Worst side effects of PEDs Dr. Mike

[Flex500]

And most of those guys at the gym just don’t really have the discipline to get really lean.
So they try to bulk up even when their bodyfat is around 15/16, make no progress while feeling like shit then going on a half ass cut. I always notice the guys who make the most impressive gains started off really lean/shredded. It all comes back to diet

and so I don't come off too negative I'll raise my hand and say that was me perpetually in my low 20's. Could cut to 10% but no discipline to get below that so would bulk to 15% and back and forth. Truly did not have the mental willpower to get to single digits.

 

[d4ve]

Yup. A recipe to overcomplicatie training and not train hard is to do what he says. Him and Jeff nippard and menno, those two know the scientific studies but don't look like they train. Israetel is all about frequency, rir, and his favorite terms "stimulus to fatigue ratio" and "junk volume." I think people can gain better knowledge reading forums and articles from the late 90s and early 2000s or watch Sam sulek or Steve Shaw to be honest. Nothing against Mike I also can't watch most of his videos. One time he analyzed a pros training, he has a few videos like this, but there was very little training talk just him cracking a bunch of jokes about penises and farts and whorehouses.

Stimulus to fatigue ratio has become a triggering phrase for me. I get the point - some exercises incur more fatigue than their stimulus is worth...in certain contexts. It's a fine concept to apply when you're really big and really strong. E.g. I finally dropped my pet lift - any and all deadlift variations - after literally decades of hammering them and building a huge set of glutes and erectors. At that point, they came at a huge recovery (and time) cost that was better spent on more rows.

But it's as if all these gurus and their supposedly intelligent followers don't understand that a ratio involves TWO numbers...never mind the fact that nobody's ever actually quantifying them, either. Oh, that one-arm, pinky-twisting, 30-degrees trunk rotating cable pull-down with a 4-2-4 tempo has an SFR of, let's say, 5 : 1...each number on a scale from 0 to 100. WOW, a 5-to-1 ratio.

But hold up...a proper barbell row, DB row, or deadlift has an SFR of 90 : 30. Yea, the ratio is "worse." But those movements will actually make your tiny body grow, while you're really just fiddle fucking around on the other movement. You actually need some mass to make use of that stuff, and you actually need some strength before you worry THAT much about the fatigue you get from almost any movement.

 

[Big Dave Smith]

Stimulus to fatigue ratio has become a triggering phrase for me. I get the point - some exercises incur more fatigue than their stimulus is worth...in certain contexts. It's a fine concept to apply when you're really big and really strong. E.g. I finally dropped my pet lift - any and all deadlift variations - after literally decades of hammering them and building a huge set of glutes and erectors. At that point, they came at a huge recovery (and time) cost that was better spent on more rows.

But it's as if all these gurus and their supposedly intelligent followers don't understand that a ratio involves TWO numbers...never mind the fact that nobody's ever actually quantifying them, either. Oh, that one-arm, pinky-twisting, 30-degrees trunk rotating cable pull-down with a 4-2-4 tempo has an SFR of, let's say, 5 : 1...each number on a scale from 0 to 100. WOW, a 5-to-1 ratio.

But hold up...a proper barbell row, DB row, or deadlift has an SFR of 90 : 30. Yea, the ratio is "worse." But those movements will actually make your tiny body grow, while you're really just fiddle fucking around on the other movement. You actually need some mass to make use of that stuff, and you actually need some strength before you worry THAT much about the fatigue you get from almost any movement.

Comparing two extremes with false context isn’t fair.

One arm pulldowns can be done with high intensity, and deadlifts/rows can be overly nuanced.

Glamorizing school stuff is silly and stupid. Vilifying new stuff is also silly and stupid.

People forget that old school wasn’t the best, nor the worst. It’s just all they had at the time.

Use the right tool for the right job.

I get nothing from barbell rows. The effort needed to stabilize the bar path reduces the load I can put on my lats. Nothing will change that.

It’s those who use the tools incorrectly that are the ones to blame.

Social media is the new MuscleMag/MD/Flex.

New content needed all the time. Make new shit up all the time. Some ideas are good… but new ideas are likely to be more competitive than they are to be had for solving problems. We experienced the same thing in the 80’s/90’s/2000’s.

Some things never change, but the platforms do.

 

[Siggy]

I get nothing from barbell rows. The effort needed to stabilize the bar path reduces the load I can put on my lats. Nothing will change that.

It’s those who use the tools incorrectly that are the ones to blame.

Social media is the new MuscleMag/MD/Flex.

New content needed all the time. Make new shit up all the time. Some ideas are good… but new ideas are likely to be more competitive than they are to be had for solving problems. We experienced the same thing in the 80’s/90’s/2000’s.

Some things never change, but the platforms do.

Same here. I get zero back muscle activation with barbell rows, it becomes a biceps workout for me.

 

[qbkilla]

Stimulus to fatigue ratio has become a triggering phrase for me. I get the point - some exercises incur more fatigue than their stimulus is worth...in certain contexts. It's a fine concept to apply when you're really big and really strong. E.g. I finally dropped my pet lift - any and all deadlift variations - after literally decades of hammering them and building a huge set of glutes and erectors. At that point, they came at a huge recovery (and time) cost that was better spent on more rows.

But it's as if all these gurus and their supposedly intelligent followers don't understand that a ratio involves TWO numbers...never mind the fact that nobody's ever actually quantifying them, either. Oh, that one-arm, pinky-twisting, 30-degrees trunk rotating cable pull-down with a 4-2-4 tempo has an SFR of, let's say, 5 : 1...each number on a scale from 0 to 100. WOW, a 5-to-1 ratio.

But hold up...a proper barbell row, DB row, or deadlift has an SFR of 90 : 30. Yea, the ratio is "worse." But those movements will actually make your tiny body grow, while you're really just fiddle fucking around on the other movement. You actually need some mass to make use of that stuff, and you actually need some strength before you worry THAT much about the fatigue you get from almost any movement.

Agree. Basically it seems like all these evidence based guys demonize failure because they say it's too fatiguing. Then, they promote high volume. So essentially they tell us to limit failure and intensity techniques so we can train more frequent and add more sets. Seems ass backwards. I saw someone here post a while ago intensity should dictate volume... IMO...this is the right approach. Another thing is they promote rir over failure universally. I get it for deads, squats, etc. But if anyone is afraid of going to failure on lateral raises, cable tricep press downs...to me that's silly. Then they use the term junk volume to promote frequency. So essentially "full body 3x a week great, bro split bad". Per this claim doing 12 sets for say triceps is "junk volume" because your so fatigued by the 11th and 12th set they are pointless. So their solution is ppl 2x a week. Essentially saying 6 sets of triceps 2x a week after you hit back and shoulders is better than training them fresh in a day where your only hitting triceps and biceps. To me this is Also silly. Look at legs for example. If someone wants to dedicate 2 days fo legs, I'd rather have a quad/calf day then a hammy/glute day...than have 2 days where I hit quads, hams, glutes, and calves with half the volume. I know a few big guys here have 2 weekly leg days and they dedicate one day to quads then hams. I get the scientific rational but I don't think it works well in practice.

 

[danieltx]

Agree. Basically it seems like all these evidence based guys demonize failure because they say it's too fatiguing. Then, they promote high volume. So essentially they tell us to limit failure and intensity techniques so we can train more frequent and add more sets. Seems ass backwards. I saw someone here post a while ago intensity should dictate volume... IMO...this is the right approach. Another thing is they promote rir over failure universally. I get it for deads, squats, etc. But if anyone is afraid of going to failure on lateral raises, cable tricep press downs...to me that's silly. Then they use the term junk volume to promote frequency. So essentially "full body 3x a week great, bro split bad". Per this claim doing 12 sets for say triceps is "junk volume" because your so fatigued by the 11th and 12th set they are pointless. So their solution is ppl 2x a week. Essentially saying 6 sets of triceps 2x a week after you hit back and shoulders is better than training them fresh in a day where your only hitting triceps and biceps. To me this is Also silly. Look at legs for example. If someone wants to dedicate 2 days fo legs, I'd rather have a quad/calf day then a hammy/glute day...than have 2 days where I hit quads, hams, glutes, and calves with half the volume. I know a few big guys here have 2 weekly leg days and they dedicate one day to quads then hams. I get the scientific rational but I don't think it works well in practice.

I've held back on commenting on your posts but it's time.

You acknowledge 'big guys' here have two legs days, one for quads and one for hams, then say you don't think it works well in practice. After acknowledging it's what the big guys - the guys who have big legs - do.

My brain's too overloaded to say anything more. Actually I'll say this - you have no clue about what works well in practice for being big and you shouldn't be giving your thoughts on it.

 

[hostin90]

I was just reminded of this time wrestling practice in high school where this big guy 100lbs bigger body slammed me. His nickname was “rhino” because he was shaped like a rhinoceros.

I was seeing stars for the rest of the semester

 

[qbkilla]

I've held back on commenting on your posts but it's time.

You acknowledge 'big guys' here have two legs days, one for quads and one for hams, then say you don't think it works well in practice. After acknowledging it's what the big guys - the guys who have big legs - do.

My brain's too overloaded to say anything more. Actually I'll say this - you have no clue about what works well in practice for being big and you shouldn't be giving your thoughts on it.

For whatever reason, not my problem, you seem to have a very profound dislike of me so maybe that affected your reading comprehension of my post. Or maybe I worded it poorly. Regardless...

The part you highlighted was me saying the "scientific way" aka the way frequency zealots like Mike do things...is what does not work well in practice.

So although my post seemed to draw your wrath, I was actually referencing you and a few others as the practical way. And mikes way, as less practical.

 

[bbxtreme]

For whatever reason, not my problem, you seem to have a very profound dislike of me so maybe that affected your reading comprehension of my post. Or maybe I worded it poorly. Regardless...

The part you highlighted was me saying the "scientific way" aka the way frequency zealots like Mike do things...is what does not work well in practice.

So although my post seemed to draw your wrath, I was actually referencing you and a few others as the practical way. And mikes way, as less practical.

I think you just phrased it backwards man. I think you meant splitting hams and quads doesn’t make sense on paper but works in application.

It clearly does as most top guys are using it. Lol And keep in mind most of them, like me do touch up or pump work on the opposing day. So we are strategically hitting legs twice in a week.

 

[qbkilla]

I think you just phrased it backwards man. I think you meant splitting hams and quads doesn’t make sense on paper but works in application.

It clearly does as most top guys are using it. Lol And keep in mind most of them, like me do touch up or pump work on the opposing day. So we are strategically hitting legs twice in a week.

Correct. I was implying the "frequency/scientific way" of hitting the entire leg 2x a week evenly looks good in paper but doesn't work as well in practice . And cited you and a few others here who do more of a quad focused day and ham focused day (when giving legs 2 days). I believe I asked you a few days ago and you about structuring the 2 leg days so I'm definitely following your advice over the mennos, nippards, and scholfields of the world.

 

[bbxtreme]

Correct. I was implying the "frequency/scientific way" of hitting the entire leg 2x a week evenly looks good in paper but doesn't work as well in practice . And cited you and a few others here who do more of a quad focused day and ham focused day (when giving legs 2 days). I believe I asked you a few days ago and you about structuring the 2 leg days so I'm definitely following your advice over the mennos, nippards, and scholfields of the world.

My legs are still my biggest weakness, but what I was able to do in my last off season to bring them up to where I have for my last win I fully attribute to my set up of splitting them.

It’s a creative way to defy science to gain more size.

 

[aHarness]

I'm definitely following your advice over the mennos, nippards, and scholfields of the world.

The amount of times you mention these guys and bring them up is pretty crazy considering you say you don’t even listen to them. Just saying.

 

[luki7788]

Correct. I was implying the "frequency/scientific way" of hitting the entire leg 2x a week evenly looks good in paper but doesn't work as well in practice . And cited you and a few others here who do more of a quad focused day and ham focused day (when giving legs 2 days). I believe I asked you a few days ago and you about structuring the 2 leg days so I'm definitely following your advice over the mennos, nippards, and scholfields of the world.

what difference does it make what you do in training if it's your gear and diet that don't let you grow and not bad training

 

[Doitagain]

The amount of times you mention these guys and bring them up is pretty crazy considering you say you don’t even listen to them. Just saying.

Really impossible not to notice it.

 

[qbkilla]

The amount of times you mention these guys and bring them up is pretty crazy considering you say you don’t even listen to them. Just saying.

Your not wrong. I try and listen to a wide variety of sources. Both the evidence based "science nerds" and then guys who have had success just keeps it basic.. bodybuilders..powerlifters... calesthenics channels. Just like the news best to get from a variety of sources.

 

[qbkilla]

what difference does it make what you do in training if it's your gear and diet that don't let you grow and not bad training

Your correct...and the reason why I don't consider myself a bodybuilder. But as I grow older and want to retain my look I believe bodybuilding type training is what best serves me. Plus, I just genuinely enjoy training.

 

[hostin90]

Your correct...and the reason why I don't consider myself a bodybuilder. But as I grow older and want to retain my look I believe bodybuilding type training is what best serves me. Plus, I just genuinely enjoy training.

You gotta fight back man otherwise they’ll keep walking over you

 

[qbkilla]

You gotta fight back man otherwise they’ll keep walking over you

Lol too old for that...stress and drama even from the Internet forums I try to avoid. But I didn't take lukis comment as a negative he is correct...for health reasons and just how I want to look year round... calories and gear limit me ...not training. However I am working to bring up my legs so I have bumped up food + AAS while adding a second leg day...then will assess from there.

 

[bbxtreme]

Lol too old for that...stress and drama even from the Internet forums I try to avoid. But I didn't take lukis comment as a negative he is correct...for health reasons and just how I want to look year round... calories and gear limit me ...not training. However I am working to bring up my legs so I have bumped up food + AAS while adding a second leg day...then will assess from there.

For the record I wasn’t beating up on you man. You’ve covered this topic enough that I knew what you were trying to say.

All of us hardcore guys on here and competitors will one day do this as a lifestyle.

I don’t expect anyone to put in the same level that I do to this sport at this point in my life.

You’re here, making an effort and actually train. More than some members can say.

 

[Big Dave Smith]

Agree. Basically it seems like all these evidence based guys demonize failure because they say it's too fatiguing. Then, they promote high volume. So essentially they tell us to limit failure and intensity techniques so we can train more frequent and add more sets. Seems ass backwards. I saw someone here post a while ago intensity should dictate volume... IMO...this is the right approach. Another thing is they promote rir over failure universally. I get it for deads, squats, etc. But if anyone is afraid of going to failure on lateral raises, cable tricep press downs...to me that's silly. Then they use the term junk volume to promote frequency. So essentially "full body 3x a week great, bro split bad". Per this claim doing 12 sets for say triceps is "junk volume" because your so fatigued by the 11th and 12th set they are pointless. So their solution is ppl 2x a week. Essentially saying 6 sets of triceps 2x a week after you hit back and shoulders is better than training them fresh in a day where your only hitting triceps and biceps. To me this is Also silly. Look at legs for example. If someone wants to dedicate 2 days fo legs, I'd rather have a quad/calf day then a hammy/glute day...than have 2 days where I hit quads, hams, glutes, and calves with half the volume. I know a few big guys here have 2 weekly leg days and they dedicate one day to quads then hams. I get the scientific rational but I don't think it works well in practice.his is comparing two things without concerning what matters.

You’re comparing things on extreme ends that are more of a personal choice, and the context is missing for most of the situations above.

What really matters is…

1- Progression. Neither RIR nor high intensity will be effective long term unless you apply the principles of progressive overload. The overall numbers, regardless of the method, must improve.

2- Progressively more food to grow. If you keep calories at maintenance, neither method will do anything but keep your wheels spinning in place.

3- If on PED’s, slowly progressing your dose to see how much you need to match your training and nutrition.


I’ve used bro splits… all the DC splits… Fortitude (very high frequency), splits catered around schedule needs, and splits needed for personal/specific improvement. I’ve trained with DC (was an actual client of Dante), with Scott Stevenson (Fortitude), and on my own.

80-90% of real bodybuilding is the consistency of your food, your judgement calls and decisions about your diet/drugs/training, and your ability to progress in whatever training methods you’ve chosen. Also, factor in staying as injury free as possible.

Some of these debates are just so pointless. It’s a sport about outcomes. Show me the people walking around like total monsters, and I’ll show you what they all have in common… which is what listed above.

How many monsters are on this board? What guys on here can compete at heavy or superheavy, or guys on here (under 6’0”) north of 250lbs at sub 10%?

Most of these debates are being fueled by those who are NOT those people. It’s no coincidence.