Article

Key takeaways

1️⃣ It normally takes 3 weeks to lose muscle mass.

2️⃣ You could lose muscle quicker in some circumstances.

3️⃣ You will lose water and glycogen which makes you look smaller.

You can use this thread to post any interesting content you have found. Your submission might be reposted as it's own thread with credit to you for finding it.

This is an effort to allow people to share appropriate content here without me coming back to a bunch of self-promotion, low effort or beginner question spam every few days.

Article

Summary:

The International Agency for Research on Cancer categorized aspartame as a "possible carcinogen" due to limited evidence suggesting a link to cancer. However, this classification doesn't imply a high risk, as many common substances, including coffee and red meat, are in similar or higher hazard categories. Scientific evidence suggests that the risk of cancer from consuming aspartame at typical levels is low. Ultimately, whether to consume aspartame depends on individual risk tolerance.

As of the article's publication, the World Health Organization (WHO) had set the acceptable daily intake level for aspartame at 40 mg/kg of body mass. This means that a person weighing 70 kg could safely consume up to 2800 mg of aspartame per day. The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) set a slightly higher threshold of 50 mg/kg.

For reference, a typical 2L of diet soda contains 1000 mg of aspartame.

The Magic of Maintenance – Revive Stronger

Why You Should Maintain Before You Cut

To be honest, I hardly ever really use the word “should”. There’s nothing you SHOULD be doing. You’re free to do whatever you want as long as you don’t harm others or your environment. Especially maintaining before cutting is something that is less of an issue than going from cutting into gaining imo. 

That being said though, there seems to be somewhat of a momentum when it comes to building muscle mass. It’s like a train that gets moving. It’s slow to get out of the station at first but also takes a long time to come to a halt. If you jump from a gaining phase straight into a cutting phase it could potentially mean that you miss out on some of the processes that are going on in the background. 

Another thing to consider is satiety. Unless you have gained long enough in which the body is responding with being sick and tired of food, you’ll find yourself being quite hungry and food-focused in the first 1-2 weeks entering a cutting phase. If however, you lower the calories from a surplus->maintenance->cutting it may end up being less severe of a sensation.

The only other thing I can think of is that your adaptive resistance crept up quite a bit over the gaining phase and basically resensitising yourself for lower training volumes might be worth a consideration. In other words, you probably built up to this point due to recovery capabilities and ended up doing the highest amount of workload at the end of a gaining phase. The fatigue accumulated is something you may want to get rid of first, before entering the cutting phase. 

​

Table of Contents

• What exactly is Maintenance?
• Isn’t a maintenance phase a waste of time?
  • However, how do you know if you’re at maintenance? 
• Why We Need To Maintain
• When should you consider a maintenance phase?
  • What Happens When You Lose Weight?
  • What Happens When You Gain Weight?
•  The Magic of Maintenance
  • Why You Should Maintain Before You Gain
  • Why You Should Maintain Before You Cut
• How To Maintain
  • How To Use A Calculator?
  • Maintenance is Natural
    • Maintenance = Progress.
  • Coaching

Lifting weights does little for your grip strength, new review concludes

A new scientific review of 20 studies found that strength training often doesn't improve grip strength significantly, unless it directly incorporates grip work. There is an effect in some studies, mostly in elderly trainees, but it's not much.

Most advanced lifters can attest to this. Your grip strength often doesn't keep up with your deadlift strength, for example, without a lot of dedicated grip work. Grip strength has a significant genetic component and is strongly influenced by the shape and size of your hands and forearms.

What's worse, dedicated grip work has very imperfect carry-over to other grip work. Grip strength is surprisingly exercise-specific, likely due to the huge number of small muscles in the forearms and hands. Even hanging grip strength, like during pull-ups, does not carry over perfectly to deadlift grip strength.

Grip work is therefore a high-effort, low-reward form of training, so most lifters skip it altogether. That's reasonable. Straps and Versa Gripps are a perfectly justified training tool during deadlifts.

However, if you find that you start needing straps for multiple upper body lifts as a natural lifter, it may be time to add some forearm or grip work in your program. It has helped some of my clients with elbow injury recovery, bench press strength (by keeping the wrists straight) and of course forearm size.

Article

Transitioning from Bulk to Cut: Calculate calorie reduction based on progress data rather than using a fresh calculation from a calorie calculator. This accounts for metabolic rate changes during bulking.

Five Steps for Transitioning to a Cut:

• Step 1: Reduce calories to approximate maintenance.

• Step 2: Optionally, wait two weeks to allow adjustment to lower food intake.

• Step 3: Reduce calories further to initiate the cut.

• Step 4: Wait four weeks to observe weight loss trend.

• Step 5: Adjust calorie intake if necessary to meet weight loss goals.

Calculations for Transitioning to a Cut:

• Find maintenance by multiplying average weekly weight change by 500, subtract from current daily calorie intake, and subtract weight in pounds.

• Subtract 500 kcal per pound to lose each week.

• Adjust macros with a 2:1 ratio of carbs to fats.

• Example Transition to a Cut: Tom reduces calories gradually, waits for adjustment, then further reduces for the cut, making adjustments as needed based on weight loss progress.

Definitive Diet Setup Guide: How to Build and Adjust a Smart Nutrition Plan (strongerbyscience.com) - by Eric Trexler

Conclusions

​

If you’re starting from scratch, the process goes as follows:

​

• Estimate your total daily energy expenditure by leaning on the equations in this article or monitoring changes in energy intake and body weight over a couple of weeks
  • Using the 1980 Cunningham equation in conjunction with the MacroFactor correction factors for physical activity would be a simple but effective starting point
• Set a goal for your desired rate of weight change. This could range from aggressive weight loss to aggressive weight gain, or even no change at all – it all comes down to what you wish to accomplish
  • Aggressive weight loss would involve losing >1% of body weight per week, whereas aggressive weight gain would involve gaining >0.25% of body weight per week. These rates represent fairly aggressive ends of the weight change spectrum, but more conservative rates of weight gain or loss are generally more advisable
• Set your daily calorie target based on your estimated total daily energy expenditure and your desired rate of weight change
  • Many individuals will accomplish aggressive weight loss with a caloric deficit of 30-40%, whereas many individuals will accomplish aggressive weight gain with a caloric surplus of 15-20%. Once again, these represent the more aggressive ends of the energy intake spectrum, and more conservative intakes are generally more advisable
  • Rather than relying exclusively on percentages of total daily energy expenditure, MacroFactor uses a more nuanced approach that involves titrating individualized, goal-specific energy intake recommendations based on your observed energy intake and the change in total body energy associated with a predicted change in body composition
• Set a daily protein target that is compatible with your goal
  • If you’re a non-lifter, 1.2-1.8g/kg/day of protein is usually plenty. If you’re a lifter, 1.6-2.2g/kg/day is a good range, but you might aim even higher if you’re very lean and in a caloric deficit. However, these are just basic estimates; better and more individualized estimates (such as those used by MacroFactor) directly account for body size, body composition, energy balance, and exercise habits
• Set fat and carbohydrate targets to hit your daily calorie goal while accounting for your dietary preferences and the physiological demands of your exercise habits
  • To prevent excessively low fat intake, an absolute lower limit for dietary fat (in grams per day) can be calculated by subtracting 150 from your height (in cm), then multiplying the outcome by 0.5 and adding 30, with people under 150cm tall using 30g as a flat lower limit. If high-intensity exercise performance is a priority, you’ll want to take in at least 3-4g/kg/day of carbohydrate, if your calorie target allows for it
• Closely monitor calorie intake and changes in body weight to make sure that your calorie target is effectively promoting the desired rate of weight change. If body weight is not changing at the desired rate, adjust the calorie target, primarily by altering carbohydrate and fat intake
• Over time, you’ll most likely experience unintentional changes in total daily energy expenditure. Continuously monitor calorie intake and changes in body weight, and adjust calorie intake as needed to stay on track with the desired rate of weight change

If anyone is a Strongerbyscience reader or Mike Israetel enjoyer then you are aware of how important mechanical tension at your muscle's most stretched position is. You likely also know how important getting a real full range of motion is.

However, what about bringing your muscles to their most stretched position and doing partial reps within that stretched position compared to full ROM?

Afterall, "If mechanical tension at the most stretched length is important, then surely we should just work within that lengthened position and stop wasting our energy going through the full ROM. We can even crank out higher reps/volume by doing partials in that stretched position! Mechanical tension and volume drive hypertrophy, right? We should prioritize those!"

Well, "person who grabs one sentence from your favorite lifting guru and extrapolates it beyond what they intended" (or me that likes to read about wacky hypothetical training regimen outcomes out of pure curiosity) the findings and discussion around it are pretty interesting.

https://www.instagram.com/bradschoenfeldphd/p/C2p6IUYpBFV/?hl=en

Please note, the discussion around this is based on a single study on untrained lifters. However, they are currently repeating the study with trained lifters.

Full range of motion is more effective for strengthening compared with training through partial range of motion. Partials could promote more hypertrophy. But keep in mind, this is an isolated environment with a routine that isn't going to be representative of your own.

That being said, I personally think loading upperbody movements with deep stretch partial reps with high weight/intensity is a recipe for blowing your rotator cuffs out. Even if a study in trained lifters showed better hypertrophy, I still wouldn't make a routine out of it.

However, it is a good excuse to try something different and even revisit some older training strategies that people tend to scoff at today like time under tension, myo-reps and others.

This training strategy would be better utilized at the end of your regular session with much lighter weight. A weight that you can fully control the negative with and treat more as "pump work" rather than attacking it with high intensity. Also note that because of the length and tension, the muscular damage is likely going to be higher and thus require more recovery, so that is another reason to treat it with caution.

Onto the actual discussion:

In the context of the discussion about range of motion (ROM) and its effect on muscle growth:

• "Long" refers to the muscle being stretched to its maximum length during an exercise movement.
• "Short" refers to the muscle being contracted to its shortest length during an exercise movement.

Brad:

Last year we carried out a meta-analysis on the effects of range of motion on muscular adaptations, led by @wolfcoach_. The results showed that a partial ROM at long muscle lengths were generally superior to training at short muscle lengths from a hypertrophy standpoint. Moreover, evidence indicated that a partial ROM at long muscle lengths was even superior to a full ROM for muscle building. This has created a lot of controversy in the field as to the practical implications of findings.

Here’s my take.

IMHO, we now have a large body of evidence indicating that training in the lengthened position of a repetition is very important for muscle growth. Thus, it’s logical to recommend that lifters ensure they traverse the long-length portion of each rep during the majority of their sets. Where applicable, it’s also beneficial to choose exercises that place a given muscle in a lengthened position to optimize hypertrophy (e.g., seated vs lying leg curls to target the hamstrings, leg extensions to target the rectus femoris).

What remains more equivocal is the applicability of employing lengthened partials to enhance hypertrophy. While our meta suggested a potential benefit of the approach, the evidence on the topic is very limited, precluding the ability to draw strong conclusions. Given the uncertainty of evidence, I’m of the opinion that the majority of sets should be performed through a full ROM. IMHO, we can’t rule out the possibility that the shortened length portion of reps have synergistic effects on hypertrophy when combined with long-length training. That said, there may be utility to including some long-length partials as an advanced training method. This could be done either as a separate set or (what I personally favor) at the end of a set where you train (close) to failure and the last few reps are performed as lengthened partials.

I’d note it’s possible that the use of lengthened partials may be specific to certain muscle groups and not others. Although we don’t have any direct research to support this hypothesis, it warrants further study.

Further discussion:

• https://examine.com/research-feed/study/1Y43rd/
• https://www.instagram.com/the_raphaelbender/reel/CwRuvhSgY7F/

Article

Summary:

Research suggests muscle growth may not be significantly affected by body fat levels. However, high body fat levels can impair recovery and work capacity.

Elevated body fat levels are associated with metabolic issues such as insulin resistance and inflammation, which can impair muscle protein synthesis and growth. Chronic inflammation, in particular, may interfere with the body's response to exercise-induced muscle damage, potentially limiting muscle growth.

Read the article for more information.

As a personal take, and advice to others: Focus less on % numbers and more on how you look and feel. So long as you do not have any disorders, you should be able to tell if you are getting too fat. Anyone that has cut and bulked once or twice should also be able to tell if they are digging a hole too deep for themselves.

If you are a competitor, let your coach worry about these tedious things as focusing on volatile numbers like these is just extra stress.

Also, you might get fat on a bulk and that is okay. You may often need to cut for longer than your excel sheet told you and that is normal. At the end of the day, you are in the driver's seat at all times and this hobby often has you feeling like you are stuck in traffic. But if you stick with it, you will get where you want to be.

Article

If you do want to take a better-safe-than-sorry approach to protein intake, and so you do want to consume a protein bolus right before bed, you probably don’t need to worry about selecting a slow-digesting protein source. However, I also suspect that you don’t really need to worry about consuming protein immediately before bed in the first place – as long as your total protein intake is sufficient, and you have at least 2-3 sizable protein feedings per day, you should be in good shape.

Article

Muscle soreness probably does mean there is some level of damage: you can’t get sore without damage. (Phantom DOMS?) However, the magnitude of soreness doesn’t correlate with the extent of muscle damage or neuromuscular fatigue and certainly not with the extent of muscle growth. You can have high levels of muscle damage or fatigue without soreness.

So basically all a sore muscle tells you is that muscle was involved in some exercise you did earlier. Some people and some body parts get much more sore than others. You mostly get sore after novel training stimuli, such as trying new exercises or higher training volumes. Don’t worry about soreness.

It's no secret that the world of fitness is constantly evolving, and one area that has seen a lot of debate in recent years is the topic of concurrent training - that is, combining both aerobic and strength training in a single workout or training program. But what does the research say about this approach to training? A recent systematic review and meta-analysis, published in the Journal of Sports Medicine, aimed to shed some light on this question.

The study

First off, it's important to note that the study included 15 different studies, with a total of 300 participants. These studies looked at both type I and type II muscle fiber hypertrophy, and compared the effects of concurrent training to strength training alone.

Findings

So, what did the study find? Well, the results were a bit mixed. On one hand, the study found that concurrent training may result in slightly attenuated muscle fiber hypertrophy compared to strength training alone. However, this doesn't necessarily translate to differences in whole muscle hypertrophy.

But here's where things get really interesting - the study also found that the interference effect of aerobic training on muscle fiber hypertrophy may be more pronounced when the aerobic training is performed through running, as opposed to cycling. This is a crucial finding for those of us who are looking to build muscle, as it suggests that incorporating low-impact exercise like cycling, rather than high impact like running, into our concurrent training programs may be more beneficial for muscle growth.

But wait, there's more

Now, before you burn your running shoes and spend a fortune on "Aero gear" for your newfound cycling hobby, it's important to note that this study has its limitations. First and foremost, all except one study used fiber size as the outcome measure for muscle hypertrophy instead of more reliable techniques to assess muscle size, such as magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) or computed tomography (CT). This means that it's unclear whether the findings of this study would hold true when using more accurate measures of muscle size.

Additionally, the study found that the interference effect on muscle hypertrophy may be more pronounced when aerobic training is performed by running compared to cycling, at least in type I fibers. However, it's worth noting that this finding is based on a small number of studies, and more research is needed to confirm this.

Overall, the study provides some interesting insights into the effects of concurrent training on muscle fiber hypertrophy. However, it's important to take the findings with a grain of salt and consider the limitations of the study. As with any research, it's crucial to look at the bigger picture and not draw sweeping conclusions based on a single study.

So, what's the take-home message here?

Well, it's important to note that the study's conclusion is not a death sentence for concurrent training. The study only shows that concurrent training may lead to less muscle fiber hypertrophy compared to strength training alone, but not necessarily less whole muscle hypertrophy.

If you're looking to build muscle and you're currently incorporating concurrent training into your routine, it may be worth considering incorporating more low-impact exercise like cycling and less high-impact exercise like running. Additionally, it's important to remember that the study's results were only slightly attenuated muscle fiber hypertrophy, so it's not necessary to completely avoid concurrent training.

conclusion

The study suggests that concurrent training may result in slightly attenuated muscle fiber hypertrophy compared to strength training alone, but this does not necessarily translate into differences in whole muscle hypertrophy. Furthermore, the study provides preliminary evidence that this interference effect may be more pronounced when aerobic training is performed by running compared with cycling, at least in type I fibers.

Additionally, it's worth considering that the potential drawbacks of concurrent training may be outweighed by the benefits it provides. Concurrent training is an effective way to improve cardiovascular fitness and endurance at the same time as building muscle, which is something that can't be achieved by strength training alone.

As always, it's important to keep in mind that more research is needed to truly understand the effects of concurrent training on muscle fiber hypertrophy. But for now, if you want to build muscle, consider cycling over running and use caution when incorporating concurrent training in your routine.

Main Takeaways:

• Concurrent training may result in slightly attenuated muscle fiber hypertrophy compared to strength training alone, but this does not necessarily translate into differences in whole muscle hypertrophy.
• The study provides preliminary evidence that this interference effect may be more pronounced when aerobic training is performed by running compared with cycling, at least in type I fibers.
• Incorporating more cycling and less running into concurrent training programs may be more beneficial for muscle growth.
• Remember to keep in mind that the study's results were only slightly attenuated muscle fiber hypertrophy, so it's not necessary to completely avoid concurrent training.
• More research is needed to truly understand the effects of concurrent training on muscle fiber hypertrophy.

Full article by Greg Nuckols

​

Until more granular data are published, I believe the research suggests that the period of time it takes to regain lost muscle and strength is approximately half as long as the preceding period of training cessation, with a rough confidence interval spanning from 1/3rd the length of the period of training cessation, up to 2/3rds the length of the period of training cessation. In other words, if you took three months (12 weeks) off of training, I suspect you’d be able to regain your lost muscle and strength within 4-8 weeks, with 6 weeks being my current best guess

​

Wrapping things up

I realize this is a lengthy article, so let’s briefly recap the key points:

• Younger adults can probably “get away with” about a month of training cessation before losing too much strength and muscle mass. Older adults may be able to get away with about two weeks of training cessation. After that, losses accelerate.

• Strength endurance seems to fade a bit faster than maximal strength, and older adults (>60-65 years old) seem to lose strength (and likely muscle) at about twice the rate of younger adults during a period of training cessation.

• Due to the phenomenon of “muscle memory,” the retraining period (the amount of time it takes to regain lost muscle and strength) following a period of training cessation seems to be about half as long as the period of training cessation. So, if you’re out of the gym for 12 weeks, you should be able to regain the vast majority of your lost strength and muscle mass in approximately 6 weeks.

• If you have the time, ability, and inclination to do any training, you can significantly mitigate the losses in strength and muscle mass you’d otherwise experience during a period of total training cessation.

​

Also included in the article that I won't fully share here:

​

Mitigating the negative effects of training cessation

If you need to take time off from training, you’ll likely wonder what steps you can take to mitigate the negative impact of a period of training cessation. Is there anything you can do to minimize losses of strength and muscle mass? ...

Click the article to continue

​

Returning to training

Assuming you don’t intend to give up on resistance training entirely, you’ll need to consider how you plan to return to training following a period of training cessation...

Click the article to continue

​

And much more

SBS Article by Milo Wolf & Greg Nuckols

Separate to this in-depth article, they posted a podcast about Range of Motion the previous day if you prefer that.

Podcast

Back to the article...

For the full deep dive, read the article. It includes the full research, explanation of the research, more specific recommendations that I left out here and more.

​

As a final note, you don’t need to get super obsessive or neurotic about range of motion or training at long muscle lengths. Plenty of people have gotten strong and jacked by training through all sorts of ranges of motion.

As discussed previously, training at the longest possible muscle lengths may not always be superior to training at pretty-long-but-not-quite-maximal muscle lengths. When the resistance training community takes a particular interest in a particular training variable, there’s a tendency for some folks to take things a bit too far. There’s also a tendency for content creators to make more and more extreme content around the hot topic, because the most extreme views tend to garner the most attention.

We do know that training at longer muscle lengths tends to build more muscle than training at shorter muscle lengths, but…

• That doesn’t imply that the compound exercises people have been successfully using for decades are suddenly ineffective because they don’t load every muscle through the longest conceivable muscle length.

• That doesn’t imply that you can’t build muscle without access to fancy equipment that allows you to place maximal tension on a muscle in its most stretched position.

• That doesn’t necessarily imply that training through a longer range of motion or at longer muscle lengths is always superior (as discussed in detail previously).

• That doesn’t imply that you should remove every exercise from your training routine that doesn’t load your muscles through the longest possible muscle lengths.

• That doesn’t imply that you should perform exercises in ways that are dangerous or painful just so you can train at slightly longer muscle lengths (for example, if your knees or hips bother you when squatting ass-to-grass, it’s perfectly fine to squat to parallel; if it hurts your shoulders to do really deep pec flyes, it’s perfectly fine to not let the dumbbells or cable handles sink quite as deep).

• That absolutely doesn’t mean you can’t build muscle unless you train through the longest possible muscle lengths all the time for every muscle, nor does it imply that training through short muscle lengths doesn’t also build muscle.

Link

Conclusion Overall, being in energy deficit most likely impairs muscle growth, but the effect is not major and muscle growth is still possible in energy deficit for many people and strength gains should still be very realistic. An important take-home message in my view is that if you’re not gaining any strength while cutting, you’re most likely losing muscle mass. Lack of strength development means the likely positive neural adaptations must be overshadowed by muscle loss.

On my site's review of the study, I remarked the following:

"The authors don’t report between-group statistical significance tests, unfortunately, but the group x time interaction, which should tell us the same thing, was only significant for dry FFM, not for total FFM or RMR.

The differences in effect size for the change in FFM and RMR were also quite trivial: 0.03 vs. 0.09 for FFM and 0.13 vs. 0.21 for RMR.

So the proper conclusion from the results was quite different: Refeeds do not augment fat loss or reduce total fat-free mass loss, but they reduce the percentage of dry FFM loss."

This has now been confirmed in a published reanalysis of the study by Jackson Peos et al: "Contrary to the Conclusions Stated in the Paper, Only Dry Fat-Free Mass Was Different between Groups upon Reanalysis."

The lack of effect on metabolic rate, fat loss, total work output and total fat-free mass suggests the difference in dry FFM was likely caused by doing the body composition reading shortly after the refeed. In other words, they just had more glycogen stored at that point in time. The refeeds probably didn't actually help preserve any muscle mass.

You can read my full study review here: https://mennohenselmans.com/campbell-refeed-study-review/

Source

Video link

​

In this episode, we chat about …

- Why you should use a full-body split if you training infrequently

- The primary benefits of full-body training (optimizing volume and work capacity) - How to properly program "supersets" without hurting performance (and actually improve it)

- How to program an effective full-body routine

- Saving time in the gym, inter-set rest time, and exercise order considerations

- Periodization and why you shouldn't change exercises too frequently - Situations when full-body routine wouldn’t be the best choice

- And more …

Timestamps:

0:00 - Intro

8:03 - What qualifies as a full body workout versus something else?

17:32 - Do full body workouts give you more high quality volume?

19:02 - What is a superset? How would you implement supersets without impairing your performance on the exercises?

28:04 - How do you like to program your full body workouts?

31:04 - Is that your exercise or is there another component to it as well?

32:08 - How do you like to order your exercises?

35:45 - How do you like to periodize this type of training?

40:30 - Do you do your heavier workouts earlier in the week after a rest period?

41:39 - As far as volume, what are you shooting for?

Article

About:

No doubt most of you will be familiar with Electrical Muscle Stimulation or EMS. EMS makes a lot of promises, one of which, is fast-tracked muscle and strength gains in as little as 15 minutes per day. But, does EMS really live up to the hype?

Summary:

So, what does this mean? Is EMS worth our time or is it another training fad? I must admit, I am somewhat surprised with the results, as I expected EMS would not be additive to regular weight training. While there weren’t significant differences in muscle gained between groups, there was a trend for favorable gains with the EMS group. Furthermore, while bench press performance wasn’t statistically different between groups, only the EMS group increased their vertical jump. It’s important to note that these benefits were obtained with reduced DOMS post training compared to weight training alone.

Do I think EMS is worth it? Well, I won’t be buying a device. My feelings about this study is that the benefits of EMS observed are most likely due to the untrained status of the participants.

Considering the price point, the time investment and inconvenience of using the device, and the modest advantages observed thus far, I don’t think EMS is a worthy investment for most trainees.

Article

All in all, this study may seem like a big win for the bench press, and bench presses are a fine compound exercise, but they’re likely not perfect for either the pecs (no maximal stretch-mediated signaling), delts (only ~50% ROM) or the triceps (long head remains understimulated). You should add more targeted exercises to optimally stimulate each muscle.

Podcast Link

In todays episode I'm chatting with scientific writer, fitness model and researcher Menno Henselmans - he is known for many things in the industry, but a lesser known fact about him is that he - unlike more and more of his fellow practitioners - is not a big fan of using refeeds or diet breaks during fat-loss phases. In this interview we dig deep into why that is the case!

0:21 – Menno’s general stance on refeeds and diet breaks

3:50 – Do refeeds have a long cultural history in fitness circles?

6:52 – Bill Campbell’s recent study on refeeds

11:25 – Mechanism of refeeds helping with muscle retention?

14:07 – Alternating low and high kcal days to get rid of “stubborn” fat?

23:20 – The problem with the “metabolic-benefits” of calorie cycling

28:49 – What would it take for you to start using refeeds/diet breaks?

30:08 – What are the benefits coaches observe anecdotally from refeeds/diet breaks

32:40 – How Menno uses calorie cycling

37:00 – The challenges of dieting are only in our heads?!

Greg said he would update the article as events unfold and it has recently been updated this month.

Article: Improbable Data Patterns in the Work of Barbalho et al: An Explainer

A group of researchers has uncovered a series of improbable data patterns and statistical anomalies in the work of a well-known sports scientist. This article will serve as a more reader-friendly version of the technical white paper that was recently published about this issue.

As a tldr, there were some studies that had data that were kinda too good to be true. As in, it's highly improbable for them to have gotten such consistent results/trends in their data.

As a summary, see the bullet points of the white paper.

The authors were reached out to and pretty much ignored it:

So, on June 22, we once again emailed Mr. Barbalho, Dr. Gentil, and the other coauthors, asking for explanations about the anomalous data patterns we’d observed. We gave them a three-week deadline, which expired at 11:59PM on July 13. We did not receive any response.

Hence, on July 14, we requested retraction of the seven remaining papers (the nine listed below, minus the one that’s already been retracted, and the one published in Experimental Gerontology), and we’re pre-printing the white paper to make the broader research community aware of our concerns.

and so far, this study:

3. Evidence of a Ceiling Effect for Training Volume in Muscle Hypertrophy and Strength in Trained Men – Less is More?

is now retracted.

The article is about explaining why the findings are so suspicious and abnormal.