true

at three and six in reality it's

probably going to be even more true at

zero and three cuz six reps in reserve

is so godamn far from failure that you

can't have

both once you have a situation where

youve realized that and there's like 19

total studies over 10 years you're going

to come away with the following

distillation hypothesis that you can go

now test in the real

world as long as I'm pushing it pretty

close to failure how close to failure I

get is is probably not a major

determinative factor so if I handle

fatigue well and I love training to

failure send it if I'm really beat up by

failure training and I don't like doing

it and I seem to get really good results

training submaximally but everyone tells

me I should go to failure I'm going to

stop doing it because science tells me

does not [ __ ] matter within a close

enough range that's how you would use

exercise science if you're using it in a

way to just copy a program you saw out

of a [ __ ] thing you're going to have

problems it sounds like you use

empirical science as the sort of

foundation for to determine where to

start and then practic considerations

context Etc Auto regulation to guide you

from there correct okay final question

for mind would be do you think exercise

science is killing your gains yes

because it makes great thumbnails

exercise science is killing your gains

if you think that reading study abstract

someone repost on Reddit till 2: in the

morning is going to let you figure out

some way to become way more jacked if

you use exercise science as a way to

every year or two brush up on what's the

standard best practices in terms of

averages like what typical number of

sets per week lead to best growth and

Concepts uh you know volume and growth

of a positive curval linear relationship

things like that you can make programs

that at least do one thing they don't

run totally a foul very well understood

science and then the rest is on her

istics and intuition and your own feel

maybe you'll get all that wrong and

still not make gains or your genetics

suck you still don't make gains but at

least you can make whatever gains you

were going to make without just doing

some dumb [ __ ] that's backwards Let me

give you a quick example let's say that

you were under the

impression

that GL uh glutamine supplementation was

net anabolic to muscle protein tissue

you just took glutamine for years you

just never looked into it you're going

to feel a certain way when you find out

that from the beginning glutamine sucked

look at the science and at least don't

take [ __ ] Sciences like dude we've given

this to random groups of people for

generations and nothing happens to

anyone at least look at that so you

don't have to read every study you don't

have to be a nerd you can just ask Chad

gbt what do you think about like

training a failure compared to not

failure how how comp how comparable are

they if it's like look it's not a big

deal either way you can train either way

you want just know that if you surf

Reddit for 18 hours looking at failure

versus non-failure studies you're not

getting jacked nor you learning anything

in incrementally much more insightful

than that but also if you think every

single set should be taken to war time

failure and it's [ __ ] your body up

and causing you to like think you need

to quit training maybe you should have

looked into that excis science could be

a nice way to test certain things you

otherwise wouldn't be able to the

glooming example you gave there is not

really a practical way to determine

whether or not that does anything

totally could you look at different

athletes taking glutamine and others

that don't and try to make the inference

of oh these people seem to see better

results maybe but the effect is so small

that you would never be able to

practically detect it how would you even

be able to measure it you're like

writing letters to people's homes hello

do you lift weight would you like to be

in a glutamine set becomes a survey

study with an unvalidated means of

assessing a I love it the alternative to

exercise science just doesn't

seem better it doesn't seem better

science is the sh path to the truth that

does not mean it's the fastest that

doesn't mean that at the beginning it

gives you the most data or all the

answers or all the well sure [ __ ]

doesn't give you all the answers um and

and science versus going by feel is a

false dichotomy you need to steer within

the lines of what science says is

probably [ __ ] outside of the lines

and within that you need to use

inference from science best practices

from science and best practices from ual

hypertrophy trainees Oldtimer wisdom

belongs in there too because the

[ __ ] got a lot of [ __ ] right

you mix that all together use your best

judgment now you got a good plan and if

you don't second guess yourself all the

goddamn time you're probably going to

make some gains so the smartest people

are using science as well as practical

experience there's no reason to separate

the two and all the ifbb pros that

people like to trot out who don't use

science their coaches use science that's

how come they qu their credit their

coach when they win the Olympia um

science is not replaceable if you want

your best results but just science by

itself isn't going to go pick up

barbells for you and it's sure [ __ ]

going to get real complicated if you

don't know how to appraise it beautiful

Dr Mike anything else to add on exercise

science and whether or not it's killing

your gains you see me I'm saying you

look these games look dead to you big

homie we out here doing science you feel

me where can people find you RP strength

on YouTube uh give us a click you'll see

my face and I'll be angry about

something and rambling and hit subscribe

maybe you won't hate yourself as much as

you do know after maybe more than

unsubscribe all I notice are your baby

blue eyes on the thumbnails I had them

removed from a live child and installed

on me while I waited worthwhile

sacrifice for the child it was for me it

was a Tuesday for the chel too doing

numbers the eyes it's all about the

channel see you later

[Music]

oh

[Music]