(07-21-2019, 10:37 PM)Scott Stevenson Wrote: Really, though - thanks for the support. It's interesting how things do come around, though, eh?...
-S
Scott, The first thing that comes to my mind is: "shit, the scientific based crew sells itself very very well!".
If Raffaele (me) said: high frequency is better because "several reasons", all their fans replied "shut up, mr nobody!".
If Jeff nippard says the exact same thing, the same guys follow him like the sheep follow the Sheppard!
Yesterday I was reading a paper about rest pause sets.
At the beginning the authors wrote that "net muscle gain is anabolism - catabolism" and cited "Schoenfeld 2013".
Ok...schoenfeld 2013???? I've been reading researches on pubmed since 1999. All the researches I read during this years say that muscle gain is the net difference between anabolism and catabolism. Why do they quote Schoenfeld that is not the first to say that? Because they are a buttKiss and hope he will invite them to a siminar.
I've a PHD and work in university. I know very well these kind of academical dynamics. and let me say: I hate them!
Sorry my digression!
