Posted on

A Presponse/Pretaliation to Mike Isratel

I was right all alongThis is exactly what the title says A Presponse (pre-response) or Pretailiation (pre-retaliation) to what I imagine Mike Isratel will be going on about shortly on his wall or Instagram or wherever the cool kids put thi stuff about what happened this weekend.  Well, if he didn’t do it yesterday in which case it’s a day late.

Short version: the drama surrounding the shitshow that is the Brad Schoenfeld volume study got stirred up again yesterday.

I had originally written this really overlong post detailing it but, in the modern world, nobody has the time or attention span for that.  So I sat down and just did a quick video (by quick I mean 14 or so minutes since it got longer every time I recorded it) giving the overview and key points about what happened, how it happened, my thoughts on it, etc.

This link will take it to you on Youtube and it’s embedded below.

Enjoy.  Or not.  I don’t really care either way.

One correction: I incorrectly identified the podcast as Revfit but this is wrong.  Rather, the individual in question is involved with Revive Stronger.

This was my final PM to Mike Isratel

I’ll make you a deal.

Mike you call BRAD out on what he did, and I’ll do a podcast with you.

Show me that YOU have the guts to apply the same attitude to HIS bullshit as mine. Get Pascal to host it and just bring up all of my criticisms:

1. Why was it ok to do the Ultrasoudn in an unblinded fashion, raising, according to Cochrane a high level of bias?
1a. Why is saying “you can trust me” considered a valid explanation?

2. According to all statistical standards, Bf10 values of less tahn 3 are meaningless/weak/anecdotal. How can your BF10 values, all less than 3 support your strongly worded conclusion? Especially when the P values for the moderate and high volume groups showed no difference?

3. Why did you misrepresent the Ostrowski data. It clearly showed a plateau at 14 sets with 28 showing no further growth. By only presenting the 7 and 28 set data, you made it look like it agreed with you when it did not.

4. You expect everyone to respond to your criticisms of their work. Why are you above the same?

So that’s the deal Mike. I’m not on trial here. Brad is the one at fault but I’m the easy target because you won’t lose your seminar spot by coming at me and nobody likes me anyhow.

Call him out publicly, do a YT debate and I’ll do one with you on training volume. Promise.

why do I suspect I’ll be waiting a long time….


A quick video addendum to the above with the same information repeated below.

I’m told that Mike’s excuse (and it is an excuse) for not calling out Brad is that he agree with the study. But that the reason for not incorporating Brad’s results is that one study doesn’t change things.

Funny, Mike changed his training recommendations based on HIS single study which makes that argument either an excuse or a flat out lie.

But these guys have to do whatever it takes to keep Brad happy.  I truly hope that ring tastes good, perhaps a bit nutty.

As well, Mike is just using this smokescreen to continue to not address the following questions.

1. Do you think unblinded Ulstrasoud is valid? Is Brad above the scientific method and Cochrane? Are you?
2. Do you think the stats support the conclusion? BF10 of 3 or less? No difference in P value.
3. Why does Brad get to lie in the discussion? He did. Flat out.
4. Why doesn’t Brad have to address my criticisms?

Mike can’t have it both ways. He can’t say he agrees with the conclusions when these vast methodological errors remain unaddressed. #1 and #3 should dismiss the results entirely. High bias and a flat out lie in the discussion.

When Mike holds Brad to the same standards he holds me, I’ll do the podcast. Why should I have to answer his questions (when we AGREE) when Brad doesn’t have to answer a single criticism.

I mean, if my criticisms are that invalid, Brad should be easily able to address them. And he won’t.  He just gurued out, saying that he doesn’t have to address the same types of criticism that he would demand be addressed.

That tells you all you need to know about this study.  If he could dismiss my criticisms, he would.

He won’t because he can’t.  And that’s because my criticisms are all valid despite the endless bullshit nitpicking of the circle jerk.

His non-answer is all the answer anybody should need.




Similar Posts:

Facebook Comments