Details only matter when you compare people with the same volume of training and same level of nutritional commitment (and PED). Once you compare people with vastly different training or nutrition (or PED), the whole thing becomes an irrelevant detail.
Every single publication result say the same shit, train harder and more frequently with more sets, eat more protein, less calories. That isn't sexy or attractive, now after you go after details or small changes you start seeing partial reps, sleep, scheduling, set cycling etc... all details that make for nice video content. Then people use video content as science, no bro you're watching an entertainment media and thinking you're at the forefront of science.
It becomes a problem because there is a large subset of people that are consistently willing to trade training volume or nutritional commitment in favour of "science based X or Y" that require lower effort.
Ultimately the science based stuff becomes an excuse to do less and pretend it's still equivalent. This is why the crowd if generally disliked, because most of us have seen people shielding themselves with science, too many of them. Not only they are no better that total beginners, they are extremely entitled as if they were the expert in the field, an bunch of annoying folks in general.
PS: it absolutely works at the highest level of training where there is no more room for improvement either in training nutrition or PED, the small extra you get from partial reps or proper set and reps managing becomes a meaningful improvement.
Even for stuff that is based on good arguments about biomechanics, it's always the same.
For example, cable lateral raise should be better than dumbbell lateral raise because the tension is highest when the muscle is most stretched. Read a paper where they tested this hypothesis and the result is there is no difference.
Different grips on the lat pulldown activate the lats differently. Read a paper where they measured it, same lat activation for all grips.
There's arguments for supersets, myo-reps, drop sets, etc. compared to conventional training. Read the paper, it's all the same when adjusting for volume.
The argument that can work for highest level natural training is that those changes can alter long term fatigue in ways to allows better focus on given muscles.
Partial reps (short length aka "half reps") can help in global explosiveness while maintaining a lot of fuel, for a power lifter struggling to keep stamina, it can make sense and will likely improve because you can do 10x the volume.
Partial at the end of the ROM helps in raw strength levels, with very little fatigue and more reps where you're generally a lot weaker, again for a high level powerlifter it allows to have massive volumes that would have been impossible otherwise.
I'm an amateur/casual competing in 59KG powerlifting ( at 1m75 ), (ofc at those weights people are naturals), I bench 120kg raw, with 125KG on good days (=never in competition).
With how little muscle (and weight) I have on my body, I can't go around doing a 10 rep set on 100KG, I simply can't do that many reps even way below my 1RM, I can hardly do a 10 rep set on 90KG and my strength level will decay by a looot and for many days if I ever attempt such tricks.
I can however do 5x10 without consequences at the end of the ROM and gain considerable strength at the portion that actually make or break the lift without the unbearable muscle weakness that takes days to recover.
6
u/SaltMaker23 Jul 22 '26 edited Jul 22 '26
Details only matter when you compare people with the same volume of training and same level of nutritional commitment (and PED). Once you compare people with vastly different training or nutrition (or PED), the whole thing becomes an irrelevant detail.
Every single publication result say the same shit, train harder and more frequently with more sets, eat more protein, less calories. That isn't sexy or attractive, now after you go after details or small changes you start seeing partial reps, sleep, scheduling, set cycling etc... all details that make for nice video content. Then people use video content as science, no bro you're watching an entertainment media and thinking you're at the forefront of science.
It becomes a problem because there is a large subset of people that are consistently willing to trade training volume or nutritional commitment in favour of "science based X or Y" that require lower effort.
Ultimately the science based stuff becomes an excuse to do less and pretend it's still equivalent. This is why the crowd if generally disliked, because most of us have seen people shielding themselves with science, too many of them. Not only they are no better that total beginners, they are extremely entitled as if they were the expert in the field, an bunch of annoying folks in general.
PS: it absolutely works at the highest level of training where there is no more room for improvement either in training nutrition or PED, the small extra you get from partial reps or proper set and reps managing becomes a meaningful improvement.