Quote (shane_is_a_balla @ Jul 21 2016 11:24am)

Can find full text on Brad's researchgate

also on his blog he himself said, "Somewhat unexpectedly, however, muscle thickness tended to be greater when taking longer rest intervals as well. Although we can’t be sure of the underlying mechanisms, we speculated that results may be attributed a reduction in total volume load (i.e. reps /x/ load) over the course of the study. There is a well-established dose-response relationship between volume and hypertrophy, whereby higher volumes correlate with greater muscle growth. Thus, very short rest periods may compromise growth by reducing the amount of weight you can use on subsequent sets. This would indicate that if there are synergistic benefits to heightened metabolic stress, they are overshadowed by the associated decreased volume."

Lol. Obviously volume is going to be somewhat attenuated given less rest and thus lower weight, etc.

Quote (cloudkicker @ Jul 21 2016 11:08pm)

the study means nothing then. they cant say that rest times influenced the muscle hypertrophy if theyre using different volumes of work in each pair of subjects. they can possibly say that rest times x volume affected gains but how do you isolate the effect of one variable when the two confound eachother?

Quote (noob_whacker @ Jul 21 2016 11:26pm)

in for intense learning and discussion :ph34r:

Quote (dechristianize @ Jul 21 2016 11:40pm)

ive been waiting a year and a half since my last set, cant say i feel that great, dunno how good that long rest period really is.

Quote (cloudkicker @ Jul 21 2016 11:38pm)

Basic experimental design son. Two variables like rest time and volume influence one outcome like hypertrophy. If you change both at the same time in one experiment, you cannot say that any result you see is based on just rest time. What if rest time actually has no influence at all, and the change is due entirely to volume changes?

Quote (cloudkicker @ Jul 21 2016 11:08pm)

the study means nothing then. they cant say that rest times influenced the muscle hypertrophy if theyre using different volumes of work in each pair of subjects. they can possibly say that rest times x volume affected gains but how do you isolate the effect of one variable when the two confound eachother?

Quote (shane_is_a_balla @ Jul 22 2016 03:17pm)

By making all other variables equal, it would be impossible to equate volume, as the longer rest times will by necessity lead to lifting more weight overall. Sure, this study can't answer whether it's due to the rest times themselves or due to the well documented effect of greater volume and hyp, but I'd argue that's superfluous. Unless you can come up with a way to equate volume, differ rest times, and still equate everything else?

e: also worth noting I don't believe the volume differences were statistically significant

Quote (cloudkicker @ Jul 22 2016 06:07pm)

its not superfluous at all (especially because that adjective doesnt describe what you mean to say). a study on the effect of rest times on hypertrophy that does not control for volume, a very well known confounder, cannot make any claims about the singular effect of rest time on its dependent variable. if you want to evaluate the effect of rest time duration on muscle hypertrophy, the short group uses a minimal (or inadequate) amount of time to recover from x volume of work while the long group uses a superfluous (correct usage) amount of time to recover from x volume of work. THEN you look at differences in hyp and strength. this study is valid, but claims can't be made about the effect of ONLY rest time on strength and CSA.

Quote (shane_is_a_balla @ Jul 22 2016 07:47pm)

It would then be impossible to keep other important training variables held constant, such as training to failure. If the rest times were longer vs shorter, they'd have to stop short of failure vs hitting failure, respectively. Yes, volume load would be held equal, but it would then be confounded by this other factor. At least in Brad's study that integral component was held constant so the effort was never in question.

As a side note, please never try to correct vocab because you honestly just embarrassed yourself here LOL. Superfluous means unnecessary, typically due to being too much. My use was correct and what literally made me lol irl is that.... yours wasn't :lol: :rofl:

Quote (tommyd323 @ Jul 22 2016 03:21am)

U still exist