New literature/study reveiw by Greg Nuckols, Mike Zourdos, and Eric Helms

[OCG]

https://www.strongerbyscience.com/mass-issue-1/

So, this is a thing. Anyone read it and had any thoughts? Working my way through it now.

EDIT: If anyone wants the first (free) issue but doesn't want to sign up, PM me.

[BenM]

Grabbed it yesterday but haven't had a chance to have a proper look yet.

Considering the authors I am expecting it to be reasonably good information.

[Tim K]

Taking a look. Just read the first part about the HIIT vs steady state cardio effects on weight training. Surprised/disappointed they didn't point out that the protocol (2 min on/1 min off, total duration equated with the moderate intensity cardio group) was very different from the max intensity/short duration HIIT training that most of us would think of.

[DeriHughes]

I have it but haven't had chance to read it yet. I'm hoping to be surprised but anticipating that it will be interesting but not critical enough of the studies. Will report back once I've dug into it a bit.

[OCG]

Taking a look. Just read the first part about the HIIT vs steady state cardio effects on weight training. Surprised/disappointed they didn't point out that the protocol (2 min on/1 min off, total duration equated with the moderate intensity cardio group) was very different from the max intensity/short duration HIIT training that most of us would think of.

It's the usual thing that never gets pointed out: the actual training protocols used in the studies are weird as fuck and possibly not relevant to what most people who actually train would do. If you look at one of the lifting programs the studies used it was like fucking all 3x10-12 kinda bullshit.

Thoughts thus far upon skimming: Ehh... Doesn't seem really critical enough, it's trying to draw conclusions from single studies and ends up being a bit wishy washy. Biggest thing is, they don't really seem to come to any conclusions that are in any way new or novel. It's not very useful in the end.

[melody]

Grabbed it yesterday but haven't had a chance to have a proper look yet.

Considering the authors I am expecting it to be reasonably good information.

Having had my programming done for 18 months by one of the authors I say "meh"

[OCG]

Having had my programming done for 18 months by one of the authors I say "meh"

Zourdos right?

[chrisd]

Taking a look. Just read the first part about the HIIT vs steady state cardio effects on weight training. Surprised/disappointed they didn't point out that the protocol (2 min on/1 min off, total duration equated with the moderate intensity cardio group) was very different from the max intensity/short duration HIIT training that most of us would think of.

If they are reviewing literature, I suppose they are restricted to what the literature provides. Two minutes on one minute off looks more like a 5k runners' kilometer intervals than HIIT.

[melody]

Zourdos right?

Correct.

[MBasic]

Taking a look. Just read the first part about the HIIT vs steady state cardio effects on weight training. Surprised/disappointed they didn't point out that the protocol (2 min on/1 min off, total duration equated with the moderate intensity cardio group) was very different from the max intensity/short duration HIIT training that most of us would think of.

yeah, and then what was the "Moderate Conditioning"?

Study would be better with true HIIT vs true LISS (what bodybuilders use most times; "no huff" easy cardio) vs. no cardio.

. . . I guess they couldn't screw up the "no cardio" part.

So, I guess we did get something out of the study in that regard: No Cardio is they way to go when strength is the top priority (say your initial SSLP)