@borancakir@immasiddx Bevel and others have already shown how easy it is to create a similar algorithm. It’s just an unfalsifiable number that distills interpretation of multiple metrics into a single score. The only real moat they have is the brand.
Very relatable problem. I found at 40-60mpw the following really helps:
1. Stacking hard runs and heavy leg training on the same day (counterintuitive I know)
2. Really prioritising frequency over volume / intensity with legs programming (eg 3+ times a week, only 3-4 hard sets per session)
3. Lifting 4+ hours after running, with lots of glycogen and protein in between.
Last point is mostly psychological. Beyond an energy surplus, your diet will dictate whether or not you feel depleted and can actually enjoy a juicy pump while you hammer the legs.
@artoriatech @robjama@zachpogrob Yes but when there’s legitimate concern of trade dress, patent, and copyright infringement it becomes a potential smoking gun.
@artoriatech @robjama@zachpogrob Yes but when there’s legitimate concern of trade dress, patent, and copyright infringement it becomes a potential smoking gun.
@robjama@zachpogrob I loathe Whoop but Bevel are in trouble. This video cherry-picks a single, frivolous claim from a docment containing dozens of unique examples of infringement. A lot of them are egregious. Combine that with Bevel’s spicey marketing strategy of “Whoop, but for Apple Watch”…
@xanderai@HeightOptimized Many professionals disagree. Most people can (and do) overload a leg press far beyond what their joints and tissues can actually tolerate, whereas the squat is naturally self-limiting. Injury risk mostly comes down to poor load management, not the exercise selection itself.
@manchatz@FitFounder I’m not sure what’s being argued anymore. Our bodies degenerate as we age. This degeneration is made much worse by prolonged inactivity and low fitness.
Poor load management of exercise can also cause acute degeneration of specific bodily structures.
@manchatz@FitFounder Your claim that our bodies do not adapt and respond to stress is comical and absurd. And to cherry pick examples of injuries sustained from competing for many years at the highest levels of sport as a rebuttal if basic human biology is the icing on the cake.
@manchatz@FitFounder The average person going to the gym and lifting weights, engaging in cardio, playing sports etc is at no risk of any of these issues. The real risk for them is the equally disastrous consequences of inactivity on their bodies.
@manchatz@FitFounder Simply an absurd and foolish analogy. What mechanical parts display something resembling hypertrophy after repeated high intensity use?
Our bodies are not wear and tear, rather wear and repair.
Challenging our bodies prolongs their use, not shortens it.
@44pers@hubermanlab@bretcontreras Good question. We know that involuntary velocity loss caused by neuromuscular failure strongly predicts hypertrophy, and that more volume generally leads to better results. We also know that **consistent** technique is critical for injury prevention and measurable overload.
@hybridathlete Out of curiosity, is there a benefit to running **just** under LT1 versus comfortably beneath it?
I find when I sit 5+ bpm below what I subjectively feel my LT1 likely is (based on cardiac drift, respiratory rate), I can sustain higher volume with less risk of overtraining.
@Mbounge_ Comparing basic periodisation methods (which many independently discover by intuition / first principles) to the creativity of inventing a novel aesthetic that captures and amplifies the most treasured parts of human experience is not something I expected to read today lmao.