Training to Failure vs. NOT Training to Failure
(Beating a Dead Horse)
So I was recently made aware of a post Mike Israetel put up on his Instagram relating to muscle growth for training to failure vs. not training to failure. I tracked it to James Krieger’s Instagram to see the original before pulling the full study to look at i.
Since some people show some really poor reading comprehension (or in Mike’s case, prefer to flat out lie about me), I first clarify my stance on the entire issue of training to failure (spoiler: I have NEVER advocated people necessarily train to failure much less always train to failure for all applications).
Then I look at the study in question, before addressing a slightly different issue related to what are fundamentally impossible workout designs. As always I issue a challenge to people that I full well know they will make excuses not to take. But what’s new.
A Quick Reminder About What Is and Is NOT Scientific Argument
Now, I can’t be the only one who has noticed that a certain group of supposedly “science based practitioners” only seem to believe in or use actual science when it supports them?
And that when it doesn’t, they fall back on any number of non-scientific responses. It’s not just me is it.
Well since I’m a helper, I made up the following meme to remind them of what does not and what does count as actual scientific rebuttal. To help some specific individuals out, I’ve included examples of when they did it.
Now, as you might expect, many if not most of those individuals have blocked me (and others who bring valid criticism) on basically all social media. They know that the easiest argument to win is one where nobody sees dissenting data.
So do me a favor and please make sure that “evidence based” luminaries Mike Israetel, Layne Norton, Brad Schoenfeld, Eric Helms, James Krieger (along with any others supposed gurus that fall back on bullshit when they can’t bring science to the argument that come to mind) see this.
I’m simply trying to help.
Facebook Comments