The BIGGEST Mistakes You Probably Make (ft. Dr. Mike Israetel)
Summary
TLDRIn 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
🔬 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.
🛠️ 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.
🏋️♂️ 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.
🎓 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.
🚀 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.
Mindmap
Keywords
💡Exercise Science
💡Cortisol
💡Paralysis by Analysis
💡Stress
💡Program Hopping
💡Volume
💡Meta-Analytic Distillation
💡Training to Failure
💡Conceptual Frameworks
💡Consilience of Understanding
💡Literalism
💡Science-Based Lifting
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]
Посмотреть больше похожих видео
Does SORENESS = MUSCLE GROWTH? (ft. Dr. Mike Israetel)
Is Too Much Exercise Science Killing Your Gains?
How Many Sets YOU Should Do For MAXIMUM Muscle Growth (ft. Dr Mike Israetel)
The SIMPLEST Way To GAIN MUSCLE (ft Dr. Brad Schoenfeld)
15 Idiotic Muscle Building Mistakes (AVOID THESE!)
Starting a Career in Data Science (10 Thing I Wish I Knew…)
5.0 / 5 (0 votes)