November 2024 Research Review

In the November 2024 research review, Drs. Jordan Feigenbaum and Austin Baraki discuss the effects of de-training periods in resistance training and the potential benefits of carbon monoxide supplementation for enhancing altitude training. New research investigated 20 weeks of continuous training vs. two 10-week periods of training separated by a 10-week off period. The results are....not what you might expect! The second study explored the use of carbon monoxide to stimulate red blood cell production and what effects it had regarding VO2 max and power output in elite cyclists. Ethical and monitoring concerns are also discussed.
Become a Barbell Medicine Plus Member:
barbellmedicin...
Resources Page: www.barbellmed...
Template Quiz: www.barbellmed...
Studies
onlinelibrary....
journals.physi...
Need a coach? Contact Us:
www.barbellmed...

[@MrMrLower]

Great episode as always :)

[@TheMightyMrQuinn]

GAAP (generally accepted accounting principles)

[@rudolphrictor5167]

Thanksgiving BBM video?! blessed are we! :)

[@JayEss414]

great conversation

[@limitisillusion7]

2:32 I here anecdotes of people who go from 4 plates to 5 plate deadlifts faster than 3 to 4. I'm gonna go ahead a believe that will apply to me.

[@limitisillusion7]

A lot of strength training studies are difficult to take conclusions from without nutrition controls. I looked at the first study in hopes of at least finding body weight measurements before and after, but I think they only measured them once. It's hard to trust that one group isn't instinctively driven to eat more protein than another, for example. These strength training studies are great opportunities to combine with nutrition studies, but it's much more costly. It would be interesting to split up periodic and continuous training groups further into caloric deficit, maintenance, and surplus groups, perhaps with macronutrient control and ideally with micronutrient control. You can either do larger RCTs to help weed out confounding factors as much as possible, or do more controlled smaller studies. I think the best option is larger RCTs that measure as many variables as is financially viable, even if those variables aren't controlled. The more data the better, even if we can't yet identify the patterns. It's just more science that justifies my hesitancy to apply conclusions to individuals. People who want the optimal results can use the literature as a starting point and experiment from there. People who are willing to settle for less optimal results can just follow the literature. Something I noticed is that my body performs better on certain types of foods... the same foods I ate a lot as a young child. I'm curious if there is an epigenetic factor that makes our bodies better at processing the foods we've been exposed to the most, or the foods we were exposed to during childhood. That same epigenetic factor might apply to physical adaptations too. If you were chopping wood by the age of 7, you might be better at lifting weights in your 20s. No matter what way the nature vs nurture debate leans towards, knowledge of that leaning can help us optimize goals, whether by decoding the genes or manipulating the environment towards the goals.

[@azulsimmons1040]

I would pick height too. I'd pick around 6'6" which opens up nearly everything. I'd probably focus more on football. Get yoked up at 6'6" and play defensive line. That would be a blast.

[@gokukakarot1855]

For the algorithm

[@Foxeyflex]

First (never been able to say that before). Welcome back to the tubes!