So here we have it. Very good takes, very interesting study. Very unbased study.... https://www.skool.com/iron-fangs-7620/classroom/13e1d7d6?md=031326b7a5a44639b88b8d14c2377a98 Tomorrow will be our Coaching call, come if you want some help :)

Alright, tomorrow will be an interesting study (redoing this actualy haha) The Jeff Nippard study. I know a lot of you won't be free during this, but feel free to read andask questions anyway. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38249086/ This has a LOT of problems. A LOT of hot takes. And it's almost like he didn't read any research to make it.

Just recorded the best journal club we've ever had and my mic got unplugged and loom deleted the vid because of that. Kinda annoyed but it's whatever. Will do a rerun on the topic in 4 days. It was a good one We broke into Jeff Nippard's recent paper.

Today we went through the 52 sets study in this session's Journal Club. https://www.skool.com/iron-fangs-7620/classroom/13e1d7d6?md=5b22f1dc63844eaa86a2e4e51c18734c If you have any further questions let me know, also if you have any studies to suggest I'm open to recs!

Was reading a recent study from Brad Schoenfeld. Didn’t really provide anything new (research wise not training principles) or interesting. But I did take a look at the methodology they used to measure muscle growth. This goes back to that lecture on measuring growth we had yesterday. If anyone wants to see it check the classroom. As you can see this shows (likely) what I was speaking off when I spoke about the line of pull changing the measurements at each point. This also demos why having more points is important for ultra sound. Let’s ignore swelling it don’t matter much. As you can see some lines went DOWN. heavily in fact. This was a study that measured growth, consistently across a quad muscle, and you can see how even here there are issues with volume at each point. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ejsc.12042