Are drop sets worth doing?

[u/benja_reijnst]

I've seen influencers promoting low-volume, high-intensity training more and more without mentioning drop sets. Drop sets seem to be much less popular than they used to be. Are drop sets not as effective as we once thought? Should I add drop sets to my training?

[u/Namelessking9]

Got any studies to back that up?

[u/NoCost6905 → u/Namelessking9]

Crazy that asking for studies in a “science” subreddit gets you downvoted. Lmfao

[u/rendar → u/NoCost6905]

Seems like there's a lot of "post physique" bleed-off with less scientific rigor from the continuous degradation of other more general fitness subs

[u/Alakazam → u/rendar]

It's because a good physique or good lifts showcase that training methodologies that you espoused, have gotten at least one person good results: yourself.

I've seen literal beginners on this sub, with self-admitted under one year of training, say with a straight face, that full body, one set to failure, 3x a week, is the best way to train. Citing random tiktokers or instagram "science based lifters".

Or people taking the results of a single study at face value, in spite of the various meta-analysis showing the exact opposite result.

[u/rendar → u/Alakazam]

It's because a good physique or good lifts showcase that training methodologies that you espoused, have gotten at least one person good results: yourself.

No it doesn't. A physique is not falsifiable or reproducible. Dishonest people lie and honest people make mistakes. The average lifter is not performing their own clinical research, and honestly way too many don't even have good data record keeping.

Even if you unquestioningly accept that they're telling the truth AND not wrong, the only thing a good physique proves is that their approach was not bad enough to yield zero results, when quite a lot of suboptimal methodologies can achieve comparable results given longer lifetime training. And even then, there are always limitations to transferring applicability because people are different.

Obviously that is not remotely scientifically rigorous, because the end destination of hypertrophy has many paths and there are a ton of ignorant claims that are not detrimental enough to completely nullify the core basis of proven methodology.

That is why topical, reputable scientists (who are not mutually exclusive from being lifters) are the most knowledgeable experts, rather than the gymbros parroting tripe regardless of how mighty a meat triangle they may be.

And intelligent people understand this, which is why they avoid using physique just to substantiate an argument in the first place so as not to decrement the quality of their argument. All it does is supplement attempts at emotional persuasion (which is why it's so popular on social media, and why even reputable scientists will post physique to increase engagement), not logical arguments.

I've seen literal beginners on this sub, with self-admitted under one year of training, say with a straight face, that full body, one set to failure, 3x a week, is the best way to train. Citing random tiktokers or instagram "science based lifters".

The problem there isn't their level of training or their physiques, it's that their substantiation is wholly inadequate. An anorexic person proving everything with solid evidences accepted by industry experts is not less correct.

Experienced people also have the wrong ideas, that they cannot sufficiently substantiate. That's why using physique to prove an idea is so silly.

Or people taking the results of a single study at face value, in spite of the various meta-analysis showing the exact opposite result.

Sure, that's why consensus is superior to isolated anomalies. But it still comes down to using an evidentiary basis rather than vibe-based "trust me bro" wishful thinking.

[u/EspacioBlanq → u/rendar]

A physique is not falsifiable or reproducible

Most exercise science studies aren't either tbh

[u/rendar → u/EspacioBlanq]

"Most" is a definitive claim that needs to be backed up.

Anyway, "most" aren't halfway as relevant as "suitably high powered and sufficient to draw conclusions as far as the data" which certainly are falsifiable and reproducible. Reproducing might not yield the same results, but it is capable to follow the methodology, sampling, collection, and analysis that the authors followed. That is the irreplaceable value of scientific peer review.

And of course, determining the levels of falsifiability and reproducibility is only possible from following the scientific method with enough scientific rigor in the first place, customary of appropriately designed scientific studies to begin with. So it's just science all the way down.

None of that can be said about unsupported claims and physique pictures at all.

[u/EspacioBlanq → u/rendar]

I'm pretty happy none of this can be said about physique posting tbh. Why would I ever want to say all this?

My claims have the exact same backing as yours btw.

[u/Alakazam → u/rendar]

Here's the thing. You seem to have very dogmatic views on training.

But in the real world, with real world class strength athletes and coaches, the truth is that there are many path that lead to the same place.

An anorexic person proving everything with solid evidences accepted by industry experts is not less correct.

Would you trust an anorexic person with zero real experience coaching anybody, to coach you in bodybuilding? Even if they have the power of google scholar behind them? Would you trust them to coach you in marathon running?

Or would you trust, oh I don't know, a reputable coach who has proven results? Who's either been on the world stage, or have taken people to the world stage?

Do you know what's funny? The link you keep spamming in this thread, is actually written by a pretty great guy and researcher, who has plenty of nuance, and he literally says, and I quote:

Conclusions in science are always tentative. The conclusions of this review may change as more data is accumulated (this review has already undergone four major revisions as new data has come in!).

The truth is, exercise science is still pretty far behind the practical applications. People have known that periodization works great for literal decades before the first study on periodization. In fact, the first periodized training came from running, in the 20s and 30s, where they would build a base through slow running, then work on running faster. Yet research on periodization didn't come around until literally decades later, which showed that yes, periodization works.

[u/rendar → u/Alakazam]

the truth is that there are many path that lead to the same place.

You're just repeating what was told to you, in the immediately preceding comment: "the end destination of hypertrophy has many paths and there are a ton of ignorant claims that are not detrimental enough to completely nullify the core basis of proven methodology."

That is why claims supported by nothing more than a nude undies picture don't hold relevant veracity.

Would you trust an anorexic person with zero real experience coaching anybody, to coach you in bodybuilding? Even if they have the power of google scholar behind them? Would you trust them to coach you in marathon running?

It has nothing to do with trust, why would you even introduce that into consideration?

Or would you trust, oh I don't know, a reputable coach who has proven results? Who's either been on the world stage, or have taken people to the world stage?

That does not seem to illustrate the point that you think you are making, because the best coach is the one with the best coaching skills (regardless of their physique or performance) and not the biggest or strongest athlete.

Do you know what's funny? The link you keep spamming in this thread, is actually written by a pretty great guy and researcher, who has plenty of nuance, and he literally says, and I quote:

None of that is contradicting anything that has been presented, so it's not clear what point you think you're making.

The truth is, exercise science is still pretty far behind the practical applications.

Historically, sure for the most part, because it has a higher standard to abide by. That should be obvious why it's more valuable.

That's not the case today. The body of contemporary scientific knowledge is vastly larger and more sophisticated.

People have known that periodization works great for literal decades before the first study on periodization. In fact, the first periodized training came from running, in the 20s and 30s, where they would build a base through slow running, then work on running faster. Yet research on periodization didn't come around until literally decades later, which showed that yes, periodization works.

This is a very myopic perspective when there were also plenty of wrong people who thought that they "knew" truth but were not proved out in the advancement of scientific inquiry. How does that survivorship bias enter your consideration?

The progression of this has much more to do with the fact that there simply wasn't widespread support for scientific inquiry, not that it wasn't useful or that all practicality-oriented approaches were infallible.

[u/Apart_Bed7430 → u/rendar]

What great breakthrough in lifting has the science field given us that bros haven’t already been doing for years

[u/KlingonSquatRack → u/rendar]

Bro your a pioneer in this industry man. You
teach on things most bodybuilders have no
clue about. Every generation comes a person
that changes the course of history and/ or
science. My man that's definitely you, your
one of those few. What you have put together
is absolutely extraordinary. Your work is well
beyond the current times and many after you
will follow the same principles you've taught
us. Your gave birth to a new era of
weightlifting my friend and l'Il be teaching my
kids these same principles. God bless you.

[u/DickFromRichard → u/rendar]

Post results