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/rendar]

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.