Very interesting stuff, thanks
@hexagonal.
The biggest lesson for me was the concept of working up to a few Reps In Reserve (I had to look up RIR). In the past I had always been taught that "to failure" was the standard.
The discussion about what kind of exercises, weights vs machines etc. is interesting but also not very relevant to me -- I have a machine and either I use that machine, or I don't lift at all. I've done free weights in the past and I just don't like it, and even if I did I don't want to carve out the extra time to go to a gym. Using a machine is the right compromise for me at this point.
The good news is, you're probably not missing out on anything, re: Machines!
No differences were detected in the direct comparison of strength, jump performance and muscle hypertrophy. Current body of evidence indicates that strength changes are specific to the training modality, and the choice between free-weights and machines are down to individual preferences and goals.
pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
Going to failure is still beneficial in that some studies have looked at how good we are at estimating how close to failure we are, and while the answer is "better than you would probably expect," we still do better when we calibrate periodically, particularly outside of controlled settings. There's some exercises I take to failure regularly just because they're very safe to do so, others I only take to failure once every few weeks to re-calibrate my RIR, and some that I just don't feel safe taking to failure without a spotter and thus don't get taken to failure regularly. I lift with friends most days, but we're all trying to get in and out of the workout and I don't want to regularly impose.
Dr. Stacy Sims holds the following credentials:
- PhD in Environmental Exercise Physiology: University of Otago, New Zealand
- MS in Exercise Physiology and Metabolism: Springfield College
- BA in Movement and Sport Sciences: Purdue University
Just curious; what are yours?
As I explicitly stated: I'm just an asshole on an internet forum.
But the people I've referenced have PhD's as well!
Tony Boutagy, PhD in Exercise and Sports Science from Charles Darwin University, Australia
Lauren Colenso-Semply, PhD in Muscle Physiology & Endocrinology, McMaster University, Canada
Eric Trexler, PhD in Human Movement Science, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, USA
If we're in an argument from authority standoff, it seems that Sims has quite a few PhDs that specialize in this area that disagree with her so I can name a bunch more.
www.flippingfifty.com/truth-about-muscle-and-menopause
Stuart Phillips, PhD in Physiology, University of Waterloo, Canada
Boutagy in specific seems to have made it a bit of a crusade to gather up experts in this area to fight back on Sims' claims. Some of the previously mentioned PhDs here, some ones:
View: https://www.instagram.com/p/DLqIToKBJk9/?img_index=1
Tommy Lundberg, PhD in Sports and Exercise, Mid Sweden University, Sweden is another interesting one - he's a full time researcher and professor at the Karolinska Institutet, which you might know as the institution that awards the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine. He also spoke with Boutagy about this specific subject:
View: https://www.instagram.com/p/DLk-usthsFg/
During the interview he speaks about research the Karolinska Institutet studying both men and women from age 16 to 68.
Sims whole thing seems to be suggesting that exercise science just isn't done on peri and post menopausal women, and while it is certainly smaller in volume, this claim just doesn't seem to be true. I referenced multiple dozens of studies already via meta-analysis, multiple large RCTs and observational studies, etc. that all directly contradict her claims. I linked quite a few references with interpretations from PhDs in the prior post - but no engagement on them from you besides asking for my qualifications. If I need qualifications to reference experts and studies, what about you? Should we both just stop posting until we have PhDs ourselves?
pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
