Things I believe but can't prove...

[Zak]

...or even support with anything close to objective evidence.

Call it meathead wisdom, kind of in the opposite vein of "evidence-based." But I have a few of these possibly idiosyncratic beliefs that I've either developed over the years or been told in my youth by some older meathead and have found to be true-ish, at least for me. My opinion (which I believe but can't prove) is that there's more value in these beliefs than there is in anything that emerges from a university exercise science lab.

1. Dips and chins chunked into easy sets sprinkled throughout the day are better for upper body hypertrophy than most gym-based assistance-type work.

2. Assuming you at least maintain bodyweight, the more cardio you do, the better your chances of gaining size and strength.

3. Eating 3500 calories per day and burning 3500 calories per day gives you a better shot at gaining muscle than eating 3000 and burning 2500. This is because a calorie surplus is not anabolic, food is anabolic.

4. Bike sprints and backward sled drags are probably the best assistance exercises for quad hypertrophy. All the growth, none of the joint stress.

5. Maintaining overhead pressing strength is important for long-term shoulder health if you bench press.

6. Most people who low bar squat would be better off taking the majority of their competition-style squat volume and shifting it to quad-focused work, e.g., high bar pause squats, ssb squats, pendulum squats, etc.

7. Too many people train "hard" on the big lifts too often and should spend more time training heavier but easier. When the big lifts are hard, they should be hard because they're heavy, not because you're tired.

8. Lifters that build themselves up with a higher frequency/higher specificity approach burn out at a way way higher rate than ones that build themselves up with a "powerbuilding" kind of approach. The quick gains from going frequent and specific are fool's gold. Off the top of my head, pretty much every good lifter I know or have trained around who's still going strong in their 40's and beyond trains the lifts 1-2x per week max and gets most of their volume from assistance, or simply trains with very very low volume.

I'll probably think of a bunch of others. Please share yours if you're inclined and we'll have a repository of meathead shibboleths.

[CheekiBreekiFitness]

Here's some of my broscience:

1. To become big and strong, bro food is superior to industrial food and macro counting.

2. Most lifters vastly over-estimate how much progress they can achieve in 6 months, but vastly under-estimate how much progress can be achieved in 10 years.

3. There is no such thing as a natural limit.

4. How much work you can perform in a given unit of time is a strong predictor of how big and strong you can get, and should be increased through a combination of high volume training and conditioning. If you are out of shape but want to become big and strong things are going to be rough.

5. If you want to lift heavy, stay far away from failure, if you want to go to failure lift light. Ideally a good program would include both of these modalities.

6. You can get bigger without becoming stronger and you can get stronger without getting bigger. You can also do both at the same time. You can choose between the 3 through programming.

7. There is no such a thing as maingaining. Ideally the vast majority of your training life should be spent in a state of slow controlled bulking, eating a lot of bro food. Anything that takes time away from bulking is probably detrimental.

8. There is nothing special about Squat, Bench, Deadlift and Overhead Press. There's nothing wrong with them either.

9. The overwhelming majority of exercise science is useless for meatheads. The amount of exercise science useful for meatheads can be written on a napkin: train things that you want to get better at, train all muscle groups through a full range of motion, keep between 4 and 0 reps in reserve, and more training equals more gains.

10. If you train for long enough, some form of auto-regulation will appear in your training, whether you like it or not.

11. The overwhelming majority of biomechanics is useless for meatheads.

12. Most of the advice from physiotherapists who do not even lift is useless for meatheads.

12. It is impossible to predict the outcome of any training program without trying it.

13. For a natural lifter, a good hypertrophy program and a good strength program are going to look very similar. A good hypertrophy program will get you stronger than a shitty strength program, and a good strength program will get you bigger than a shitty hypertrophy program.

14. The maximum recoverable volume for arms is + infinity.

15. There exists no counting scheme (sets, reps, rpe's, rir, tonnage, whatever), no matter how elaborate, that can predict how much muscle and strength one can gain. Try and find out.

16. If most of your training revolves around Squat, Bench, Deadlift and Overhead Press you're not training for general strength, you're training for specific strength. In fact I'd argue that most people who claim to train for "general strength" do not care for general strength.

[DCR]

3. Eating 3500 calories per day and burning 3500 calories per day gives you a better shot at gaining muscle than eating 3000 and burning 2500. This is because a calorie surplus is not anabolic, food is anabolic.

Are you referring specifically to recomping here? I ask because, had I very little fat (lol, please), I wouldn’t see a way around a caloric surplus to gain size (which in that scenario effectively means “weight”).

8. Lifters that build themselves up with a higher frequency/higher specificity approach burn out at a way way higher rate than ones that build themselves up with a "powerbuilding" kind of approach. The quick gains from going frequent and specific are fool's gold. Off the top of my head, pretty much every good lifter I know or have trained around who's still going strong in their 40's and beyond trains the lifts 1-2x per week max and gets most of their volume from assistance, or simply trains with very very low volume.

I wish that someone had put it exactly like that to me, five or so years ago.

5. If you want to lift heavy, stay far away from failure, if you want to go to failure lift light. Ideally a good program would include both of these modalities.

In my view, whether or not going to failure makes sense is an issue of the movement, as opposed to the weight. I’m a huge fan of sets of to failure in the 6-10 rep range, but for, say, chest supported T-bar rows. Not for deadlifts.

9. The overwhelming majority of exercise science is useless for meatheads.
11. The overwhelming majority of biomechanics is useless for meatheads.

Amen.

14. The maximum recoverable volume for arms is + infinity.

Recoverable volume for arms is entirely tendon dependent. The limit is when you get tendonitis / bursitis. Fully agree that you can smash the muscles forever. Calves too.

[CheekiBreekiFitness]

Recoverable volume for arms is entirely tendon dependent. The limit is when you get tendonitis / bursitis. Fully agree that you can smash the muscles forever. Calves too.

Exactly !

[Zak]

3. Eating 3500 calories per day and burning 3500 calories per day gives you a better shot at gaining muscle than eating 3000 and burning 2500. This is because a calorie surplus is not anabolic, food is anabolic.

Are you referring specifically to recomping here? I ask because, had I very little fat (lol, please), I wouldn’t see a way around a caloric surplus to gain size (which in that scenario effectively means “weight”).

I think ideally we'd all get as lean as we could stand to and then spend most of our training lives in a very small calorie surplus.

I've had a couple periods, including as a more seasoned lifter, where I've been able to "recomp" and they have been periods of a lot of activity and a lot of calories.

If you're expecting logical precision or numbers that illustrate concepts in a coherent way, you're reading the wrong guy's posts brother.

[Hardartery]

3. Eating 3500 calories per day and burning 3500 calories per day gives you a better shot at gaining muscle than eating 3000 and burning 2500. This is because a calorie surplus is not anabolic, food is anabolic.

Are you referring specifically to recomping here? I ask because, had I very little fat (lol, please), I wouldn’t see a way around a caloric surplus to gain size (which in that scenario effectively means “weight”).

I think ideally we'd all get as lean as we could stand to and then spend most of our training lives in a very small calorie surplus.

I've had a couple periods, including as a more seasoned lifter, where I've been able to "recomp" and they have been periods of a lot of activity and a lot of calories.

If you're expecting logical precision or numbers that illustrate concepts in a coherent way, you're reading the wrong guy's posts brother.

Being as lean as possible is counterproductive to progress, depending on your definition of "as possible". BBers bulk and have an off-season where they are carrying weight that they will have to shed, sometimes a lot of it. PLers that are not SHW will often train above their weight class and do some sort of cut (At least a water cut) for weigh-ins. In Strongman it is not only normal, but better, to be closer to 30% BF. SO, it depends on goals. If all you care about is your being cut and looking like you try when you have your shirt off, sure. If you want to get bigger muscles or get stronger or both, being as lean as possible does not coincide with those goals. Frankly, being less than 20% is counter to those goals especially for a natty.

[AlanMackey]

Calves too.

Unless you spend a fair amount of time running the trails. I learned this the hard way.

[DCR]

3. Eating 3500 calories per day and burning 3500 calories per day gives you a better shot at gaining muscle than eating 3000 and burning 2500. This is because a calorie surplus is not anabolic, food is anabolic.

Are you referring specifically to recomping here? I ask because, had I very little fat (lol, please), I wouldn’t see a way around a caloric surplus to gain size (which in that scenario effectively means “weight”).

I think ideally we'd all get as lean as we could stand to and then spend most of our training lives in a very small calorie surplus.

I've had a couple periods, including as a more seasoned lifter, where I've been able to "recomp" and they have been periods of a lot of activity and a lot of calories.

If you're expecting logical precision or numbers that illustrate concepts in a coherent way, you're reading the wrong guy's posts brother.

Ha, I wasn't - particular numbers aside, my thought only was that some surplus is necessary. Your idea clarified - a small surplus but accomplished with a ton of food and corresponding ton of activity - makes sense to me. I think a lot of bodybuilders do exactly that, without necessarily considering that they’re doing so.

[CheekiBreekiFitness]

If you want to get bigger muscles or get stronger or both, being as lean as possible does not coincide with those goals. Frankly, being less than 20% is counter to those goals especially for a natty.

I generally agree with the idea that being very lean will impede strength and muscle gains, I'm not sure about being above 20% body fat. That's quite fat. If you are not a super heavy weight, I'm not sure this will make you the most competitive. I'm no powerlifting expert but I was always under the impression that the top IPF lifters are not that fat.

Aiming for 15% seems a lot more reasonable to me.

PS: this is unrelated to the question at hand, but I do not really believe in body fat measurement anyways, because there is no accurate way to measure it barring dissection.

[Hardartery]

If you want to get bigger muscles or get stronger or both, being as lean as possible does not coincide with those goals. Frankly, being less than 20% is counter to those goals especially for a natty.

I generally agree with the idea that being very lean will impede strength and muscle gains, I'm not sure about being above 20% body fat. That's quite fat. If you are not a super heavy weight, I'm not sure this will make you the most competitive. I'm no powerlifting expert but I was always under the impression that the top IPF lifters are not that fat.

Aiming for 15% seems a lot more reasonable to me.

PS: this is unrelated to the question at hand, but I do not really believe in body fat measurement anyways, because there is no accurate way to measure it barring dissection.

most strongmen run 30% or higher. Most people under-estimate their BF% by a significant amount. 15% is actually pretty lean, leaner than I would expect to find most anyone outside of a competitive BBer when we are discussing training. Especially natty. People like to believe that they are 15% when they are really much closer to 20% and it is rare that someone is actually 10%. Having abs does not mean a person is 10%, but it's pretty easy to find gym bros labouring under that assumption wherever you go.

[ChasingCurls69]

I think that lifters with longer arms have to fingieblast their triceps much more with isolations and dips compared to bench chads. Bench chads being vaguely defined as short arms and responding favorably to benching 3-4x/week with more specificity.

I also think the general zeitgeist is to baby DLs on volume.

[CheekiBreekiFitness]

I think that lifters with longer arms have to fingieblast their triceps much more with isolations and dips compared to bench chads. Bench chads being vaguely defined as short arms and responding favorably to benching 3-4x/week with more specificity.

I also think the general zeitgeist is to baby DLs on volume.

I think this is mostly due to the current meta of internet lifting: high specificity, focus on compound movements, no isolation etc. That's why a lot of people who identify as powerlifters have noodle arms, and have squat and deadlifts way greater than their bench. On the other hand if you look at previous generations (think Westside, Ed Coan, even Pat Casey), all the great benchers trained their arms hard, and had huge arms.

[janoycresva]

1. Dips and chins chunked into easy sets sprinkled throughout the day are better for upper body hypertrophy than most gym-based assistance-type work.

Can't really agree with this one based on my experience with frequency method/grease the groove chin ups. They can definitely result in some hypertrophy, but they're a really inefficient way to get there compared to just training like a bodybuilder, and eventually my elbows were just fucking killing me. I think after a certain point accumulating the volume within a certain increment of time becomes important.

My gut instinct on this kind of thing is: if there is a method that's supposedly great for hypertrophy, but no actual bodybuilders are doing it... it's probably not that great for hypertrophy. The sport/oiled up gay pageantry is mature enough that they would have probably discovered it.

I think this is mostly due to the current meta of internet lifting: high specificity, focus on compound movements, no isolation etc. That's why a lot of people who identify as powerlifters have noodle arms, and have squat and deadlifts way greater than their bench. On the other hand if you look at previous generations (think Westside, Ed Coan, even Pat Casey), all the great benchers trained their arms hard, and had huge arms.

Today's noodle armed benchers can bench more than those guys did, though.

[DCR]

My gut instinct on this kind of thing is: if there is a method that's supposedly great for hypertrophy, but no actual bodybuilders are doing it... it's probably not that great for hypertrophy. The sport/oiled up gay pageantry is mature enough that they would have probably discovered it.

I once saw something along the lines of, “If Arnold never heard of it, you don’t need to be doing it.” Even acknowledging exceptions, I don’t think that’s a bad rule of thumb.

I think this is mostly due to the current meta of internet lifting: high specificity, focus on compound movements, no isolation etc. That's why a lot of people who identify as powerlifters have noodle arms, and have squat and deadlifts way greater than their bench. On the other hand if you look at previous generations (think Westside, Ed Coan, even Pat Casey), all the great benchers trained their arms hard, and had huge arms.

Today's noodle armed benchers can bench more than those guys did, though.

I dunno about pros (although I’d guess better gear in both senses of the word), but this doesn’t comport with my N=1 experiences. Seen a shitload of noodle armed dudes deadlift a silly amount of weight. Seen very few of them squat anything worth a shit, and none of them bench a thing. Anyone I’ve ever seen with a legit bench either was jacked, or just big period.

[hector]

This thread is gold.

I think targeted ab work, especially ab wheel, will carry over to squats and Deads. The good book says ab work isn’t needed, but I feel stronger, especially in the middle of a squat or deadlift, when I’ve been doing it.

[DCR]

Had a thought today that I think goes here. My opinion of high rep sets (by which I mean more than ten reps) always has been that they’re for dudes:

1) with great genetics;
2) on gear;
3) who already are big; or
4) some combination of the above.

I realized that I had been conditioned to think in terms of barbell movements, for which a set of, say, fifteen reps, requires a weight with which the initial rep is like @2 and the next few not much harder. In other words, junk. (Twenty rep squats are a notable exception because they’re done as breathing squats, i.e. rest/pause work. Idea is to use your 10RM, not a joke weight that you actually could lift twenty times uninterrupted.)

That is because with a barbell, some weak link quits first. That isn’t the case with machines, which isolate a muscle or muscles sans what otherwise would be the weak link. As such, with a machine - and this has been my recent experience - you can select a weight with which even the first rep is reasonably hard, and yet still bang out a set of twelve.

Bottom line, I think bodybuilders get results from and promote higher rep sets because (in addition to the genetics and gear) a lot (most?) of the work that they’re doing permits those sets to be nearly entirely made up of “effective reps,” and why wouldn’t you prefer fifteen effective reps over five.

[Shaun]

For most folks, what is commonly known as "powerbuilding", i.e. combining getting strong on the classic compound lifts with more hypertrophy orientated movements, is the most effective way, is the most effective way to make long-term progress.

[hector]

For most folks, what is commonly known as "powerbuilding", i.e. combining getting strong on the classic compound lifts with more hypertrophy orientated movements, is the most effective way, is the most effective way to make long-term progress.

Agree 100%.

Could maybe even argue that Ronnie Coleman and Stan Efferding prove this.

[Hardartery]

For most folks, what is commonly known as "powerbuilding", i.e. combining getting strong on the classic compound lifts with more hypertrophy orientated movements, is the most effective way, is the most effective way to make long-term progress.

Agree 100%.

Could maybe even argue that Ronnie Coleman and Stan Efferding prove this.

Zavickas. No powerbuilding, still doing Masters stuff when he feels like it, pushing 30 years as a pro Strongman. Personally, I think "Powerbuilding" is a dumb fad and a terrible idea for most people in most ways long term. Outliers like all three names above prove nothing, massive drug usage aside. Too much time at 95% ! RM to failure weights = bad. Too many reps = overuse injuries and tendinopathy/joint deterioration. Frankly, the thing I believe but can't really prove is 1+ RIR training plus listening to your body (Cutting sessions or volume when you are getting beat up) is the best strategy long term. Ronnie was always balls to the wall even when he was told to rest by doctors and recover.

[DCR]

For most folks, what is commonly known as "powerbuilding", i.e. combining getting strong on the classic compound lifts with more hypertrophy orientated movements, is the most effective way, is the most effective way to make long-term progress.

Agree 100%.

Could maybe even argue that Ronnie Coleman and Stan Efferding prove this.

Zavickas. No powerbuilding, still doing Masters stuff when he feels like it, pushing 30 years as a pro Strongman. Personally, I think "Powerbuilding" is a dumb fad and a terrible idea for most people in most ways long term. Outliers like all three names above prove nothing, massive drug usage aside. Too much time at 95% ! RM to failure weights = bad. Too many reps = overuse injuries and tendinopathy/joint deterioration. Frankly, the thing I believe but can't really prove is 1+ RIR training plus listening to your body (Cutting sessions or volume when you are getting beat up) is the best strategy long term. Ronnie was always balls to the wall even when he was told to rest by doctors and recover.

Agree, those things generally are bad, but why do you have the idea that they necessarily are involved in powerbuilding?