Figuring out strength training is necessarily gonna be an empirical endeavor. As such, comparing responses to different approaches empirically will be the way you compare. There are a couple of ways to do so:
1) Compare the science
2) Compare anecdotal responses.
3) Compare programming at the top level.
I'll go through them to explain why I believe accumulated experience has come to indicate that submaximal programming is on average better for most people than Aasgard-grinding-programming:
1) The thing that correlates most highly to strength is muscle cross-section area. Meaning that increasing muscle size is the primary way you get stronger past the novice stage. Many studies comparing volume protocols for inducing hypertrophy have been done, and they've come to show that total weekly volume is by far the most important parameter when it comes to maximizing hypertrophy. It is far more important than both sets/reps, proximity to failure, relative intensity and frequency. Not that these things don't matter, but they are of lesser importance. Aasgard programming makes little attempts to jack up volume, and this is a mistake when progress stalls after the early intermediate stage. Thus science indicates that this style of progamming has huge room for improvement.
2) Most strong people on this site left and chose different programming. The people who stay here are new, and less experienced with multiple styles of programming, and still fooled by the rhetoric due to their inexperience with alternative forms of programming. The strong people left are mostly SSCs who are strongly incentivized to follow Rip both emotionally, intellectually and to appear to do so, but many SSCs have gone too since they were not free to express their opinions within the confines of the SS-realm anymore. So the anecdotal evidence is also in favor of submaximal programming.
3) RTS had the most medals at the latest IPF world. Coan famously said he never missed a Rip in his interview with Rip, which also indicates submaximal programming. Beyond Joseph Pena, I know of no top strength athletes affiliated with SS. And Pena has the classic symptoms of an overreliance on Aasgard programming with his excessive bodyweight percentage and poverty bench relative to his other lifts.
So three different avenues of empirical evidence all seem to suggest Aasgard programming is not the way to go. You all can disagree with me, but I believe the evidence is on my side.
1) "weekly volume is by far the most important parameter when it comes to maximizing hypertrophy." That is by far an oversimplified overstatement.
2) Everyone is free to express opinions. Everyone is also free to get butthurt when someone disagrees with your opinion. A discussion cannot be held if one side is refusing to acknowledge strong limitations in the studies that are done with 60 seconds rest between sets and unilateral leg extensions. Telling someone who is impressed with Science to take those limitations seriously is like telling a religious guy that god doesn't exist. Take yourself as an example. I showed you that "MPS data" is not what you think it is, but absolutely nothing has changed in your point of view. This is why your walls of text are pointless. Strength training is more complicated than "just do more volume" because more volume is not always better.
3) You are comparing apples and oranges. Do you think there's no self selection bias here? Tuchscherer doesn't coach novices. He coaches lifters who are already strong and who are highly motivated to compete in powerlifting.
Feel free to offer your own statement then...
Well, I partially agree in that you rarely convince the other side in a debate, but debates do actually work well in promoting an emerging truth through the synthesis of all the presented arguments.2) Everyone is free to express opinions. Everyone is also free to get butthurt when someone disagrees with your opinion. A discussion cannot be held if one side is refusing to acknowledge strong limitations in the studies that are done with 60 seconds rest between sets and unilateral leg extensions. Telling someone who is impressed with Science to take those limitations seriously is like telling a religious guy that god doesn't exist. Take yourself as an example. I showed you that "MPS data" is not what you think it is, but absolutely nothing has changed in your point of view. This is why your walls of text are pointless. Strength training is more complicated than "just do more volume" because more volume is not always better.
Regarding your MPS data, I went back and read it. I hope you'll have some understanding that I didn't fine-read the responses of large parts of a forum all answering me over a couple of days, it was just too much. You article about MPS for different types of exercise was interesting, but I don't think it fully refutes the validity of MPS. It just made the significance of it murkier, and I don't know enough to unmurky it.
That being said, the primary point of my MPS post was not to swing my exercise science dick around, because I'm not in the field and this discussion right here is just me doing a pointless pastime. The point was to offer a counter-argument against Rip's "SRA length increases"-model, which I find flawed. As I have said repeatedly, it's not my job to refute a model that has as flimsy a support as my forum post had.
Ah, the classic "we train novices here" schtick. Tuschererer has said he'd be willing to train novices, and I've seen SSCs refer to training clients who compete. The difference in who they train is a function of what the market has chosen, because top powerlifters could certainly find SSCs who would be willing to take their money.3) You are comparing apples and oranges. Do you think there's no self selection bias here? Tuchscherer doesn't coach novices. He coaches lifters who are already strong and who are highly motivated to compete in powerlifting.
The point of strength coaches is fundamentally training individualization. When two market suppliers that fundamentally offer the same product of training individualization wind up serving different segments, that reflects on the level of the product supplied as the market sees it. You could argue the market is misperceiving here, but since there's little evidence that Aasgard programming works better than alternative programming past the novice stage, I don't think so at least...
1) Where's your argument?
2) This is honestly one of my biggest qualms with this community. I can understand the intellectual honesty behind recommending higher intensity lifting and gaining tons of body weight to get stronger if that has actually been the general experience of the most tenured coaches. What I cannot understand is the constant hate for all science as though it's trash because it is in their field of expertise. You can cherry pick some scientific data done on all novices with all isolation exercises done cross training style with 30 second rest. You can also find data on trained subjects with conventional barbell movements with reasonable rest times and reasonable methods of measurement, but when those papers state perhaps that training at <60% 1RM with high reps can induce strength progress or that exercise variation has been shown to generally improve results, you guys lose your minds and declare all science void. I know of no other respected organization in any other field that throws out scientific literature as a whole like SS does.
3) Tuchscherer doesn't coach novices; this is true. He takes the elite and makes them better. That's also a valuable skill. You can't throw out all of his methods because he trains primarily advanced lifters. SS is very clear that advanced trainees have the hardest time making progress, so an organization that can consistently take those already at the top and make them stronger clearly knows a thing or two about training, not that it negates everything that SS does either.
You are not a good representative for what is called "reasoning" either.
This is all complete and utter bullshit. You seem to be the only one here that doesn't understand why.
This is also complete and utter bullshit, so riddled with errors, misstatements and factual inaccuracies that it's not worth refuting. Might as well be in the Youtube comments. You guys continue if it makes you happy to argue with someone who is not entitled to an opinion.
Devyn, is a there a good paper I missed that has nothing seriously wrong with it? Link? And our problem is not with Mike's methods for lifters at the worlds. Please don't make me explain this again.
I don't think there's one overarching main reason, but I think there are several ones:
1) I was never strong or athletic. I lost every game of arm wrestling I tried, and did my first chin-up while never having been properly obese after half a year of training.
2) I started slightly late at 27 and never did any sports beyond soccer with friends growing up. Not that this is too late to make good gains, but there's certainly an advantage to having started strength training in your teens/early adulthood or having a history of athletics.
3) I definitely don't have as good a work ethic as both those do. They're doctors who have multiple ventures at the same time, yet never skip sessions. I don't think many people work as them. Not that I'm a total slouch, I usually only miss a week or two or training effectively per year, but that's more than zero.
4) I don't log, and I'm just probably far more casual about my progress than both those two are. My main priorities are showing up, doing my planned work sets for my main movements as best as possible within reasonable RPEs, and not getting hurt. I do assistance work based on mood/what equipment is available. I'm sure both those two are far more anal about their programming.