Does the Evidence Now Support Effective Reps? (From the Data Driven Strength Podcast)

[@d3rpn1nj47]

Greg Nuckols tearing down Chris Beardsley (Effective Reps) and Dr. Mike Israetel (Libertarianism) in one fell swoop. 10/10 take my money right now Greg.

[@SLouiss]

Short episode this week

[@kban77]

Everything works. Everywhere. All at Once.

[@GVS]

Hey hey hey, at least 5 people finished listening...

[@d3rpn1nj47]

Sincerely thank you Greg for putting out amazing content, I'm such a busy guy that it's hard for me to sit down and read articles (or do math). I've probably listened to at least 100 episodes and I've only been following your stuff since earlier this year. You really should consider putting out a training certification. You'd absolutely crush the NASM and at the very least give the NSCA some competition because they need it.

[@David_Laye1999]

Exceptional podcast and discussion

[@teavana444]

Just finished this on the other channel yesterday. Good ep, learned some more wtf??? stuff I had really bad assumptions on somehow.

[@fairykun]

long eps like this r the best!!!!

[@MarcRitzMD]

The other upload on the dds channel actually has video! Why would I deprive myself of Greg's visage!

[@ew-zd1th]

2:12:55 when the protein synthesesis in advanced athlete just go for 12 hours. Does it make sense to consume a lot of proteins and carbs in this time frame?

[@d3rpn1nj47]

I've always thought that potentially muscle damage might have to occur in order for "room" to be made for tissue remodeling.

[@ew-zd1th]

I havent understand is the mechanical tension the only Stimulus? Or this IT make Sense Some metabolic Work and damage Work and Stretching for passiv tension to combine?

[@ew-zd1th]

2:13:59 is this maybe a good reason for the fst7 training system to stretch to cell membran or something like this to grow more?

[@ekroizm]

30

[@makobe584]

52:00 - 1:13:00 I agree with Greg here that scientific research gets misused, but he comes off as naive and unwilling to name the biggest and worst offenders. Of course it's not great that social media influencers misuse science (although it does get people more interested in science and it can get people stuck in their ways to try something new!). But the worst offenders, which Greg doesn't (dare?) mention, is The Science as determined by authorities and institutions backed by multi-billion dollar corporations and investor groups. Research on nutrition and medical drugs especially is so hugely impacted by this, that it's pretty much impossible to trust anything on it. The most important question that nobody seems to be asking is: "How hard is it for a researcher to investigate the negative effects of something that makes the industry/investors billions, or to publish (unexpected) negative results on it?". If the answer is "it's pretty much career over to even attempt it", then any study that finds a negative result should hold a ton more weight than an affirming study. And the same applies to a positive result for something that competes with and threatens certain industries/investors. I also don't like how Greg discredits the carbohydrate-insulin model based on its strictest interpretation, because a looser interpretation still *is* very relevant for many (overweight) people with metabolic syndrome. And the strict scientific interpretation doesn't even matter much for end users: if they replace sugar and processed simple carbs by water/tea/coffee, fruit, vegetables, and whole foods containing complex carbs, they will get better outcomes (more stable energy levels, less cravings, less overeating) even if their energy% derived from carbs doesn't actually go down.