Israetel: Is Strength Training Dangerous?

[Richoldman]

Hi Rip,

I watched your interview with Mike Israetel, because I started reading Israetel's book on hypertrophy. I enjoyed listening to you discuss good and bad coaching. At the same time, I wanted to hear a comparison of the two approaches to training - strength vs. hypertrophy. As an advocate of hypertrophy, Israetel states,"Fatigue and injury risk generated by loading greater than 85% 1RM increases exponentially." Presumably 85% 1RM is within the working range of strength training. Thus, he seems to be saying strength training is inherently dangerous when one gets to that level of intensity. Thoughts?

[Mark Rippetoe]

"Fatigue and injury risk generated by loading greater than 85% 1RM increases exponentially."

Do you know what "exponentially" means? Do you know what a 1RM actually is? Have you actually read an Exercise Science "study" about this? What is the actual phenomenology of injury rates among competitive lifters, who train at that level most of the time? Are you sure Dr. Israetel said this, because I don't think he's that stupid.

If you want to lift light weights, go ahead. But the NLP works a lot better if getting stronger is your objective.

[Robert Santana]

Hi Rip,

I watched your interview with Mike Israetel, because I started reading Israetel's book on hypertrophy. I enjoyed listening to you discuss good and bad coaching. At the same time, I wanted to hear a comparison of the two approaches to training - strength vs. hypertrophy. As an advocate of hypertrophy, Israetel states,"Fatigue and injury risk generated by loading greater than 85% 1RM increases exponentially." Presumably 85% 1RM is within the working range of strength training. Thus, he seems to be saying strength training is inherently dangerous when one gets to that level of intensity. Thoughts?

Ask Mike if the same level of risk applies to the 225 lb deadlifter versus the 825 deadlifter.

[Jason Donaldson]

I watched your interview with Mike Israetel, because I started reading Israetel's book on hypertrophy. I enjoyed listening to you discuss good and bad coaching. At the same time, I wanted to hear a comparison of the two approaches to training - strength vs. hypertrophy. As an advocate of hypertrophy, Israetel states,"Fatigue and injury risk generated by loading greater than 85% 1RM increases exponentially." Presumably 85% 1RM is within the working range of strength training. Thus, he seems to be saying strength training is inherently dangerous when one gets to that level of intensity. Thoughts?

Note that 85-86% of 1RM is a pretty common estimate of 5RM.... Then consider that in light of SS's use of sets of 5 as the primary driver of strength (and therefore its associated benefits, like...hypertrophy...) plus the tendency to avoid doing max singles and such for non-competitive lifters.

[SouthernLifter]

Is this the same guy who said you should ditch squats (and the entire bodybuilding leg exercise repertoire: 45º leg press, extensions, lunges, etc) and do the "reverse nordic curl" to grow your quads, since sports "science" has proven that this is the best exercise to hypertrophy them? I just watched that video of him and automatically blocked his channel.

Why don't you just run a NPL conscientiously, with good rest and nutrition, and see what happens? After all, the NPL works at 5s and not at 1rms.

[dalan]

"Fatigue and injury risk generated by loading greater than 85% 1RM increases exponentially." Presumably 85% 1RM is within the working range of strength training. Thus, he seems to be saying strength training is inherently dangerous when one gets to that level of intensity. Thoughts?

Train at 84%. Problem solved.

[Martin Shenfield]

1. Don't presume anything.
2. Don't find out what your 1RM is and you won't be able to work above 85% of it.
3. Dr. Mike, in my opinion, likes to say a lot of funny things for views. He also has very interesting takes on some subjects that would be considered as being incorrect elsewhere.

Seriously, even if injury risk is higher, reward is greater and if you read the blue book you will find wonderful statistics on injury rates for lifting sports. It's a higher injury risk in a low injury risk setting.

[smokeyjones]

Is this the same guy who said you should ditch squats (and the entire bodybuilding leg exercise repertoire: 45º leg press, extensions, lunges, etc) and do the "reverse nordic curl" to grow your quads, since sports "science" has proven that this is the best exercise to hypertrophy them? I just watched that video of him and automatically blocked his channel.

Why don't you just run a NPL conscientiously, with good rest and nutrition, and see what happens? After all, the NPL works at 5s and not at 1rms.

Stretch mediated hypertrophy does seem to be the new buzz.

Doesn't help that zoomers digest information in shorts. And the algorithm likes lists and novelty. Top10 best reasons why squats are killing your relationship!

[biggah_traps]

Train at 84%. Problem solved.

3 sets of 5 and 5 sets of 5 are both likely 84% or under, so anyone doing SS, TM or HLM is likely only doing a few reps above that on intensity day per week

[Cole Gorton]

1. Don't presume anything.
2. Don't find out what your 1RM is and you won't be able to work above 85% of it.
3. Dr. Mike, in my opinion, likes to say a lot of funny things for views. He also has very interesting takes on some subjects that would be considered as being incorrect elsewhere.

Seriously, even if injury risk is higher, reward is greater and if you read the blue book you will find wonderful statistics on injury rates for lifting sports. It's a higher injury risk in a low injury risk setting.

this was well said