Jordan & Austin programming video: Parts 1, 2, and 3

[Marenghi]

Ok, then I suggest any other term is better than using an already defined term of the literature - what about "the guacamole effect"?

Agree with a general logarithmic progression curve. Could explain pretty much everything and a new term is not nedded IF one doesnt claim a true resensitization effect (see for my posts then about the differenciation).

[PapaSmurf]

I eagerly await the global warming podcast.

[MattNeilsen]

Please listen to the podcast.

Im sorry, I wont have time for that until in a couple of days, and generally and ofc highly subjectively, I prefer concise written context instead of rather long audio. I thought as two guys here were confirming the bullet points, I trusted they summarized the content correctly.

Apologies if I misrepresented your statements and in that case also consider my criticism of that point obsolete.

Keep doing the great work!

I feel like I owe you, Marenghi, for some of the great links you've provided, so here's a transcript of the relevant section:

Jordan: "One thing that's important to point out because we reference the Repeated Bout Effect [RBE] all the time, and I think it's fair to say that within the literature it's been classically defined as reduced muscle damage from a given bout or episode of training that you're exposed to multiple times. However, there's also some data that's starting to accrue that's suggesting that people will respond less significantly to that same bout of training. And while that's not classically the RBE, it appears to be...I don't want to mince words and I don't want people to say "Oh, well that's the RBE", because classically that's not the definition. However, I don't have a better definition for that phenomenon at the time, and certainly, there's evidence that's mounting to support that."

Austin: "We're referring to some of the evidence related to attenuation in anabolic signaling in trained vs untrained individuals, meaning that they're relatively desensitized. In other words, they do not respond as robustly the more trained they become. The combination of the true classical RBE - by which it's a protective effect against muscle damage - and the fact that you're relatively desensitized against it means the more trained you get the easier it becomes to tolerate these physiologic stressors which are important when it comes to training and our management of training."

It begins at 2:10 if you'd like to listen to it - it's only about ~2 minutes long.

[Marenghi]

Wow, you certainly didnt owe me - but thanks a lot.

Ok,
- cant see any reason to keep calling it "RBE". Not only bc of existing definition, but also bc there could be the possibility that you can have RBE (muscle damage) without a de/resensitization (positive effects) - or vice versa. So you would like to have two seperate terms for it anyway.

- I see a small hill instead of the moutains. A rock, a stone - might be a pebble by the name of Fonseca et al. 2014, https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24832974 . Kudos to Patrick who was the the first one to mention the study here iirc, which is more difficult to interprete in the sense Jordan would like to when you read the full text. Generally: Guys, if you sense mounting evidence, just cite it to advance the discussion.
For hypertrophy, Im very skeptical a true desensitization exists, as the evidence for pretty similar effects of varying vs continuous programming (in load/volume per periodization) shows. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/a ... 9717302137

- If it does exist, the phenomenon can still be simply called good ol "adaption to the stress". See stevans point of the usual logarithmic progression curve. But ofc, also guacamole effect. Just not RBE.

[stevan]

- I see a small hill instead of the moutains. A rock, a stone - might be a pebble by the name of Fonseca et al. 2014, https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24832974 . Kudos to Patrick who was the the first one to mention the study here iirc, which is more difficult to interprete in the sense Jordan would like to when you read the full text. Generally: Guys, if you sense mounting evidence, just cite it to advance the discussion.

Our findings suggest: (a) CIVE is more efficient to produce strength gains for physically active individuals

What was the test for these strength gains?

[JordanFeigenbaum]

I’m gonna call it RBE just to piss you guys off because i think it works best here. The guacamole effect works well too, but if I thought there were a better explanation for it- I’d describe that instead.

And it’s not then Fonseca paper either. I’m squatting now, but I’ll link the paper later. I do think my interpretation of that paper is appropriate given the context, Adam, but I appreciate your response nonetheless.

That said, I’d you don’t want to listen to the podcast- that’s cool. It’s long and took me a good bit of time to edit so I’m kinda over it ATM.

[PatrickDB]

@JordanFeigenbaum, I just wanted to say I really enjoyed all of these programming podcasts. They've been both practically useful and intellectually stimulating, at least for me. Thanks for all the great content.

[tersh]

I’m gonna call it RBE just to piss you guys off because i think it works best here. The guacamole effect works well too, but if I thought there were a better explanation for it- I’d describe that instead.

And it’s not then Fonseca paper either. I’m squatting now, but I’ll link the paper later. I do think my interpretation of that paper is appropriate given the context, Adam, but I appreciate your response nonetheless.

That said, I’d you don’t want to listen to the podcast- that’s cool. It’s long and took me a good bit of time to edit so I’m kinda over it ATM.

I feel like its a bit tricky to talk about and label without knowing what the mechanisms in play are, honestly.

I'm obviously not so up on the literature, but again, from a basic evolutionary perspective, it's easy to consider that it might be a kind of "saturation" effect, where the muscle get saturated by a particular stimulus, and that this has a relatively long time scale of effect. Alternatively, it could be an "attenuation" effect, where the ability to respond to the stimulus is directly blunted or the size of the training signal is attenuated. Functionally the outcomes of these two things are the same (reduced sensitivity to the stimulus), and the difference between the two is rather, shall we say, nuanced... but I think that it matters, so I'd be hesitant to coin a term for it too.

Regardless, diminished response to training (of whatever size and impact) happens in parallel to the muscle-preserving adaptations associated with the RBE, so using the later to refer to the former seems pretty reasonable, if not 100% technically correct. And if real diminished training sensitivity is in fact a real thing, intuitively I'd guess it will turn out to share significant portions of the RBE signalling pathway. Maybe not, because bodies are fucking weird and complex, but the more parsimonious thing is to share most of that signalling system, given that the "purpose" of the two effects is similar (preservation of resources and producing the minimum necessary adaption to a stimulus).

Anyway, I know my opinion on these things matters a great deal to you, so I'm sure you'll sleep better knowing that.

[Marenghi]

Fonseca et al. 2014, https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24832974

Our findings suggest: (a) CIVE is more efficient to produce strength gains for physically active individuals

What was the test for these strength gains?

Squat 1RM in the Smith Machine. After warm-up, 5 attempts with 3min. rest intervals. Best counted.

2x2 design: Constant vs Varied Load. And Constant (squat) vs Varied (squat, lunge, deadlift) Exercises. So groups were: CLCE, CLVE, VLCE, VLVE.
Volume (defined by sets * reps) was equated.

The results were:
a) The two varied exercise groups who trained less squatting ...improved markedly *more* in the squatting test: Both VE groups clocked in at roughly 55%, the two CE groups at about 30% improvements to pre-training. (CLVE was significantly better, but effect sizes were similar between CLVE and VLVE - the statistical tests were a bit fucked up because of dropouts and variance in and between the groups. So I dont agree with the authors´ further differentiation that are derived from additional tests; I took the effect size improvements as criterion)
b) Counter to the periodization literature, there was no difference on strength for varied load vs constant load.

b) could be explained by the rather small differences in beginners - but exactly the beginner argument would suggest large effects in favour, not against, constant exercise in a), as early improvements in strength are mostly neurological. OTOH, recently, exercise variation was suggested for better learning (see the discussion about Greg Nuckols webinar on this board). And apparently, this even works in beginners, albeit when measured by a smith machine squat, not by a free barbell squat.

Topic needs a lot of further studies, nevertheless interesting results imo.

[quark]

These podcasts emphasized volume at submaximal intensity, but didn't go into much detail about sets and reps, beyond more sets is better for hypertrophy and, if I understood correctly, lower rep sets are better for intensity because they are less fatiguing.

In addition to volume, one would seem to need a caloric surplus for hypertrophy. Nutrition is obviously a vast topic, but some more on its relation to the hypertrophy needed for long-term development would be helpful.

I've noticed that some of the critics of @JordanFeigenbaum and @Austin (and critics of RTS, JTS, etc.) pick on their statements about sending people to IPF worlds, having clients podium at major competitions, etc., and use this to claim that their programming may be great for high end lifters, but not for more a more ordinary population. This seems silly, given that all train a lot of not very athletically gifted individuals, but it might be something to consider addressing. I mention it because I've been hearing this claim more frequently recently.

[jwilson625]

I've noticed that some of the critics of @JordanFeigenbaum and @Austin (and critics of RTS, JTS, etc.) pick on their statements about sending people to IPF worlds, having clients podium at major competitions, etc., and use this to claim that their programming may be great for high end lifters, but not for more a more ordinary population. This seems silly, given that all train a lot of not very athletically gifted individuals, but it might be something to consider addressing. I mention it because I've been hearing this claim more frequently recently.

What I found even more silly (and I think Jordan touches on this in the podcast) is the seemingly complete dismissal of Jordan's, Austin's, Leah's, etc. coaching experience in general, regardless of the lifter demographic. Like, after the SS split did everyone just suddenly forget that these guys have all been coaching for a while too? I realize it's not "forty years of experience on the platform," but surely it's enough to figure some of this stuff out...

[Austin]

These podcasts emphasized volume at submaximal intensity, but didn't go into much detail about sets and reps, beyond more sets is better for hypertrophy and, if I understood correctly, lower rep sets are better for intensity because they are less fatiguing.

In addition to volume, one would seem to need a caloric surplus for hypertrophy. Nutrition is obviously a vast topic, but some more on its relation to the hypertrophy needed for long-term development would be helpful.

I've noticed that some of the critics of @JordanFeigenbaum and @Austin (and critics of RTS, JTS, etc.) pick on their statements about sending people to IPF worlds, having clients podium at major competitions, etc., and use this to claim that their programming may be great for high end lifters, but not for more a more ordinary population. This seems silly, given that all train a lot of not very athletically gifted individuals, but it might be something to consider addressing. I mention it because I've been hearing this claim more frequently recently.

The mechanisms of strength improvement and underlying physiology are the same (yes, even if you’re old). The levels of training sensitivity are different. And we aren’t talking about “one program”, anyway.

The bottom line is, you don’t get to claim you have logically deduced the “optimal” way to train, then when challenged about about actually producing evidence of optimal results, say “yeah but we just train regular people soooo”. This is the same exact reason SS gets criticized for opinions on Olympic weightlifting, among other things.

You can either claim “this is the optimal way to train if you want to get as strong as you can possibly be”, in which case you need more evidence than “because training is arithmetic”, OR you can claim that your methods are “good enough for most people” - which is TOTALLY FINE, but in that case maybe be a little more conservative with your claims and stay in your lane of novice training.

The truth is (as evidenced by members of our FB group and forums), there are tons of “regular people” who find out they’re capable of far more than they ever thought possible, and are willing to push more to see how far they can go - which is part of the message I’ve been aggressively putting out there for a while now.

[Hanley]

you don’t get to claim you have logically deduced the “optimal” way to train

Ah, yes, deduction of “truth” using unknown first principles & claims of dubious truth value.

Always works out well.

[ChrisMcCarthy1979]

you don’t get to claim you have logically deduced the “optimal” way to train

Ah, yes, deduction of “truth” using unknown first principles & claims of dubious truth value.

Always works out well.

Mike Mentzer managed it over 30 years ago.

Wait...

[Marenghi]

I’m gonna call it RBE just to piss you guys off because i think it works best here. The guacamole effect works well too, but if I thought there were a better explanation for it- I’d describe that instead.

And it’s not then Fonseca paper either. I’m squatting now, but I’ll link the paper later. I do think my interpretation of that paper is appropriate given the context, Adam, but I appreciate your response nonetheless.

That said, I’d you don’t want to listen to the podcast- that’s cool. It’s long and took me a good bit of time to edit so I’m kinda over it ATM.

@JordanFeigenbaum : Have you found the paper you were mentioning? Id be still interested in it. Thanks!

Btw: Adam - whos Adam? And more importantly: Wheres Eve?

[JordanFeigenbaum]

The original paper is https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4552541/ and the two cited studies I found most interesting from it:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16267123
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25626869

I have a FB friend named Adam Marenghi. Thought it was you lol. But I agree, where is Eve?

[Marenghi]

Thanks a lot, will look into it.

[ckehoe]

The truth is (as evidenced by members of our FB group and forums), there are tons of “regular people” who find out they’re capable of far more than they ever thought possible, and are willing to push more to see how far they can go - which is part of the message I’ve been aggressively putting out there for a while now.

I finished my LP around where Austin did. I'm older, fatter, and a less robust responder, but I reckon there's hope for GainNnz using methods he has learned/used/refined. SS methods (tried 3 different times/ways) 1) ground me to a pulp; and 2) resulted in injury.