Want to build muscle and get strong but don't know where to start? READ THIS 👉
I'm going to break down what you need to focus on so you don't waste your time on stuff that doesn't matter
To build muscle & get strong you must force it to adapt
✅ You must force adaptation → via progressive overload
✅ But Progressive “Overload” isn’t always just adding weight. (PMID: 36199287)
There is more than one way to progressively overload and force adaptation:
✅ Add weight or do more reps with the same weight
❌ But you can’t add weight/reps forever.
✅ You can however, Increase the number of hard sets (quality volume) for progressive overload
✅ Volume (hard sets) becomes the lever. (PMID: 35873210)
What counts as a hard set?
✅ A set taken within a few reps of volitional failure (when you couldn’t complete another rep with good form without assistance)
Higher proximity to failure tends to support hypertrophy. (PMID 30747900)
❌ Going to absolute failure every time is not required, you just need to get close (within a few reps) & training to failure can be very fatiguing
“Why not take every set to failure?”
❌ Not necessary—training to ~1–3 RIR (reps in reserve) builds similar muscle in many cases
❌ Full failure is far more fatiguing and may harm next-session performance. (PMID: 36752989)
If you want to train to failure, save it for your final set of an exercise so that it does not negatively impact performance on subsequent sets
Using RIR/RPE based programming can be helpful
Using RIR/RPE to target intensity:
• RIR = reps in reserve.
• RPE (0-10 scale) = 10 − RIR.
0 RIR = failure = RPE 10
Example: 8 reps at 2 RIR → RPE 8 (you felt you had ~2 reps left).
(RIR-based intensity prescription: 27531969)
That said, using RIR or RPE takes some skill
Reality check: Most beginner/intermediate lifters misjudge proximity to failure unless they have been shown how to properly use it
😬 Meta-analysis (PMID 34542869) shows people under-predict remaining reps when not trained in how to use RIR/RPE
👉 Occasional sets taken to true failure help calibrate your feel & improve your RIR/RPE accuracy
Other truths worth knowing:
✅ Rep range: You can build similar muscle using light or heavy loads if taken close enough to failure (PMID: 28834797)
✅ Rest intervals: Longer rest (~2-3 min+) often yields more growth per set than short rests
✅ Frequency is mostly a tool to distribute volume but there is some evidence training a muscle ~2×/week may beat 1×/week (PMID: 27102172 & 30558493)
Other sh*t you should know:
You need to put tension on the muscle in a stretched position for optimal muscle growth:
✅Full range of motion (ROM) beats partial range of motion training in the shortened position (think half squats vs full squats) (PMID: 34170576)
✅Lengthened partials, however (think doing half reps at the bottom of a squat) produce the same hypertrophy as full ROM (PMID: 33977835)
Other sh*t you should know:
❌Rep tempo doesn't seem to matter much unless it is taken to extremes
✅Rep durations of 0.5-8s produce similar hypertrophy (PMID: 25601394)
❌Rep durations of shorter then 0.5s or longer than 8s produce less hypertrophy and should be avoided
Guideline: Reps should be slow enough to move under control safely but fast enough to use heavy weights
Putting it together:
✔ Set a weekly set count per muscle. The exact number of sets you'll need to optimize growth depend on how advanced you are & your genetics (most studies ~10-20 sets/wk). Use frequency to distribute volume for better training performance
✔ Take most sets to ~1-3 RIR (RPE 7-9) & occasional failure check to improve your RIR accuracy
✔ Choose a rep range & speed you can control well. Rest as long as you need to be ready for next set
It sets your reps/sets/intensity/frequency based on the latest science, but lets you pick the exercises based on what you have available & what you enjoy
The Workout Builder is no BS, no guesswork, just full access to all my evidence-based programming Let’s build you a plan that works📷
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Lifting vs. Cardio, which should you do first? (A thread)
Many folks are strapped for time and trying to optimize their workouts for maximum results. This often means doing cardio and weight training on the same day
Let me start by saying, if you’re in the gym exercising, you’re crushing it
You don’t need to be there 6 days a week to get results
However, if you’re combining cardio and weights, the age-old question remains: Which one should be done first?
In this month's issue of my research review, REPS, we covered a new study that examined the effects of concurrent training. (PMID: 40040838)
Concurrent training refers to training programs that include both cardio and resistance training.
This technique can be polarizing in the fitness space.
However, I’m less interested in someone's personal bias and more interested in what research reveals about what order is best if you do both
Let’s look at the science.
The study published in February of this year set out to examine the effect of the sequence of concurrent training on body composition and fitness.
The participants:
● 45 obese young men with no pre-existing conditions
● BMI averaged about 30
● Body fat percentage averaged 32%
● Untrained individuals, meaning no structured exercise within the last 6 months
Let's talk about the Keto-CTA LMHR study (PMID: 40192608) that got everyone pissed off
I'm late to the party & don't have a ton more to add other than what people like @DrNadolsky & other's have pointed out but for those who may have not seen these other takes I'm going to give my take
The core claim of this study is that LDL-Cholesterol & ApoB levels do not correlate with plaque progression
But let's look at the actual data shall we?
This study, conducted by a group that includes some high-profile keto influencers has rightly been criticized for its conclusions.
It’s an object lesson in the importance of reviewing studies in depth before giving credence to the results.
Especially when the research is conducted by a group with a clear and public bias, and when the findings fly in the face of the vast majority of other research.
To be clear, the potential for bias and/or results that challenge the status quo are not reasons in and of themselves for dismissing a study.
A study should be evaluated on its merits, including study design, quality of the research, and the applicability of its findings
And this is where the KETO-CTA trial fails to pass muster.
1. Failure to report primary outcome data
The primary outcome in the pre-trial registration was non-calcified plaque volume (NCPV) a measure of the growth of non-calcified plaque (NCP is less stable than calcified plaque & a bigger risk for CVD)
Did you set a goal of losing weight in 2025?
Here’s one way NOT to do it: the carnivore diet
There are many healthy ways to drop pounds and get fit, but carnivore isn’t one of them
While I’m a pretty agnostic guy when it comes to what you eat, this is one diet fad I recommend you stay far away from
Here’s why...
For those who may not know, a carnivore diet is a high-protein, high-fat diet made up entirely of animal products
You can eat all the beef, chicken, organ meat, fish, eggs, and butter you want. Some versions also allow cheese, milk, and yogurt in limited amounts.
No plant foods allowed, which means no fruits, vegetables, grains, nuts, or legumes
Some people do lose weight & feel better on it, but that doesn't mean it's a healthy diet
The carnivore diet is basically an extreme version of a keto diet & claims to aid fat loss, reduce inflammation, improve metabolic health, & boost energy
The best way to think about a carnivore diet is as an “elimination diet.”
People are so enthusiastic about carnivore diets because they feel better after starting them
But it’s not because a carnivore diet is a “good diet.” It’s because eliminating junk food or other foods that bother you will make you feel better
Do you need to train to failure to build muscle & get stronger?
When I was getting into bodybuilding circa 2000 there were many hotly debated topics but one thing that was not debated was how crucial training to failure was
Virtually every bodybuilding magazine emphasized not just training to failure, but BEYOND failure (drop sets, forced reps, super sets, etc) Intensity was EVERYTHING
But if the last few decades of research has taught us anything it's that dogma is often wrong. So what does the research say about training to failure?
Before we dig in, let's define 'failure.' It has many different definitions depending on who you ask, but the most common is the following:
The point in a set at which you can't perform another concentric repetition without assistance
In the latest issue of my research review, REPS we dive DEEP into the latest science on training to failure for muscle growth & strength
Initially, a meta-analysis from 2021 suggested that training to failure produced more hypertrophy compared to not training to failure (PMID: 33555822)
However, a subgroup analysis found that this result was confounded by differences in total training volume (the subjects training to failure performed more overall total volume)
When the subgroup analysis was performed with volume equated, there were no differences in hypertrophy between failure vs. non-failure training
These results were in agreement with a subsequent meta-analysis where training to failure did not produce more growth or strength compared with non-failure when volume was equated between conditions (PMID: 33497853)