#6 Is Exercise Science KILLING your GAINS? Or "science-based" content creators? with Alexander Bromley

In Part 2 with Dr. De Souza, we get a sneak peak into a study that hasn't been published yet, but contrasting to the "52 weekly set" paper, this one did not find higher volume to be better for hypertrophy. In the second hour, we take on the topic of lengthened partials in a bit of a debate format, where Kassem takes on the position to defend the lengthened partials, and finishes with his actual nuanced thoughts on lengthened biased training and training variability.

Part 1 of 2 with Dr. Eduardo De Souza whose lab has been doing ton's of studies on volume including the famous 52 weekly sets study. We start the discussion with a much needed preface of how confident are we actually in measuring hypertrophy outcomes. Then we progress into the validity of studies on high volume. In part 2 we will continue the discussion on volume including discussing some yet to be published work that may surprise you, and we will finish off with a debate on long muscle lengths and lengthened partials. This is where your favorite influencers and coaches get their information and inspiration.

Dr Eric Helms returns for another episode of The N1 Experience. This time exercise science is on the ropes and Kassem challenges Eric to white pill him on the current state of exercise science communication. This episode really peels back the curtain on exercise science, and some of the harsh realities consumers face navigating social media and when trying to know who to trust.

Should you trust someone because they have a PhD? Real Doctor, Dr. Pak (@dr__pak) is on to defend science and all her glory. I challenge the quality of "science-based" content, and the use of science as a marketing hype by "bad actors". What's the difference between a sports scientist and an exercise scientist, and how well do the understand the foundational science for the field or training (anatomy, biomechanics, physics etc). As a bonus we also discussed his recent publication "Optimizing Resistance Training Technique to Maximize Muscle Hypertrophy: A Narrative Review". with Dr Milo Wolf, Max Coleman, Ryan Burke, Alec Piñero, Jeff Nippard, and Brad J. Schoenfeld,

Recently Alex published a video titled "Exercise Science is Killing Your Gains" This prompted a lot of discussions, one with Dr Pak and Dr Milo Wolf that "went nowhere" - to quote Eric Helms, as well as Eric's own reaction on Iron culture Still I think a lot of people, myself included were left wanting to dig deeper into the rise of anti-science sentiments in the fitness community while simultaneously there is more so called "science-based" content popping up than ever. So I sat down with Alex, Dr Pak, and Dr Helms for about 2 hours each to peel back the layers on this topic, and at the end I will give you final thoughts. If you are like me and you enjoy these somewhat philosophical conversations about our industry, and how to navigate it and make it better, then you'll get value out of the next hours of discussion.

Kassem and Zac discuss the recent meta regression and how that compares to the previous meta analysis on training to failure. In the second half, Zac ask Kassem about some of the nuances of exercise selection in regards to training to failure. 00:03:21 - Summary of the Meta Regression 00:08:40 - Comparing the Meta Regression to the previous Meta analysis 00:13:12 - Discussing the RIR estimations 00:21:37 - What are the biggest take aways from the two Metas, and single studies.00:33:26 - The non linear relationship of RIR as you approach momentary failure. 00:42:50 - Getting into the nuances of exercise selection variables on failure. You can find Zac on instagram @zac.datadrivenstrength

On this Episode of the N1 Experience Kassem sits down with Daniel Plotkin, the lead author of the 2023 study comparing the squat vs the hip thrust for glute hypertrophy.  Also on todays episode is Milo Wolf, who is at the forefront of the research on range of motion for hypertrophy.  Together they give a much needed breakdown of the current research on glute training and what if anything this new study changes in how they approach programming for glute growth.

On this Episode of the N1 Experience Kassem sits down with Daniel Plotkin, the lead author of the 2023 study comparing the squat vs the hip thrust for glute hypertrophy.  Also on todays episode is Milo Wolf, who is at the forefront of the research on range of motion for hypertrophy.  Together they give a much needed breakdown of the current research on glute training and what if anything this new study changes in how they approach programming for glute growth. 00:02:44 - Squat Depth Study - Kubo Et al 00:12:25 - Adding Hip Thrust/Volume study Kassiano Et al  00:24:21 -  The Barbalho Study controversy  00:25:45 - Daniel explains how the Squat vs Hip Thrust Study got funded 00:27:26 - Summary of the Squat vs Hip Thrust Study 00:30:39 - How was the funding used? 00:32:24 - Confidence intervals difference between the glutes vs the thigh muscles 00:36:31 - Does this study provide insight into whether glutes benefit from lengthened biased training? 00:39:52 - Other Confounders besides ROM between the squat and hip thrust  00:46:55 - Breaking down the hip thrust technique 00:54:12 - Breaking down the squat technique 01:06:53 - Muscle specific proximity to failure differences between the exercises 01:13:44 - Steel manning the conflict of interest argument

Dr. Pak & Milo Wolf join Coach Kassem to discuss the latest research on training at long muscle lengths and its effect on hypertrophy. They also review some of the unsupported claims currently being made and what the research actually suggests. 00:03:00 - What is the latest research on training at longer muscle lengths? 00:10:28 -  How much of a difference does training at longer muscle lengths make? 00:18:00 - Everybody wants to be a science communicator but nobody wants to do any science! 00:19:46 - In the era where the mechanism have not been uncovered, how do we communicate and apply the evidence to individuals.  00:33:13 - Practical observations from the N1 Lab.  Fatigue, injury, ROI of different exercises. 00:46:45 - Kassem’s best practices.  Real world coaching nuances. 00:52:40 - The unique data from the Pedrosa study ( leg extension partials)  00:57:38 - Adjacent factors and correlations with training at longer muscle lengths and how it impacts fatigue, volume and effort.   01:02:34 - Potential pitfalls of training exclusively with lengthened partials. Should we be concerned about regional hypertrophy?  01:09:24 - Addressing unsubstantiated claims regarding fascicle length.    01:17:58 - Do you also need a lengthened biased resistance challenge and not just a longer muscle length? 01:22:03 - Addressing misleading claims around neuromechanical matching.   01:29:59 - Discussing the research on matching resistance and strength profiles/curves 01:37:00 - Using the lats as an example of problems with oversimplified neuromechanical matching models.   01:41:15 - The impact of neuromechanical matching on muscle specific RIR.  Biased vs Omni or less specific exercises 01:54:45 - Responding to criticisms of optimizing exercise selection and technique. 

04:41 what does a science based approach look like for coaches 15:26 is there a correlation between people who label themselves as evidenced based and Dunning Kruger? 19:20 What percentage of coaching decisions are actually science based? 28:58 Principles for exercise selection 33:47 Where does range of motion and muscle length fit in? 36:32 Digging into the research on training at longer muscle lengths 53:27 What are the interesting questions we still have about lengthened biased training? 1:07:56 The benefit exist before the absolute longest muscle lengths, but if length is a factor 1:14:03 COME AT ME BRO! - Kassem ask Eric for his critiques of himself and/or N1