Stronger By Science

If you're just starting out, a newbie walking into the gym, I'd recommend looking at a 5x5 program like Stronglifts. It's an iPhone/Adroid app with a website and a ton of information. It isn't perfect because nothing is but it will give you a basis, a starting point. You'll have a program of exercises, squat, bench, ... and sequence. You'll do the exercises and learn about form. It's a start. Taking classes like Bodypump is another approach. You won't learn anything about form and the weights will be more about endurance and tone but it's a start. I'm assuming you're a complete newbie walking into a gym needing a sustainable start. Do this for 3-6 months then try to connect with a powerlifting program. If you really want to know a LOT, look at Stronger By Science. https://www.strongerbyscience.com/

I recommend this "Stronger by Science" episode on it: https://www.strongerbyscience.com/podcast-episode-117/

> but 3-5 sets of 10 exercises from 60% - 80% seems to be a hypertrophy program than strength. 10 rep range still provides plenty of strength gains as long as you are pushing to near failure. It is less CNS adaptation than going much nearer to your 1RM or 10RPE for a fewer amount of sets, but it's not going to put you into the "weak bodybuilder with gigantic muscles" meme https://www.strongerbyscience.com/powerlifters-should-train-more-like-… - tldr is periodization is good, and people should spend more time in the range considered hypertrophic than they do, even for strength training. I don't really follow this advice because I don't enjoy bodybuilding style lifting or using machines, but it's led Nuckolls and others to a multitude of world record powerlifts.

A big issue is that the current milieu rewards pure weight loss over other outcomes. The obvious[1] thing to do is to reduce the dose so that the appetite loss and consequent calorie deficit is in range of what is commonly recommended for weight loss[2] and prescribe resistance training to spare muscle as well as all its other health benefits. That said the bimagrumab results[4] are interesting [1] we would still want to do studies to confirm this, but all indications are that it would work as expected [2] 0.5-1% of bodyweight per month, or if you want to get fancy body fat percentage / 20[3] [3] https://www.strongerbyscience.com/realistic-training-goals/ [4] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7807292/

Sure. If you prefer reading: - Renaissance periodization articles https://rpstrength.com/training-volume-landmarks-muscle-growth/ -https://www.strongerbyscience.com/ (free articles) - https://www.strongerbyscience.com/mass/ (paid research review, worth the money) If you like podcasts: - https://ironculture.libsyn.com/ - https://revivestronger.com/podcast/ - https://sigmanutrition.com/ If you like youtube, check these channels: - Jeff Nippard - Omar Isuf - Alan Thrall - Renaissance periodization

sorry, i'm not sure what you mean. i can't recommend any books or papers. on the one hand i'm not a scientist myself, on the other hand i have no idea what you're interested in or what is relevant for you. but if i'd have to recommend ONE book, i'd say https://www.parktool.com/en-us/product/big-blue-book-of-bicycle-repair… - because you can't exercise at all on your bike if it's broken for random study reviews: https://www.strongerbyscience.com/research-spotlight/ , for nutrition and supplements: https://examine.com/ , for cycling, e.g.: https://www.youtube.com/c/DylanJohnsonCycling

https://www.strongerbyscience.com/ - lots of articles and meta analysis of fitness/nutrition studies. https://squatuniversity.com/ - articles and videos related to proper form and mobility.

Earlier this year I wanted to start a gym routine to gain some muscle mass and lower my body fat percentage. I found Jeff Nippard's youtube videos to be a good resource for my purposes: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC68TLK0mAEzUyHx5x5k-S1Q He's a bodybuilder/powerlifter/coach with a focus on evidence-based exercise and diet advice. I've heard him cite people like Mike Israetel and the MASS report at https://www.strongerbyscience.com/mass/ I like that his videos tend to be concise, and he does a good job of being clear about which of his recommendations are backed up by research and which are opinions based on his personal experience/preferences.

This is not great advice, according to what we know from both the research literature and people who are successful in (and successful coaches of) barbell sport. Namely, it's too much intensity, and not enough variety and volume. One good reference to learn more is https://www.strongerbyscience.com/complete-strength-training-guide/, and other articles on that site.

Stronger By Science has had a recent series of articles on these topics, I would recommend starting there. The last one was just posted today and I haven't dug too deep. From Mass to Energy: The Basic Physiology of Calories https://www.strongerbyscience.com/energy-balance-calories/ Calories and Weight: From the Lab to the Real World https://www.strongerbyscience.com/calories-weight/ The Definitive Diet Setup Guide: How to Build and Adjust a Smart Nutrition Plan https://www.strongerbyscience.com/diet/

This isn't true. Lower rep ranges will better acclimate the CNS to higher bar-weight, but that's not really the same as "strength". On the flipside, higher rep ranges don't give you bigger muscles - overall training volume (total weight moved per movement) is moreso the determining factor on "size"[0]. In general it's best to just do whatever you find difficult. Lots of "powerbuilders" use Undulating Periodization (sometimes Daily) to try and get the benefits of the CNS acclimation + the increased work capacity that higher rep ranges bring. [0] https://www.strongerbyscience.com/hypertrophy-range-fact-fiction/ [1] https://www.strongerbyscience.com/daily-undulating-periodization/

This actually isn't fully true, we don't digest all kinds calories equally. Generally speaking, yes, the most important factor in body weight is the total amount of calories consumed. Whether they are proteins, fats, complex carbs, or simple carbs, and when you consume them during the day, effects how much of that energy actually gets stored in the body. https://www.strongerbyscience.com has an article somewhere on this, and it's not well tested yet, but we're starting to see some scientific evidence to back this up.

Vegetarian lifter here. Getting quality protein is a bit more difficult, but if you're ovo-lacto vegetarian then egg whites and whey are great sources. You don't need to overdo it, just make sure you're getting enough. Once you're no longer a complete beginner, you might also want to consider supplementing with creatine, since you aren't getting much in your diet. For a deeper dive, I'd recommend this excellent article: https://www.strongerbyscience.com/vegetarian-and-vegan-athlete/

So just to be clear If someone wear 1-10-100 "smart devices" that someone do not loose weight You lost weight because you work hard, you eat smart and you change habits https://www.strongerbyscience.com/complete-guide-to-bar-speed-trackers… About phone calls - I prefer do not answer at all. Better to recall or write message or mail About measurements - you really can't rely on any of wrist device sensors. They are not calibrated at all And even better. You body has so much more preciser sensors than any device. One device that can measure somewhat decent when you do exercises - chest strap monitor And I love tech a lot. But tech which can improve my or someones life

The conclusions aren't any different (it's one of the few thing that helps strength, poses no danger to your hair, and almost certainly does nothing for cognition), but the articles at https://www.strongerbyscience.com/?s=creatine are far more comprehensive, including the famous extremely long podcast episodes they used to do. The one thing this misses is many supplements are tainted, which skews the popular perception of both upsides and risks. This was especially true in the US prior to 2005 or so when prohormones were still legal over the counter. Anything branded that wasn't just pure creatine was extremely likely to actually be a low-dose oral steroid, which really can make you lose hair and will increase strength quite a bit more than any dietary supplement. This also misses caffeine as the other a-tier supplement that consistently shows strength increases in RCTs, though of course, caffeine is more frought than creatine because you build tolerance and it can disturb sleep.

Yeah, (1) there is no "war on protein," (2) you do not need to eat very much protein unless you are trying to build muscle and you already work out a lot. The normal recommended daily intake for protein is 0.8 g/kg. 1.2-1.6 is silly; that's a recommendation for athletes.¹ Starches have been a dietary staple in pretty much every society forever. Sugars have not. It's silly that they treat grains as a "sometimes" food. There's also the weird boogeyman of "processed food." Almost all food is processed to some degree & always has been. We've been cooking, baking, juicing, fermenting, chopping, grinding, mashing, etc. long enough that it influenced the shape of our teeth. Certainly we haven't been making Pizza Pockets that long, but the issue there isn't processing, it's ingredients. And the reason people buy Pizza Pockets isn't that they think they're healthy—it's that Pizza Pockets only need to be microwaved, and cooking a real meal takes time that a lot of people just don't have. [1]: https://www.strongerbyscience.com/athlete-protein-intake/

The reason I compare it to construction is that at some point, pursing lifting to a high degrees involves putting in the amount of repetitions that amounts to a job with high statistical injury rate. If you follow bodybuilding and powerlifting closely, the amount of people who wash out due to injury is staggeringly high, to the point where an injury free career is anomalous and often credited to great genetics (tendon strength) than smart training. In fact the majority of the injuries happens on routine warm up reps, and because these people are enthusiasts and treat lifting almost like a job, they don't manage healing properly and will often continue training while injured leading to long term detriment. The particularly bone headed people will lift until they break their body and washout, but even smart lifters (who plan stress and fatigue sensibly) will eventually get injured past a certain level. This is like working in construction, people accrue damage over time, small injuries compound or big injuries take them out. The amount of work required in these occupation/hobbies are not calibrated for "health". [1] https://www.strongerbyscience.com/powerlifting-injuries-results/ >The overall number of people injured may surprise you. Of the 160 people who finished the study (either sustained an injury or made it through the whole year uninjured), almost ¾ of them sustained an injury. That seems to conflict with the finding that injury rates in powerlifting are only ~3-5 per…

> - This guy was eating at a very unhealthy calorie deficit (1000). You should never go over 500 kcal deficit if you don't want to lose loads of muscle in the process. A calorie deficit as high as his is comparable to a crash diet, and is prone to result in a quick upswing in weight once the diet ends, as you will have been starving yourself. Funnily enough, that is not true. A meta-analysis of 29 studies on the topic [1] has shown that: "Successful very-low-energy diets (VLEDs) were associated with significantly greater weight-loss maintenance than were successful hypoenergetic balanced diets (HBDs) at all years of follow-up. The percentage of individuals at 4 or 5 y of follow-up for VLEDs and HBDs were 55.4% and 79.7%, respectively. The results for VLEDs and HBDs, respectively, were as follows: weight-loss maintenance, 7.1 kg (95% CI: 6.1, 8.1 kg) and 2.0 (1.5, 2.5) kg; percentage weight-loss maintenance, 29% (25%, 33%) and 17% (13%, 22%); and reduced weight, 6.6% (5.7%, 7.5%) and 2.1% (1.6%, 2.7%)." Having a plan of what do do/how to eat post-diet (and avoiding binging back to your original weight) is more important than the way you lost your weight. The muscle mass loss is also not as dramatic as people might think, since less time spent in caloric deficit (because of the aggressive dieting) means that more time can then be spent in an anabolic state, and the muscle lost during the dieting phase can be regained very fast. Bearded wonder, powerlifter and now…

I see everybody talking about the nitrate, but there is another substance in beets that might be relevant... betaine, also known as trimethylglycine HCL. I take about 800mg of this pure in my orange juice in the mornings and it gives me a very noticeable boost. But it is possible that this effect is specific to me and maybe other people who are "under-methylators" (which I think is a somewhat pseudo-scientific concept, but it led me to try betaine and I got results). Betaine was first isolated from beets, hence the name, and as the other name, trimethylglycine, hints it has 3 easily donated methyl groups, so if you do need those for some reason it may be useful to you. It's also pretty cheap and unlikely to be harmful. Edit: I found this... https://www.strongerbyscience.com/betaine/

Interesting timing, Stronger By Science have just made their programme bundle free for every body: https://www.strongerbyscience.com/program-bundle/ Maybe making use of these could solve the exercise selection and programming issues in the app?

Smartwatches are poor estimators of energy expenditure of exercise: https://www.strongerbyscience.com/research-spotlight-wearables/ The same authors publish regular research reviews on nutrition and health at https://massresearchreview.com/; the general conclusion remains that exercise is a poor intervention for the purpose of weight loss is true. But estimating the effects of exercise is incredibly difficult, it varies wildly and is subject to many confounders.

This is called the "interference effect", and it seems like it's increasingly thought to be mostly a non-issue: https://www.strongerbyscience.com/research-spotlight-interference-effe…

If you were losing hair, it probably wasn't the creatine causing it: https://www.strongerbyscience.com/creatine-hair-loss/

Stronger By Science looked into this and the answer is basically no: https://www.strongerbyscience.com/creatine-hair-loss/

This 5+ hour podcast on Aspartame is as fascinating as a podcast on the topic could be: https://www.strongerbyscience.com/podcast-episode-116/

Stronger By Science[0] recently did a longer piece on caffeine, trying to argue against it (from the perspective of lifters who actually enjoy caffeine as a performance enhancer). You know, scientifically trying to disprove your believes. TL;DR: Probably mostly harmless in medium quantities, but no real proven long-term benefits. So if you enjoy coffee, just drink in moderation. [0] - https://www.strongerbyscience.com/pros-cons-caffeine/

MacroFactor[1] is the way. [1] https://www.strongerbyscience.com/macrofactor/

No. There, now you understand :-) Edit: To make my (I believe) correct but not very useful comment more useful - this is a good article about training volume: https://www.strongerbyscience.com/the-new-approach-to-training-volume/

>One good reference to learn more is https://www.strongerbyscience.com/complete-strength-training..., and other articles on that site. The site's author seems to have really done the research, but man he really needs to spend a bit more effort converting all that research into a one or two page summary. I just want to know what the most effective training strategy is, not when my tendon elasticity is dropping.

I don’t know how to weigh the two pieces against each other (I have not dug in to the details), but here’s an alternate meta-analysis that suggests reductions in all-cause mortality continue past 10,000 daily steps: https://www.strongerbyscience.com/research-spotlight-walking/. Btw: the discussion here suggests some reasons to believe there’s a causal connection, and it’s only partially a matter of “health problems might reduce the amount people walk.”