T Nation

Stimulus to Fatigue Ratio w/ Mike Israetel & Paul Carter

:rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:

Well, it doesnt. Other than being an upper absolute limit of your range.

Back in the day, we would routinely do 4-6 sets per exercise, and 2-3 exercises/bodypart. We didnt count a set as a set unless it was to failure, which we defined as couldnt complete another rep without assistance. We always did 1-3 forced reps at the end of the last couple of sets for each exercise. We did this every workout, unless we felt off that day, in which case we would dial everything backlighter weights, fewer sets, not to failure. We worked everything once over a 3 on/1 off cycle.

Oh, and Im pretty sure weights were heavier back then than they are now250# weighed as much as 275# does today.

3 Likes

Does it matter if Paul trains to failure or not? Hes usually performing some inverted isolateral cable glute crunch with a 8:12:4.5 timing with a 6 page explanation as to why this is a far superior exercise to squatting. Dude is trying to make a buck in the industry so he needs to over complicate things, hoping youll seek his guidance.

5 Likes

I do not really follow Paul but, I have not seen this.

It is Mike and RP strength that complicate things. 4/1 paradigms, mesocycles where you go up in RPE and sets, metabolite training etc. Even their nutrition is complicated for many to do alone so, they use the app.

They have also been caught lying about failure training on their Instagram.

Honestly I regard anything pushed by a fitness celebrity/influencer/author/etc with a ton of skepticism.

Imo there havent been any new developments that have improved whats possible in the last few decades, and the top physiques and actual science journals (not fitness articles) all attest to that.

Ive said it before but everyone is working with the same available science no matter how much they profess to have special secrets in their efforts to get your $.

S

3 Likes

(Cough cough) $ (cough cough)

S

2 Likes

This is similar to my take on him as well. Whenever I would read one of his programs or writings, it would be a case study on How to Make Training (and yourself) Intolerable. If it really took his approach to make any progress, Id rather be a fat bastard and enjoy my ice cream.

1 Like

:wink:

Exactly. In fact, I got pretty far along following some of his previous recommendations. I appreciated someone being honest for a change.

1 Like

When I see someone do a drastic philosophy shift like that the red flags go up.

1 Like

Agreed. I think some of this also has to do with the contrarian nature of the sorts of people drawn to lifting. Whatever the unwashed masses are doing in the gym, the hardcores will find a reason to do the opposite. I like the middle path, personally.

1 Like

In contrast, Marty Gallagher has been big on promoting duality as it comes to training and nutrition. Seasons of the warrior diet contrasted with seasons of the Parrillo diet for instance. I am looking at contrasting Deep Water with DoggCrapp. It would actually seem like extreme switches make more sense than gradual shifts.

2 Likes

I think the difference is programming vs philosophy. If a bodybuilder told you they did Westside in the off season, then a more traditional split precontest, you wouldnt think twice. But if someone blogged about a Crossfit genocide, only to preach the validity of their methods two years later, well you might question their integrity.

Eh, I find 2 years enough time to change a tune honestly

1 Like

CT is all for this, the opposite training

I havent read a ton of Pauls stuff, but I took some of the changed philosophy to be due to a bodybuilding focus now vs. a powerlifting/strength focus before.

Maybe if youre on the border of an issue or somewhat indifferent. But if my Nazi neighbor converts to Judaism in the next two years, Im going to have serious reservations about going to his house for Passover.

2 Likes

As he has been with everything else he pushes.

How can anyone one get on Paul but, not mention CT? He changes his methods all the time and says it is because he is always learning她k. Could be all about the money.

Judging by his neuro stuff he is apparently also a psychiatrist. There is no scientific base to his neuro training even the psych test he modeled it after is not used.

1 Like

Probably because there are many useful methods Even in straight bodybuilding you have many different training methodologies all differents on the intensity/volume/frequency spectrum which all produced great results.

If you read his books or articles from 15 years ago you can see he still preaches the same things, and the concepts he uses are based on older stuff that was already proven.

For instance: 6 weeks to superhero is based on Bulgarian old conrtast training as well as French Contrast and known and used techniques in S&C like PAP and the strength/speed spectrum

Not saying that everything he says or does is golden though (like his abs shredder workout) but considering the incredible amount of free knowledge he has given out over years I give him the benefit of the doubt for sure

1 Like