Fouad interviews Brad Schoenfeld

[N.L....M.....]

A lot of good stuff here. Science vs Bro Science. Brad articulates everything very well and even talks about flaws in using only studies.

 

[KillerStack]

All this science is ultimately useless unless using androgens. What I mean by that is that this guy will not be identified as a bb or even a weightlifter when in a t-shirt. So what has this knowledge amounted to and how does it help someone with his level of genetics and drug status who wants to "gain muscle"? They will gain a few pounds at first and then sit there for decades regardless of training method.

But what really gets me, and only very few have mentioned it as a criticism, is that I suspect that most of the "studies" on training protocols are fundamentally flawed.
If you look at the precribed protocols on things like legs, they are impossible to do the way they are described. Tons of squats to failure with like a minute rest between sets and things like that. So what good are these studies in real world application?

I didn't watch the video but am familiar with him, so I don't know if he mentioned what I posted.

 

[N.L....M.....]

All this science is ultimately useless unless using androgens. What I mean by that is that this guy will not be identified as a bb or even a weightlifter when in a t-shirt. So what has this knowledge amounted to and how does it help someone with his level of genetics and drug status who wants to "gain muscle"? They will gain a few pounds at first and then sit there for decades regardless of training method.

But what really gets me, and only very few have mentioned it as a criticism, is that I suspect that most of the "studies" on training protocols are fundamentally flawed.
If you look at the precribed protocols on things like legs, they are impossible to do the way they are described. Tons of squats to failure with like a minute rest between sets and things like that. So what good are these studies in real world application?

I didn't watch the video but am familiar with him, so I don't know if he mentioned what I posted.

Watch the video because he literally addresses all of that instead replying with preconceived notions. I even said he’s critical of only using studies.
I’m not a fan Mike Isratel(?) or Brad Nichols or the new religious science based dogmatic cult either.

 

[FK86]

All this science is ultimately useless unless using androgens. What I mean by that is that this guy will not be identified as a bb or even a weightlifter when in a t-shirt. So what has this knowledge amounted to and how does it help someone with his level of genetics and drug status who wants to "gain muscle"? They will gain a few pounds at first and then sit there for decades regardless of training method.

But what really gets me, and only very few have mentioned it as a criticism, is that I suspect that most of the "studies" on training protocols are fundamentally flawed.
If you look at the precribed protocols on things like legs, they are impossible to do the way they are described. Tons of squats to failure with like a minute rest between sets and things like that. So what good are these studies in real world application?

I didn't watch the video but am familiar with him, so I don't know if he mentioned what I posted.

Great point. The hard truth about this whole game is this: everyone can make improvements, but you either have it or you don't. I do not. I would have been much better served finding another hobby, but I do love training, so that's why I continue.

While it takes years to make changes, the people that have it will know early on. All the science in the world won't make a difference because they have it. I always use Lee Haney as an example. Listen to him talk about isolation exercises "carving in detail" and how certain workouts are for mass and others for defintion and it's clear he doesn't know what works because he doesn't have to.

And whether someone uses gear or not, all people have to work hard. But let's acknowledge that AAS rasies the ceiling on what can be achieved subSTANTIALLY. Natural competitors are onstage weighing in the 170's while everyone at the O is in the neighborhood of the 270's. That's 100 lbs. Add a superior response to everything and we all get left behind.

 

[KillerStack]

Great point. The hard truth about this whole game is this: everyone can make improvements, but you either have it or you don't. I do not. I would have been much better served finding another hobby, but I do love training, so that's why I continue.

While it takes years to make changes, the people that have it will know early on. All the science in the world won't make a difference because they have it. I always use Lee Haney as an example. Listen to him talk about isolation exercises "carving in detail" and how certain workouts are for mass and others for defintion and it's clear he doesn't know what works because he doesn't have to.

And whether someone uses gear or not, all people have to work hard. But let's acknowledge that AAS rasies the ceiling on what can be achieved subSTANTIALLY. Natural competitors are onstage weighing in the 170's while everyone at the O is in the neighborhood of the 270's. That's 100 lbs. Add a superior response to everything and we all get left behind.

Yup. It's like, what's the practical relevance of all this? I'm a bit nerdy myself so I get it to a point but all these details like should you eat 3 or 4 or 6 times a day to optimize muscle growth - ultimately it doesn't matter in 99% of cases, especially for a natural. Someone like Brad most likely had more muscle 30 years ago when he knew way less. Some newbies are no doubt reading Brad's stuff and have some IG fitness model's physique in mind as a potential goal. The truth is that it's a drug dependant look, not a scientific feeding or training schedule that's responsible for 99% of the physique. Drugs and genes.

 

[Elvia1023]

Yup. It's like, what's the practical relevance of all this? I'm a bit nerdy myself so I get it to a point but all these details like should you eat 3 or 4 or 6 times a day to optimize muscle growth - ultimately it doesn't matter in 99% of cases, especially for a natural. Someone like Brad most likely had more muscle 30 years ago when he knew way less. Some newbies are no doubt reading Brad's stuff and have some IG fitness model's physique in mind as a potential goal. The truth is that it's a drug dependant look, not a scientific feeding or training schedule that's responsible for 99% of the physique. Drugs and genes.

I can think of a few people who just overcomplicate the shit out of this stuff. Plus as you probably know I love my details as well and I am far from a meathead in how I go about things. Like you I also try to optimize training (and all areas) so I can get very detailed but I see certain people just go to town with it and it's often to sell a training or drug program and it's often just being complex to be different and in the real world it makes no real difference. Sometimes there may be no motive of money involved and it's just because it's their personality and they do it with all areas in life. Now if someone is lifting incorrectly and not targeting their muscle effectively due to poor execution that is different but some of the training systems I see are just over the top. If you over complicate the shit out of things and sound intelligent in the process people will buy into it though. Combine all of that with an internet following and you can have a steady flow of income every month. Most of the people at the top are doing the more basic stuff just consistently.

 

[td]

Brad is doing some of the best research in this space. He's one of the "good guys." He readily acknowledges some of the challenges of experimental design, especially for a highly trained population.

Whether you realize it or not, you benefit from "science." Much of the world has seemed to forget that "science" is simply a systematic problem solving methodology. It is certainly laboratory experiments but it's much more than that.

Take this real world example. @DOGGCRAPP noticed that nearly all the biggest bodybuilders were also the strongest. That lead him to the basis of a hypothesis. Getting really strong at a multitude of movements and will directly lead to muscle gain.

The next step is to test the hypothesis. Analyze the results. Adjust the hypothesis as needed. Repeat.

That's "science" too.

 

[N.L....M.....]

Brad is doing some of the best research in this space. He's one of the "good guys." He readily acknowledges some of the challenges of experimental design, especially for a highly trained population.

Whether you realize it or not, you benefit from "science." Much of the world has seemed to forget that "science" is simply a systematic problem solving methodology. It is certainly laboratory experiments but it's much more than that.

Take this real world example. @DOGGCRAPP noticed that nearly all the biggest bodybuilders were also the strongest. That lead him to the basis of a hypothesis. Getting really strong at a multitude of movements and will directly lead to muscle gain.

The next step is to test the hypothesis. Analyze the results. Adjust the hypothesis as needed. Repeat.

That's "science" too.

A lot of people confuse and misrepresent what science is as if it’s a thing or a religion. Science isn’t a research paper or a person or a group of people. I really appreciate what you’ve said here.
Fact of the matter is it doesn’t even sound like most who responded here even gave it a quick listen. It’s funny when people bash “science” I’m not really certain exactly what they’re bashing.

 

[Elvia1023]

A lot of people confuse and misrepresent what science is as if it’s a thing or a religion. Science isn’t a research paper or a person or a group of people. I really appreciate what you’ve said here.
Fact of the matter is it doesn’t even sound like most who responded here even gave it a quick listen. It’s funny when people bash “science” I’m not really certain exactly what they’re bashing.

Yes my post had nothing to do with the video or Brad Schoenfeld or science in general. Improvements in science only assist bodybuilding through time. My post was just in reply to KS's post and what I see in the bodybuilding industry as a whole. The more people with a science background who study everything involved in bodybuilding the better so we can gain a better understanding of training, nutrition, supplements and drugs through time. When I get a chance to listen to the podcast I will reply to your original post.

 

[KillerStack]

A lot of people confuse and misrepresent what science is as if it’s a thing or a religion. Science isn’t a research paper or a person or a group of people. I really appreciate what you’ve said here.
Fact of the matter is it doesn’t even sound like most who responded here even gave it a quick listen. It’s funny when people bash “science” I’m not really certain exactly what they’re bashing.

I didn't listen to it because I've read Brad's stuff for years. I listened to a small part only and I already knew what he was going to say, for example wrt to meal frequency, I knew he was going to say 4 meals seems best.
I'm not against science, far from it. I always take issue with meatheads bashing science.
What irritates me with this stuff is the context, they don't say how irrelevant all this is in the real world. The readers want bodies that are drug dependant, even the tiny ones.
It's not meal frequency or training program that is holding back anyone, not really. No natural is going to see much of anything from increasing his meal frequency from 3 to 4.
And the second point, like I said, the research design makes me think all his studies are fundamentally flawed, even for a beginner. No one does 10 sets of squats to failure with less than a minute rest between sets as an example, it can't be done. Brad has likely never done a set of squats to failure in his life. What is failure in these studies?

Lyle McDonald whom I hate/love has trashed Brad to no end for his studies for various methodological faults. Now Lyle has his own problems, he really has no standing to lecture people about what failure is, not with his tiny body and tiny strength level, never having trained at a high level himself, but he frequently makes good points nonetheless.

 

[N.L....M.....]

I didn't listen to it because I've read Brad's stuff for years. I listened to a small part only and I already knew what he was going to say, for example wrt to meal frequency, I knew he was going to say 4 meals seems best.
I'm not against science, far from it. I always take issue with meatheads bashing science.
What irritates me with this stuff is the context, they don't say how irrelevant all this is in the real world. The readers want bodies that are drug dependant, even the tiny ones.
It's not meal frequency or training program that is holding back anyone, not really. No natural is going to see much of anything from increasing his meal frequency from 3 to 4.
And the second point, like I said, the research design makes me think all his studies are fundamentally flawed, even for a beginner. No one does 10 sets of squats to failure with less than a minute rest between sets as an example, it can't be done. Brad has likely never done a set of squats to failure in his life. What is failure in these studies?

Lyle McDonald whom I hate/love has trashed Brad to no end for his studies for various methodological faults. Now Lyle has his own problems, he really has no standing to lecture people about what failure is, not with his tiny body and tiny strength level, never having trained at a high level himself, but he frequently makes good points nonetheless.

I understand your criticism however he does address a lot of things in the interview that was quite surprising to me. He’s not lecturing anyone here. I think this is a good interview especially for the stronger by science zealots to hear. I don’t need a study to show me that more protein=more recovery and more growth and most studies aren’t applicable because they really haven’t been done but I was suprised but his answers to Fouads questions and how he addressed these.

 

[jeroendebleser]

Yup. It's like, what's the practical relevance of all this? I'm a bit nerdy myself so I get it to a point but all these details like should you eat 3 or 4 or 6 times a day to optimize muscle growth - ultimately it doesn't matter in 99% of cases, especially for a natural. Someone like Brad most likely had more muscle 30 years ago when he knew way less. Some newbies are no doubt reading Brad's stuff and have some IG fitness model's physique in mind as a potential goal. The truth is that it's a drug dependant look, not a scientific feeding or training schedule that's responsible for 99% of the physique. Drugs and genes.

That's entirely true KS but remember, people have to do something with their time and will do so studying the most useless things in many cases. I'm a Communication Scientist by education and I'm sometimes ashamed of the amount of money we receive to set up studies looking into complete BS subjects

Or maybe I should put a instead because it's the taxpayers that are paying for it essentially.

At least these hypertrophy studies have SOME relevance/merit, even if only for those doing this entirely naturally. (Which would be the overwhelming majority of trainees still)

I do also agree that a lot of the hypertrophy studies are flawed, the example you gave is a perfect example... You don't do a set of squats to failure, rest for only a minute and then do it again and again. No way.

But Brad Schoenfeld, Menno Henselmans and Layne Norton are basically the 3 only people I still follow regarding training and nutrition. Those 3 are good to go in my book. They're also natural trainees which I think is not unimportant if you want to get valid information not skewed by PED-usage.

 

[jeroendebleser]

Brad is doing some of the best research in this space. He's one of the "good guys." He readily acknowledges some of the challenges of experimental design, especially for a highly trained population.

Whether you realize it or not, you benefit from "science." Much of the world has seemed to forget that "science" is simply a systematic problem solving methodology. It is certainly laboratory experiments but it's much more than that.

Take this real world example. @DOGGCRAPP noticed that nearly all the biggest bodybuilders were also the strongest. That lead him to the basis of a hypothesis. Getting really strong at a multitude of movements and will directly lead to muscle gain.

The next step is to test the hypothesis. Analyze the results. Adjust the hypothesis as needed. Repeat.

That's "science" too.

I agree with everything you said except there's one thing I was never fully convinced of: are those BB'ers the biggest ones because they are the strongest ones or... Are they the strongest ones because they are the biggest ones?

Scott Abel always used to say the latter, they can use the weights they use because they are the size they are and not the other way around.

Throughout the years I've seen so many underdevelopped BB'ers lifting big weights for reps (big weights relative to their size) which makes me doubt that (exact) correlation between strength and size a bit.

 

[TheOtherOne55]

I didn't listen to it because I've read Brad's stuff for years. I listened to a small part only and I already knew what he was going to say, for example wrt to meal frequency, I knew he was going to say 4 meals seems best.
I'm not against science, far from it. I always take issue with meatheads bashing science.
What irritates me with this stuff is the context, they don't say how irrelevant all this is in the real world. The readers want bodies that are drug dependant, even the tiny ones.
It's not meal frequency or training program that is holding back anyone, not really. No natural is going to see much of anything from increasing his meal frequency from 3 to 4.
And the second point, like I said, the research design makes me think all his studies are fundamentally flawed, even for a beginner. No one does 10 sets of squats to failure with less than a minute rest between sets as an example, it can't be done. Brad has likely never done a set of squats to failure in his life. What is failure in these studies?

Lyle McDonald whom I hate/love has trashed Brad to no end for his studies for various methodological faults. Now Lyle has his own problems, he really has no standing to lecture people about what failure is, not with his tiny body and tiny strength level, never having trained at a high level himself, but he frequently makes good points nonetheless.

100% agree. Most of Brad's info is pretty straight forward and obvious.
I personally just cannot get into his stuff about volume recommendations. Like you said Killer, the studies are so flawed its insane.The reports from the participants shows they are either A. lying or B. likely newbies to training intensity.
So basically, NO ONE of the recommendations on that stuff is worth a crap.
10 sets of failure (squats) with 1 min rest in between then immediately moving onto leg press and doing the same? uhhh, no.

Honestly, Fouad had this guy on just as the token scientist to counter a ton of the broscience crap that's out there.

 

[Biggerp73]

A lot of people confuse and misrepresent what science is as if it’s a thing or a religion. Science isn’t a research paper or a person or a group of people. I really appreciate what you’ve said here.
Fact of the matter is it doesn’t even sound like most who responded here even gave it a quick listen. It’s funny when people bash “science” I’m not really certain exactly what they’re bashing.

Off topic, but this reminds me of a quote from CS Lewis.

"Science works by experiments. It watches how things behave. Every scientific statement in the long run, however complicated it looks, really means something like, 'I pointed the telescope to such and such a part of the sky at 2:20 a.m. on January 15th and saw so-and-so,' or, 'I put some of this stuff in a pot and heated it to such-and-such a temperature and it did so-and-so.' Do not think I am saying anything against science: I am only saying what its job is.

And the more scientific a man is, the more (I believe) he would agree with me that this is the job of science--and a very useful and necessary job it is too. But why anything comes to be there at all, and whether there is anything behind the things science observes--something of a different kind--this is not a scientific question. If there is 'Something Behind,' then either it will have to remain altogether unknown to men or else make itself known in some different way. The statement that there is any such thing, and the statement that there is no such thing, are neither of them statements that science can make. And real scientists do not usually make them. It is usually the journalists and popular novelists who have picked up a few odds and ends of half-baked science from textbooks who go in for them. After all, it is really a matter of common sense. Supposing science ever became complete so that it knew every single thing in the whole universe. Is it not plain that the questions, 'Why is there a universe?' 'Why does it go on as it does?' 'Has it any meaning?' would remain just as they were?"

 

[danieltx]

I agree with everything you said except there's one thing I was never fully convinced of: are those BB'ers the biggest ones because they are the strongest ones or... Are they the strongest ones because they are the biggest ones?

Scott Abel always used to say the latter, they can use the weights they use because they are the size they are and not the other way around.

Throughout the years I've seen so many underdevelopped BB'ers lifting big weights for reps (big weights relative to their size) which makes me doubt that (exact) correlation between strength and size a bit.

You see underdeveloped bodybuilders lift big weights because they don't actually know how to lift with their muscles - that's why they're underdeveloped. It's why 175lb. powerlifters bench 405lbs. Their CNS / skeletal system / tendons / etc. are well-trained but their muscles aren't. This is the majority of guys in any gym - they train movements, not muscles.

Nobody comes out of the womb at 250-300lbs. The biggest guys got that way because they kept lifting more and more weight.

 

[KillerStack]

That's entirely true KS but remember, people have to do something with their time and will do so studying the most useless things in many cases. I'm a Communication Scientist by education and I'm sometimes ashamed of the amount of money we receive to set up studies looking into complete BS subjects

Or maybe I should put a instead because it's the taxpayers that are paying for it essentially.

At least these hypertrophy studies have SOME relevance/merit, even if only for those doing this entirely naturally. (Which would be the overwhelming majority of trainees still)

I do also agree that a lot of the hypertrophy studies are flawed, the example you gave is a perfect example... You don't do a set of squats to failure, rest for only a minute and then do it again and again. No way.

But Brad Schoenfeld, Menno Henselmans and Layne Norton are basically the 3 only people I still follow regarding training and nutrition. Those 3 are good to go in my book. They're also natural trainees which I think is not unimportant if you want to get valid information not skewed by PED-usage.

I mean I've nerded out and spent an insane amount of time reading about training related stuff over the years. Layne has good basic info but there's nothing really new so it's wasted time to read him to be honest.
I've enjoyed Lyle McDonald a lot, though he has a difficult personality lol. Sometimes it's good because he calls out some "experts" like Layne and Brad on their circle-jerk BS.

 

[Elvia1023]

100% agree. Most of Brad's info is pretty straight forward and obvious.
I personally just cannot get into his stuff about volume recommendations. Like you said Killer, the studies are so flawed its insane.The reports from the participants shows they are either A. lying or B. likely newbies to training intensity.
So basically, NO ONE of the recommendations on that stuff is worth a crap.
10 sets of failure (squats) with 1 min rest in between then immediately moving onto leg press and doing the same? uhhh, no.

Honestly, Fouad had this guy on just as the token scientist to counter a ton of the broscience crap that's out there.

Exactly.

I listened to the entire podcast last night. I have seen some stuff on this guy in the past but never really looked into any real detail so he is fairly new to me. I think he came across very well in the podcast. However, it's all very basic and straight forward. That podcast would be great for a newbie in the gym and they could pick up some great tips. All of us have been doing this stuff for years and science does prove or disprove things over time but it's very much behind because we have been conducting experiments in and out of the gym year after year and for many of us even decades.

 

[hawkmoon]

I thought it was a great podcast and really respect the work Brad is doing. No one is pursuing this field like him, and we should be grateful for what he shares.
Andy Galpin is another one that should be followed.

He was very clear in his stance that science and "work in the trenches" are complementary and not in opposition.
He was also clear that favoring one over the other only leaves the observer in a disadvantaged situation.

I like the way he clarified why we don't know much about advanced bodybuilders, particularly those enhanced.
I'm sure he would love to have 50 pro bodybuilders in a study following a strict protocol, but that will never happen, as no serious bodybuilder would abandon all their methods for 10+ weeks of controlled research.

 

[N.L....M.....]

I thought it was a great podcast and really respect the work Brad is doing. No one is pursuing this field like him, and we should be grateful for what he shares.
Andy Galpin is another one that should be followed.

He was very clear in his stance that science and "work in the trenches" are complementary and not in opposition.
He was also clear that favoring one over the other only leaves the observer in a disadvantaged situation.

I like the way he clarified why we don't know much about advanced bodybuilders, particularly those enhanced.
I'm sure he would love to have 50 pro bodybuilders in a study following a strict protocol, but that will never happen, as no serious bodybuilder would abandon all their methods for 10+ weeks of controlled research.

Very well said.