Lyle Mcdonald VS Mike Israetel Debate

[timelinex]

I'm not sure how much you guys follow Mike's or Lyle's work, but they have been at each others throats for a while. Revive Stronger finally got them on one screen to debate:



I think at the end of the day, all I walked away with is that Mike is very charismatic as usual. Lyle is not that great with words and his arguments aren't articulated as well, but he was right to call Mike a politician. This is coming from someone that never watches Lyle's stuff but loves Mike's content.

Mike agreed that the study is not great without actually addressing what I find to be the bigger issue that Lyle is trying to address. Mike is technically correct that it is unlikely Brad or other researchers straight up lied. Lyle's argument fell flat because he was trying to give a quote and it just came off as pedantic. But you only have to be in the field or online for 2 minutes to see what is actually being pushed. Thousands of threads, thousands of youtube podcasts, thousands of articles, have all been written as a result of Schoenfelds research and almost none of it gives off the understanding that there is WEAK evidence between volume and hypertrophy. I believe if anyone disagrees with that they either are lying or they legitimately live in a different world (both in person and online) than I. His studies are colloquially used as "There is good evidence that more volume, almost regardless of intensity (30+), means more hypertrophy". People use it as almost the nail in the coffin to volume>intensity and that really high volume is where it's all at. At face value, its definitely not Brad's fault for how people interpret his work, but if an enormous population misinterprets something you have written, it does suggest you are not clearly articulating your findings.... that is....unless you want to be misinterpreted....and thats how Lyle came to the conclusion that he is lying.

I really feel for Lyle's position as I had a heated debate with @Hanley and @PatrickDB about this a year or more ago. The studies are shit and all scientifically literate people admit it. But then everyone goes and uses those same studies to bolster their claims. Their disagreement kind of ended the same way ours did.. That the studies are in fact shit but yea you might be able to use them as hints towards what we should be doing. My issue, which is what seems to be Lyle's issue as well, is that THIS IS NOT how 99% of the lifting community uses it.

Thoughts?

[Hanley]

Thoughts?

What are you going to use as support for a claim in any debate about programming efficacy?

You've got anecdote/experience, studies and maybe some half-baked deductions from accepted "physiological first principles" (which themselves are based on old, generally accepted studies).

Shit's always gonna devolve into meta-criticism of the field itself. Which is fine. But useless.

If you're gonna enter debate, you sorta have to accept that the limitations of the field define the "universe of discourse" and that you're necessarily dealing with inference, conjecture and speculation. If both parties can't accept the limits of that universe of discourse, don't even bother having the debate.

[mbasic]

note: there are timestamps in the bottom of the original YT video

(don't be scared off by the 1 hr 37 min time on the embedded video)

[timelinex]

Thoughts?

What are you going to use as support for a claim in any debate about programming efficacy?

You've got anecdote/experience, studies and maybe some half-baked deductions from accepted "physiological first principles" (which themselves are based on old, generally accepted studies).

Shit's always gonna devolve into meta-criticism of the field itself. Which is fine. But useless.

If you're gonna enter debate, you sorta have to accept that the limitations of the field define the "universe of discourse" and that you're necessarily dealing with inference, conjecture and speculation. If both parties can't accept the limits of that universe of discourse, don't even bother having the debate.

The issue is ALWAYS about the confidence. That's one of the reasons I like Mike so much. He tries to be clear and give off an attitude of "this is what current evidence suggest and what his experience has been. But shit, I might be wrong.". That is NOT how most people talk about these studies though.

The debate's should be exactly how I see many discussions on here play out. "This has been my experience and if you follow my school of thought, here is what you should do." Hanley, I don't see you forcing your methodology down anyone's throat or arguing that their method won't work. You argue that yours will and has for you and/or your clients. THATS FAIR. Maybe you have poo poo'd on Rippetoe's but I'm not sure if it's denying his method from working or talking about his confidence and/or injury repercussions.

Just because you don't have good literature to appeal to doesn't mean you should appeal to shit literature. I really don't know how that is so controversial. Dont get me wrong. That doesn't mean there shouldn't be research or it shouldn't be discussed among people. THAT is the process of science and how eventually it will hopefully get better. But at it's current state, most publically faced disccussion is the equivelent of looking at yahoo news. Every week they are writing a new story on how cancer is going to be cured because of a study that just found X or Y was cured in rats.

[timelinex]

BTW, I wanted to add that the research isn't as scant as we make it out to be. It's just we are looking for positive signals of what the "best" way to train is. But the negative is just as important and I think that forms a MUCH clearer picture. Doing too little volume results in not great results. Doing too low intensity results in not great results. Studies show that some people benefit from much higher volume. Some people benefit from lower volume. etc..

I think that those are strongly supported by research by now. They just aren't "sexy" results.

[Marenghi]

There is very strong evidence of a dose-response relationship of volume and hypertrophy. This is confirmed by a lot of studies, INCLUDING the discussed Schoenfeld study. These days nobody who is aboard the slow evidence-based steamship, including McDonald, disputes this at all anymore.

What remains to be researched among many other things is the exact nature of this relationship ("I need numbers, baby!"), especially the higher end of the volume dimension. Thats what Schoenfield´s study was about. It DID demonstrate again the established part of the curve from low to medium. It didnt - only as a weak trend - from medium to high. Thats what the whole discussion is about. Schoenfeld painted the picture more brightly in parts of the published article t than the data says. Thats why its preferable to read the whole study yourself and not follow blindly the authors´ conclusions in the discussion chapter. Henselmans gave a good approach how to read a paper here: https://bit.ly/2toBpds

[Although if your understanding of what is "medium" is based on traditional beginner strength training, then surely the part of the curve "medium to high" is also established as rising, only not for "high to very high". In numbers: For example the Schoenfeld study showed an increasing effect till 18 and 27 sets resp. /week/upper/lower body muscle group. And only a weak trend from 18 sets/w --> 30 for upper body, and 27 --> 45 for lower.]

------------

There is a lot of evidence for NO load-hypertrophy effect within the most common training range of 30-90% 1RM.

-----------

Load PROGRESSION is not a rival or the alternative to increasing volume. It serves as a mean to hold constant the relative load when youre getting stronger. Its NOT a mean to increase the stimulus. Ive been writing about this in context of the hypertrophy model for half a year here, again most recently a couple of days ago here: viewtopic.php?p=153522#p153522
I recommend reading the links I posted, clears up many misunderstandings.

[Hanley]

It serves as a mean to hold constant the relative load when youre getting stronger.

Yeah.

[michael]

I think the evidence that more volume = greater hypertrophy is more compelling that the argument that more protein = greater hypertrophy, but Lyle always pushed higher than proven protein recommendations.

[michael]

It serves as a mean to hold constant the relative load when youre getting stronger.

https://medium.com/@SandCResearch/why-i ... 757329a82d

[Marenghi]

Yeah, Beardsley´s article touches that, although its more about the role of progressive overload for strength adaptations.

[RobUK]

Lyle is not a fan of Nuckols either.

As far I understand it, Lyle's nutritional stuff is widely respected. Not so sure about his views on training, the list of people he disagrees with/who disagree with him is pretty impressive.

The other issue with Lyle is trying to filter through his attitude (and trying to decide how much latitude to give him for that following his apology to the internet and diagnosis with bipolar/manic depression).

[timelinex]

There is very strong evidence of a dose-response relationship of volume and hypertrophy. This is confirmed by a lot of studies, INCLUDING the discussed Schoenfeld study. These days nobody who is aboard the slow evidence-based steamship, including McDonald, disputes this at all anymore.

What remains to be researched among many other things is the exact nature of this relationship ("I need numbers, baby!"), especially the higher end of the volume dimension. Thats what Schoenfield´s study was about. It DID demonstrate again the established part of the curve from low to medium. It didnt - only as a weak trend - from medium to high. Thats what the whole discussion is about. Schoenfeld painted the picture more brightly in parts of the published article t than the data says. Thats why its preferable to read the whole study yourself and not follow blindly the authors´ conclusions in the discussion chapter. Henselmans gave a good approach how to read a paper here: https://bit.ly/2toBpds

[Although if your understanding of what is "medium" is based on traditional beginner strength training, then surely the part of the curve "medium to high" is also established as rising, only not for "high to very high". In numbers: For example the Schoenfeld study showed an increasing effect till 18 and 27 sets resp. /week/upper/lower body muscle group. And only a weak trend from 18 sets/w --> 30 for upper body, and 27 --> 45 for lower.]

------------

There is a lot of evidence for NO load-hypertrophy effect within the most common training range of 30-90% 1RM.

-----------

Load PROGRESSION is not a rival or the alternative to increasing volume. It serves as a mean to hold constant the relative load when youre getting stronger. Its NOT a mean to increase the stimulus. Ive been writing about this in context of the hypertrophy model for half a year here, again most recently a couple of days ago here: viewtopic.php?p=153522#p153522
I recommend reading the links I posted, clears up many misunderstandings.

What studies are you reading to say you have "very strong" evidence for anything in exercise science. Maybe you should show it to the top guys in the field that all agree that studies are lackluster and can't even be compared to REAL studies (like in medicine). At best you can analyze the overall trend and take that is having a kernel of truth in it.

This is the type of scientism that I rail against. I will stop my input on this now as it turns into nothing but a dumpster fire. You can't argue against ideology.

[dbp]

I thought they agreed on more things than they disagreed, which is common. People jerk off over the minutia.

I agree with Lyle that the conclusion should have been written with more qualifiers, as the medium-high dose-response trend seemed shaky at best.

I also agree strongly that Brad's mention of the Ostrowski paper should have included the middle value, which was pretty much the same as the high value, and leaving it out painted an incomplete picture on the dose-response curve. There's no excuse for it, and I thought Mike's answer here in particular was the weakest answer of the whole debate.

Maybe Mike's right in that it's not the biggest offense in the world, but it's still very frustrating, and something you could easily rectify if you were concerned with painting the most accurate picture.

I think Lyle gets a lot of hate because of the way he conducts himself online, which I agree is shitty. But his arguments often get dismissed because of it, and frankly there does seem to be a bit of an echo chamber developing in the "evidence based" exercise science research community.

So having people like Lyle is important. Lord knows we're all familiar with echo chambers.

[perman]

This is the type of scientism that I rail against.

Given that I'm apparently a proponent of scientism (according to Rip), what's that?

[Hanley]

This is the type of scientism that I rail against.

Given that I'm apparently a proponent of scientism (according to Rip), what's that?

It's a label that creationists and flat-earthers use to derail debate.

Oh. and anti-vaxxers.

[timelinex]

This is the type of scientism that I rail against.

Given that I'm apparently a proponent of scientism (according to Rip), what's that?

This is the type of scientism that I rail against.

Given that I'm apparently a proponent of scientism (according to Rip), what's that?

It's a label word that creationists and flat-earthers use to derail debate.

Oh. and anti-vaxxers.

I vehemently disagree. I have no idea if they hijacked this word and use it "incorrectly" for their cause, but that is definitely not what I understand the original meaning to be.

Nassim Taleb would be where I first saw the use of the word, but I can't be sure that he is the one that popularized it.

Scientism is directly opposite of creationists and flat earthers. It's when you put ideology (your idea of whats right) before actual evidence. They started with an idea and then deny reality or evidence to keep their idea sacred.

The most applicable use for it would be when someone pretends science can answer questions that are unanswerable by science (like morality or values). Another proper use for it would be putting stock into something that came out of the scientific community, just because it came out of the scientific community. Another applicable use for it is something that is probably most pervasive. When someone takes weak research and touts it as compelling evidence, simply because it's the best we have got. However, the state of our knowledge has absolutely no bearing on how strong or weak a study or piece of research is. "something" is most certainly not always better than "nothing". Until a certain level of certainty is reached, that "something" is effectively as useful as "nothing". Scientism would be denying this since you have been indoctrinated to believe that "science" is some magic answer.

Science is among the best tools we have to advance as human beings. But it is a process that takes a long time to reveal truth (as opposed to an even longer time to just use luck). That means there is alot of wrong along the way.

[timelinex]

I thought I would add my qualifications. Not to appeal to authority, as I don't believe my qualifications make me unique or special. In. But just that they hopefully show that I'm not just some 14 year old that read 1 science article and decided he was gonna parrot off creationist and flat-earth level nonsense.

1. We learned alot about the "science" process and reading studies in my Biomedical Engineering classes.
2. I own a health (not pharma) company where our products rely heavily on research

I am NOT an expert in reading literature and I am NOT extremely well versed in it. However, I do have a little experience with it and I do have a basic enough understanding to see fundamental flaws. The same flaws that everyone admits to BTW, but then just decides to ignore when making their conclusions.

The research in the sports science community and AS IT APPLIES TO REAL LIFE gym goers, is mediocre. Even if you get past things like being blind/double blind/etc...Methods aren't anywhere near the same to methods that real life lifters use (as Lyle said, who does 45 sets of their 15rm. Even if you do, you aren't actually, as we understand what 15rm means).. THAT MATTERS. CONTEXT IS EVERYTHING. It defines what you have actually found.

But even if you get past that. How confident are they that they actually found something? Many of the studies don't even have that high of difference from just pure chance. All around its bad. When companies use GOOD research, they still occasionally go wrong. Calling exercise science literate strong is ridiculous. People that have made their entire lives about the science admit that it's not good. Just look at what Mike Israetel PHD said about it in this video. It's good enough to give you ideas on what to try in your training, but not good enough to decide anything. Damn straight. I will agree with that. Thats not scientism. That's being realistic about the science.

EDIT: I wanted to make clear that I am referring to research that is answering questions that there is so much heated debate about. Very basic trends or things that most people would consider accepted and obvious, does have decent support.

[Marenghi]

What studies are you reading to say you have "very strong" evidence for anything in exercise science. Maybe you should show it to the top guys in the field that all agree that studies are lackluster and can't even be compared to REAL studies (like in medicine). At best you can analyze the overall trend and take that is having a kernel of truth in it.

This is the type of scientism that I rail against. I will stop my input on this now as it turns into nothing but a dumpster fire. You can't argue against ideology.

Jesus, buys gas and lighter and then complains about fire.

Here, this is strong evidence: https://www.strongerbyscience.com/maste ... et_al_2017

...listed by one of the "top guys in the field". Ask the Nuckols guy what he thinks about single vs multiple sets or low vs high volume (note that the effect for trained lifter is highly likely to be even greater).

A Meta with a 14:1 ratio of positive vs negative effects. With a p= 0.002 - yeah thats right, about 10 times stricter than the often - duly criticized - effects merely sliding under p= 0.05. A linear effect of gainzzz of 5.4% @ <5sets that almost doubles to 9.8% @ >10 sets (via 5-9sets). Thats as clear as it gets in science; these represent findings many areas in your mentioned "real studies" field medicine would lick their fingers for.

I guess we have different experiences about strong evidence and certainty in science.

[Hanley]

But pulling the "scientism" card isn't debate. It's not a challenge to argument logic or a to the truth-value of support to a claim. It's glorified name-calling.

If your debate partner is a total bonehead and is science-illiterate, then just quit the debate.

But I've seen the term employed as a knee-jerk internet response to ANY claim defense that uses research (as it was used by Rip against @perman).

[timelinex]

What studies are you reading to say you have "very strong" evidence for anything in exercise science. Maybe you should show it to the top guys in the field that all agree that studies are lackluster and can't even be compared to REAL studies (like in medicine). At best you can analyze the overall trend and take that is having a kernel of truth in it.

This is the type of scientism that I rail against. I will stop my input on this now as it turns into nothing but a dumpster fire. You can't argue against ideology.

Jesus, buys gas and lighter and then complains about fire.

Here, this is strong evidence: https://www.strongerbyscience.com/maste ... et_al_2017

...listed by one of the "top guys in the field". Ask the Nuckols guy what he thinks about single vs multiple sets or low vs high volume (note that the effect for trained lifter is highly likely to be even greater).

A Meta with a 14:1 ratio of positive vs negative effects. With a p= 0.002 - yeah thats right, about 100 times stricter than the often - duly criticized - effects merely sliding under p= 0.05. A linear effect of gainzzz of 5.4% @ <5sets that almost doubles to 9.8% @ >10 sets (via 5-9sets). Thats as clear as it gets in science; these represent findings many areas in your mentioned "real studies" field medicine would lick their fingers for.

I guess we have different experiences about strong evidence and certainty in science.

I apologize, I mistook what you were saying. I think broad strokes like this have had enough evidence. I did not understand that we were discussing <5 sets and >10. I dont think that's generally ever the point of contention in conversations so I assumed the very basics isn't what we are talking about. These are the things everyone(I would hope) knows even before science and the science is just to make it "official".

I should not have assumed.

EDIT: Also, I unfortunately could not resist bringing the gas and lighter, as much as I didn't want to at first

But pulling the "scientism" card isn't debate. It's not a challenge to argument logic or a to the truth-value of support to a claim. It's glorified name-calling.

If your debate partner is a total bonehead and is science-illiterate, then just quit the debate.

But I've seen the term employed as a knee-jerk internet response to ANY claim defense that uses research (as it was used by Rip against @perman).

Yes, it was laziness on my end. I made assumptions about his argument that I should not have.