075 How much is too much? Fatigue accumulation

In this episode of Hypertrophy Past & Present, Jake and Chris explore the training routine of Mr Universe short division winner John Isaacs and why Silver-Era bodybuilders increased their training volumes before competitions. They then dive into the science of accumulated fatigue, discussing how excessive training can influence muscle swelling, recovery, and hypertrophy, and why more training isn't necessarily better.

Key topics include:

• John Isaacs' Silver-Era training routine and how Reg Park modified it before competition
• Why bodybuilders increased training volume before competitions, and whether muscle swelling was part of the goal
• Does training fatigue accumulate? Why different studies have produced conflicting findings
• How muscle damage, inflammation, and fatigue influence recovery and muscle growth
• Why some individuals can recover from significantly more training volume than others
• How long accumulated fatigue takes to dissipate, and whether you need to stop training to recover

Want to train like a Silver-Era bodybuilder? Join our Hypertrophy Past & Present Training group on TrainHeroic, featuring Silver-Era-inspired training programs adapted using modern exercise science.

https://marketplace.trainheroic.com/workout-plan/team/hypertrophy-past-and-present

What is Hypertrophy Past and Present?

A deep dive into the science of muscle growth. Hosted by Chris Beardsley and Jake Doleschal, this podcast explores hypertrophy training through the lens of pre-steroid era bodybuilding and modern muscle physiology.

Jake (00:00)
Welcome back. Thank you for joining us for another episode of Hypertrophy Past and Present. Chris, I just heard you mute yourself and I'm just about to ask you, how are you doing today?

Chris (00:11)
Yeah, I'm doing good things. I'm muting myself because it's actually quite windy and there's a storm, I think, kicking off outside. So I think we've probably mute myself a bit in this podcast, but I'm not talking because otherwise there'll be these kind of weird weathery noises in the background. You won't be able to hear what you're saying. But no, I'm good. You're good.

Jake (00:26)
Ha ha ha.

Okay, well well, mute away because I'm actually gonna take a little bit longer to describe the the plan that I'm gonna talk about today. So after we did our last podcast, I think you made a point, you you sort of joked around on our last podcast that or maybe I made the joke that I've been cherry picking all of these plans over the last year and a bit to make them all look quite similar. And I went back and thought, you know what, there is a lot of continuity with these plans. How many of these plans have been following a very similar structure? And this is going to be our thirty-ninth

Full body AAA plan that was written before 1960 that we've discussed in this podcast. So when I yeah, like I was looking back at the data, I'm like, man, this is like the most obvious pattern I can identify. Almost every single person was doing this. Anyway, there you go. Full body AAA. But I've got a bit more to tell you about today's plan. So this plan came from John Isaacs. Now, John Isaacs won Mr. Universe in the early 50s.

And what's really cool with this is he was actually being trained by Reg Park. And so I've done a little bit of trying to piece together some of the historical information we've got here. And I think this is quite cool. And essentially what happened is Reg was coaching John Isaacs, and Reg had given him a plan to follow. And John Isaacs had followed said plan for a period of time. And then coming into the Mr. Universe, Reg changed John Isaac's plan. And then I found a letter from Reg.

after the universe where Reg talked about the the training that John Isaacs was doing and this is about a year or two later. So we can kind of piece together it more or less exactly what this Mr. Universe competitor was doing in the lead up to his Mr. Universe and then in in the sort of the months before the Mr. Universe and then again coming out of that as quite an advanced bodybuilder. And it's I think it's quite interesting to see how this stuff sort of shifted over time. And interestingly

When you look at some of the bodybuilders in the silver era, they didn't always shift in the same way. So I've talked a bit about Steve Reeves, for example, and some of the ways that his training changed when he sort of won his later competitions. And this sort of went in a slightly different direction. So the plan. Now I mentioned that he sort of followed the plan for a period of time and then coming into the comp, he changed it. And so what I've got here is the plan that he did coming into the Mr. Universe.

So he followed this for a few months coming into the Miss Universe. And what's interesting, I think, here is he did not change, or Reg did not change any of the exercises that he did for his pre-comp plan. So the exercises stayed exactly the same. And what did change is he added some sets or he added some repetitions to some of it. So exercises exactly the same. We're seeing maybe one or two additional sets on some of these exercises.

That then begs the question, why are they doing that? And I think we're largely just seeing them use the extra volume as a conditioning tool. But let me tell you the plan. So we start with a half squat, a heels-raised half squat. And we're doing four sets of 10. So again, remember we're seeing higher volumes here coming into the comp. So four sets of 10, half squat. Then we've got a donkey calf raise. So this is done with your workout partner on your back, and you're doing a calf raise, six sets of 30.

We've then got a leg curl for three sets of 10, a behind-the-neck overhead press for four sets of eight. Now they call this a seated dumbbell swing. I want you to think seated, single arm, dumbbell, lateral raise. So alternating lateral raise, and they're using some momentum, kind like a clock, as they're doing this exercise. That was done for three sets of 20. Then we got a barbell bench, three sets of eight.

And then a dumbbell bench, three sets of ten. Now I couldn't find any photos of this dumbbell bench, but in Reg Park's other work, and bear in mind Reg wrote this plan, Reg often does dumbbell bench in scapula plane. So I suspect that's what they would have done here. We then got a dip for four sets of eight, a deadlift, or a barbell row. They I guess he had the option of which one he wanted to do.

And that was for three to four sets. Deadlift was done for lower repetitions. Barbell grow was done for sets of 10. Now, arms exercises, John Isaacs kind of did what he wanted. So he didn't have set biceps or, I guess, triceps exercises. I know what exercises Reg liked to use. I'm assuming maybe he did some of those, I'm not sure, but Reg would often use, say, two different biceps and triceps exercises. So I don't know exactly what he was doing here. We've then got incline leg raise for five sets of 20.

What they called an incline sit up, which is really a decline setup for three sets of 25, and then concluded with chin-up, chin-ups, for ⁓ three to four sets. He was a bit vague. He's like, sometimes I three sets, sometimes I do four ⁓ of ten. Now I just want to conclude by saying: so after he won the the universe with this program, and again, bear in mind this is a higher volume version of it, what Reg tells us a couple of years later is that John Isaacs was now following.

Reg's advanced Mr. Universe course. And that advanced Mr. Universe course is an A, it's it's I guess you would call it a full body A B. I guess that's the best description of it. So it combines both upper and lower on each day, but it's like, you know, might be biceps one day, triceps the next day, kind of thing. So it's I guess kind of like a full body or an upper lower, upper lower sort of A B ⁓ variation.

And he says he does that basically just to get more exercise in a single workout. He's unable, or Reg is unable to do everything he wants to do in a single workout. So we've got this cool progression of full body AAA, slightly lower volumes, full body, AAA, slightly higher volumes, potentially for conditioning work. And then as he becomes very advanced, he now does full body A B.

There's a lot there to keep track of. What are your initial thoughts?

Chris (06:49)
Yeah, no, that's awesome. So, yeah, basically. Where to start, really? It's very cool. It's very cool to see that progression, first of all, it's very cool to see that progression. It's very, you know, and again, tying back into the fact that I think it was like the 39th time we've seen a full body.

Jake (07:01)
Yeah.

Yeah.

Chris (07:17)
A, A, full body three times a week, doing the same workout every single time in this era. And, you know, I know that there are going to be people, you know, claiming that Silver Era bodybuilders didn't train like that. But, you know, kind of how many examples do you need before you kind of accept what was actually happening, really? But yeah, I think that's but also the progression is very cool to see how, yeah, we can kind of understand why they might be for short periods of time doing some.

extra volume. And actually, it'd be interesting just to kind of maybe chat with ⁓ somebody who's got, you know, a lot more kind of hands on experience with peak week kind of bodybuilding competition sort of style preparation, because ⁓ I wonder whether the kind of tendency in the pre kind of steroid era was for a less defined look.

Jake (08:16)
Mm-hmm.

Chris (08:17)
If you kind of take that into account, then it's possible that you could argue that muscle swelling would actually be helping you rather than hindering you. mean, generally today, we tend to make the assumption that because of that really kind of... ⁓

Jake (08:22)
Mm-hmm.

Chris (08:30)
dry look that most people are going for, you know, even in natural competitions, it's not helpful to have muscle swelling because it kind of blurs the lines between the muscles. So people don't want that. But if you look at the kind of physiques back then, nobody was that conditioned in comparison. The tendency was for a bigger physique, was less conditioning. ⁓

Jake (08:40)
Yeah.

Chris (08:53)
At least that's what I see and I mean I'm not that's area of expertise but that's what I can see. So I wonder whether actually this higher volume section actually is doing kind of a muscle swelling effect as well. I mean think it is doing a muscle swelling effect but...

Jake (09:10)
Yeah, yeah.

Chris (09:11)
whether it's doing that as well as ⁓ the conditioning side of things, conditioning being kind of just kind fat loss rather than conditioning in the sense of actually getting sort of the stage condition. And there's a very, very subtle difference there because if you do your conditioning work in inverted commas and you get fat loss but you also get muscle swelling, then it's not gonna put you in the condition that you want to be in for a current day stage ⁓ kind of competition. But back then, maybe it would have actually done two things that would have been kind

Jake (09:24)
Mm.

Yeah.

Chris (09:41)
I don't know, I mean, I'm just kind of thinking aloud here.

Jake (09:45)
I have wondered that. Like they do talk about basically doing these high volumes up until a competition and then they take often they take a week off. Yeah. And you know, they they obviously they know that there's fatigue that's accumulated. And if they take a week off, they know how they look after that week. And so i anyone who's trained a a bodybuilder to this stage, I mean for me, when I train my bodybuilders, I would give them a week off, sometimes ten days off legs.

Chris (09:52)
Hmm.

Yeah.

Mmm.

Jake (10:13)
And we do that because we know they look better when they got on stage based on what we're saying is better. And so it it's it isn't fathomable to me that these bodybuilders did these high volumes, did the competition, took a week off, saw how they looked after a week and didn't think, I look more conditioned, therefore I'll do I'll do that next time. Yeah, they kept doing what they were doing.

Chris (10:17)
Sure.

That looks better. Clearly the judgment was that actually being slightly swollen was better. So that's kind of what I'm kind of leaning towards now that that it kind of was done deliberately and it was done to create muscle swelling, which is interesting because it's something that we've been kind of making the point about for a long time, which is muscle swelling absolutely happens in very advanced lifters. And, know, you can't just kind of say that it's not there, you know, just because you don't want it to be there. It is there.

Jake (10:39)
⁓

Mm.

Well, no.

Chris (10:57)
The debate really is, I think, amongst people who looking at the literature rather than just playing make-believe is how bad the issue is, not whether it's there or not. There you go.

Jake (11:08)
Yeah, yeah. Okay, so we've got potentially a muscle swelling effect that's making him look bigger coming into stage. What else are your thoughts on this plan?

Chris (11:21)
Yeah, and the reason the reason I said that is because I do see that some of these ⁓ set volumes are nudging up past or at or past what I would say is the kind of recoverable volume for specific muscle groups. So the obvious example would be the bench press. You've literally got six sets going on there. So, yes, I know there's a slight difference in the plane, but you know, you've still got six sets of horizontal pressing. Small difference in plane is going to move the regional specific.

region specific kind of stimulus around a bit, but you are going to end up, think, over your limit in terms of recovery, which is why you would then obviously take that period of time off after competition. ⁓

Jake (12:04)
You know what's interesting? Well, I think this is interesting. So when I was looking at how many full body plans we've done, I did a little bit of a and this is very preliminary, but I sort of looked at what are we seeing as far as muscles being trained over the silver to golden era? And all and you know, again, maybe this is just the plans I've drawn to the podcast so far. Maybe this will change over time. But from what I could tell, basically every muscle was being just hammered with stupid volumes in the golden era. But chest seemed

not to be getting much more volume in the golden era than the silver era. And that was chest is probably the the muscle that had the most volume in the silver era. And and again like golden era they they tended to do similar volumes from what can see. So I don't know what that means, but I thought that was somewhat interesting.

Chris (12:51)
Okay, over.

I mean, sometimes these observations get made and then like it takes us months or even longer. We finally go, actually, that makes a lot of sense. mean, that foreshadows what we're going to be doing in the next couple of weeks when we're actually going to be going through these golden era plans and saying we think we know why they were doing these things for reasons. But that is kind of jumping out a little bit. So yeah, those are volumes here. I see them as being over the top of the recoverable limit. So accumulating fatigue, which is something we're to be talking about later on.

Jake (12:58)
Yeah.

Hmm.

Mm.

Mm-hmm.

Chris (13:22)
The pressing, horizontal pressing is the example I came up with first, but again, I mean, you could pick sort of combined hip and knee extension, the half squat, you know, I'm pretty sure I saw something else. I don't think I have actually. think I just made that up. No, I didn't. I made it up. No, it doesn't. He only has the four sets, doesn't he? So that's just off the edge. That's just off the edge. I thought there was another I thought there was another combined hip and knee extension exercise in there, but it is.

Jake (13:48)
Mm.

Chris (13:52)
There's no is there? So, so unless you want to sort of argue about the deadlift, but it's probably not about it. So, yeah. Just over the top limit, I think is probably the right way to describe it then for many of them ⁓ or at the limit. ⁓ Other than that, I just see a couple of instances where I don't like exercise selection, but not like.

sort of ⁓ really vociferously against it, just like I'm not a fan. ⁓ But other than that, I think this is an example of a really solid ⁓ kind of top end in terms of volume. ⁓

Jake (14:28)
Mm.

Chris (14:37)
You know, really, mean, like, OK, sure, you could you could go through and you could like individually identify specific cases where the exercises would be slightly better if they're done a different way. You know, and I don't know what he's doing on the arms at all. But, you know.

Really, this is a very, very nice balanced program with pretty much everything that you would want in it. And if you were to try and kind of make it slightly better, you would literally just be fiddling around the edges, I think, to try and make sure that you captured everything perfectly. I mean, yeah, if I say any more, I'm going to be starting to drift into sort of making specific suggestions about exercise substitutions, which I know we're going to cover in a minute.

Jake (15:08)
Mm.

Mm. Hmm.

Chris (15:22)
⁓ I don't think I've got anything else specific to say that isn't an exercise substitution, so I'll probably just stop there.

Jake (15:32)
Okay. So main feedback there, some of those volumes getting a little bit toppy. But even even so, like actually a lot of them are not that bad. The chest is probably the the biggest concern there is at six thirds. Yeah. And some of this so the incline leg raise, the in the well really decline sit up, what are the are they they're kind of doing similar things, are they not?

Chris (15:59)
So the leg raise is gonna be, yeah, I don't like talking about ab training really. I really don't get it, but okay, fine. ⁓ Yeah, I mean.

You can kind of go down rabbit holes with those, yeah, fundamentally, yeah, they probably are covering much of the same territory. then arguably, you're nowhere near muscular failure on any of it. So, you know.

Jake (16:33)
No. Which is what I assume every time I see these high repetitions is like, man, you guys like you just plumped the reps up because you couldn't go near failure with these exercises you were doing. Yeah. Okay, so what I want to do now is keep focus on this plan.

Chris (16:42)
Yeah. Yeah, yeah, yeah.

Jake (16:51)
But you'd like you sort of said, well, you don't want to go into the, you know, what exercise substitutions would you make this yet? You wanted to give a bit of a physiological underpinning here. Well, let's do the exercise subs now. And I want to hear from you what do you think would be the preserving as much as possible the fewest changes you could make to make this the best plan possible? And I'm gonna offer my suggestion, which I know now you're not going you're not gonna agree with me. I know I'm gonna suggest an exercise, you're gonna be like, nah.

But I think it's quite good. So you tell me what you would do to change this plan to make it as good as possible. I'll tell you what I would do. And I might even chuck a little poll up on Insta and get people to give us feedback. Depending on how well I I present my case. If I present it poorly, maybe I won't. But if I think I've done well, I'll put up a poll and t ask you guys which one do you think is better.

Chris (17:37)
glad that you're admitting you're biased before you even start.

⁓ okay, so...

So this is kind of a little bit unfair because I've only just seen this and I've got to go first. But OK, so I'm going to start with two things that nobody's going to be surprised by. Everybody would already be able to predict that I'm going to say this, but I'm going to banish the barbell row completely from this program and to remove it and say it can never be done. I'm also going to.

I'm also going to back, it's gone. It's just gone because it said, it says here deadlift or barbell row. So I'm just eliminating it. Yeah. So I'm just eliminating that straight away. ⁓ I'm also going to eliminate the dumbbell bench press and just keep the bench press because I think they are so close to being duplications and I don't like the silly amount of fatiguing.

Jake (18:16)
So that's just gone. You've you haven't swapped it, it's just gone. Okay.

Which is interesting 'cause he assumes that they're doing similar things, I guess.

Chris (18:46)
because obviously we're talking about making this into a program that's doable, not a program that's only suitable for somebody who's a silver era bodybuilder just before their competition. I mean, it's got to be a program that works. So you've got to kind of bring the volumes down a smidge anyway. So like that dumbbell bench press has got to go. The barbell row has also got to go because it's just a horrible exercise. In terms of the OK, so that's two alterations so far, although I actually think

Jake (18:54)
Mm. Mm-hmm.

Mm-hmm.

Chris (19:13)
because they are removals, they should count as fewer because they're not substitutions. I should get a benefit for not actually substituting. OK, so so that being said, then on the chin up, I have a question. Did you say I forget whether it was a wide grip because chin up is generally not that wide. So.

Jake (19:16)
That should cut us half. Th there should be an indirect alteration.

I don't know. I tried to find that. I tried to find what Reg talked about when he mentioned chin ups. I could not find if they were doing because sometimes in the Silver Era they say chinning the bar and they actually doing yeah. So I wouldn't be surprised if this was in fact a pull up.

Chris (19:43)
just see, and it actually is a pull-up here. So.

Let's let's let's say that it's a wide grip pull up, so that works better for me. Then then I can then I can do a substitution, which is to substitute the deadlift and instead have a narrow grip row. And then I've got full back development more or less. OK, it's not I mean, you could argue I should have a shrug in there. But, know, anyway.

Jake (19:55)
Yeah.

Now if you're keeping this silver era esque, are you doing that as a a d a what, a prone dumbbell sagittal plane row?

Chris (20:22)
Yeah, could have that as, mean, yeah, ideally, if you've got a bench that was high enough, you could do it two arms at the same time. If you haven't, then you do it one arm kneeling, basically, on the bench. yeah. But yeah, besides just a plain row, and then I've got the wide grip part. And that, for me, would start to make this program all right, like, in the zone. I I can think of a dozen more tiny little adjustments that I would like, but that, for me, would make a program, you know, as...

like really, really good and on balance, you know, with as few adjustments as possible, I've had two removals and one substitution. So I think that's, I think for me, that's really good because ⁓ if you asked me what I would take to get me to do the program myself, it would be a lot more changes. But I think that makes it into a really solid program. I mean, interestingly, just kind of thinking aloud, you could actually just write.

Jake (20:55)
Mm-hmm.

Chris (21:13)
three programs out, this one, my one, and whatever you suggest, and just ask people to vote for whichever one they like best, and just put them as three columns.

Jake (21:20)
Well this is yeah, I could do that. I could do that.

Chris (21:22)
Because that would kind of get you pretty close to ⁓ anyway. But I think that's that for me makes that program really solid, not just because pretty much every single silver era program is is pretty good anyway. Better than 99 percent of what you're to find on the Internet. Like what I'm trying to do there is make it like absolutely top level. ⁓ Yes, I can make it even better. But as I say, that would be changing the program into the program that I would write, which is not.

what the exercise is all about. So there you go. I'm gonna stop there. There you go.

Jake (21:54)
Okay. And you got rid of the dumbbell bench, not the barbell bench.

Chris (21:58)
Yeah, I got rid of dumbbells because they're less stable and I don't like them. And if it's feasible to do the bench normally, which one assumes it is in this context, then I'd rather.

Jake (22:07)
Mm-hmm. Mm-hmm. Mm-hmm. Okay, so the changes I would make are ⁓ similar in the exercises I'm changing, but different in what I'm choosing. So, like you, I would be changing up the deadlift or barbell row. But I'm not emitting it completely. I would be turning that deadlift into a stiff leg deadlift.

Chris (22:33)
I nearly did that. I nearly did that but I decided against it because she got a leg curl. Yeah.

Jake (22:37)
Because you got the leg curl. Yeah. And so what I'm trying to do here is maintain two exercises per muscle group. Now obviously we don't have that for the calves or the or the quads, but for everything else that I wanted to stick with that. So I'm going to turn that into a siff leg deadlift. Then the seated dumbbell swing, so that lateral raise that he's doing. He's got the behind the neck. I think we're getting good middle depth with that. I'm going to turn that seated dumbbell swing into a seated alternating dumbbell front raise instead.

Chris (22:54)
Mm-hmm.

Jake (23:05)
So I'm gonna make that a little bit more anterior delt. You'll get a bit of upper chest there as well. And the bench I'm keeping, which you kept as well.

No. No, the bench I'm gonna get rid of. I'm gonna keep the dumbbell bench. I know I said he's doing that in scapula plane. ⁓ I I'm gonna just encourage them to bring the elbows in a little bit more.

Chris (23:17)
You're gonna keep the dumbbells, Joy.

Jake (23:30)
And the bench I'm gonna turn into a fly. Doesn't it count as change? Okay, so maybe I've done one more change in you. So I've so yeah. Seated dumbbell swing is alternating front raise. The bench is a dumbbell fly. The dumbbell bench is sagittal plane dumbbell bench. And I'll go stiff leg deadlift.

Chris (23:31)
That as a change. That counts as a change. You have yet.

but you haven't got two back exercises. That's where you fall down.

Jake (23:54)
I don't have two back exercises, no. I did. See, if if you had made more changes, I would have allowed myself one more change, which would have been take one of those chin upsets and turn it into a behind the neck pull up set. But I don't want to be taking too many liberties here.

Chris (24:06)
you

No, sure. OK, that was fun. Now that would be very cool to see what people think, whether they vote for the original, whether they vote for mine or whether they vote for yours. OK, so now let's let's do the personal ⁓ kind of viewpoint. And you can go first on this one. If you were to do this program yourself for at least four weeks, ⁓ what would you change? And this is not a competition. This is just like you. What would you change?

Jake (24:38)
What would it take for me to do this plan?

Chris (24:39)
But don't, don't, maybe it's not a competition, but like, I think it'd be useful to see how much you would need to change to get it to something that you could do, rather than like say, no, actually, I would change it in all these ways. And eventually you end up back at your program. You're already doing it. yeah, that's not really the point of the exercise.

Jake (24:48)
Yeah. Yeah.

Yeah, yeah, yeah.

Yeah, so I I am training mostly like a silver error plan at this point anyway. So I largely do two exercises per muscle. I like the although often I only do one per my lower body muscles. So I quite like the Cisco squat in. I'd probably stick with that. ⁓ I would not be wasting six sets on calf raises. Honestly, for me, I would just drop that down to a single set.

Chris (25:02)
Mm-hmm. Mm-hmm.

Jake (25:25)
Aside from that, if I stick with those changes I made a moment ago, I would I would turn one of those chin-up sets into a behind-the-neck pull-up, which I quite like. I'm assuming you're not a big fan of that exercise, but I quite like it. And I find for a lot of people who like niggly shoulders, it ends up feeling really nice. So I would do that and I'd probably pull that at the top personally, but it doesn't really matter. ⁓ aside from that.

I'm pretty happy with that. If I got rid of the the sit-up stuff, I don't want to waste my time with that. ⁓ Aside from that, I'm pretty happy. Anything that's at four sets, I think I'd have to drop down to three sets instead. So the dips at four sets, I don't think I could do that. I think I'd I'd drop one set off. The behind the neck, I don't think I could do four sets. I could do four sets if it was five, but not eight. So I'd either drop the reps down slightly or I'd drop one of those sets off.

Everything else I would stick with.

And it's similar volumes actually 'cause I am doing I'm doing two to three sets at the moment for my two exercises each. So it's not even much more volume than what I'm doing.

Chris (26:37)
So just to be clear, in terms of ⁓ exercises you're putting in, what does that include?

Jake (26:45)
The changes I made a moment ago. So they're they're alternating front grades. Yeah, I'm gonna stick with those changes. Yeah. Yeah. And I've I've basically I've just cut stuff out. Yeah. Yeah. I feel indifferent to a leg extension. I could put in a leg extension if I felt like it, but I at this point I don't really care that much.

Chris (26:47)
The same changes that you made or understood. You're going to stick with those changes. OK, cool. OK, cool. Well, in which case I can.

Yeah, yeah. In which case, I will follow the same pattern because ⁓ I would stick with my exercise substitutions. I would just have those. But I would take every single thing down to a single set.

Jake (27:15)
I thought you might say that.

Chris (27:18)
I'm just too old for this. I'm not doing multiple sets. I'm not, especially not when there's like, you know. Okay, I think, no, I think to be fair, sticking with my original substitutions, you also, when you said sticking with your original substitutions, you also then removed the ab work. Yes, I would also remove the ab work. Yes, okay, so sticking with my original substitutions, removing the ab work, that brings me down, I think, to ⁓ 11 or so exercises. I think that would then,

Jake (27:37)
Yes.

Chris (27:48)
11 sets, I think that would then be doable. Honestly, if you weren't monitoring me doing the actual exercises, then I wouldn't be doing a half squat. I'd be doing a full squat because my shoulders wouldn't be very happy with me if I did a half squat.

So.

Jake (28:11)
It is interesting they did heel raised half squat. 'Cause obviously you would often do that to try to get deeper. Interesting, yeah.

Chris (28:17)
Yeah, I would do heel raise. Heel raise, I'm like straight in there, I'm like fantastic, because that fixes my single biggest issue. So then I'd be straight down with like going as deep as I possibly could and using as little weight as I possibly could and that would be fantastic on my shoulders. So yeah, that's what I would do. yeah, that would be the only kind of real other change that I would probably make.

Jake (28:22)
Yeah.

Yeah.

The set of ten is nice, you don't need as much load. So that sort of helps a little bit. Okay, okay. You and your single sets. I thought that might be where you were gonna go. If I can remember the changes you've made, I'll pop up, I'll do a poll, I'll see what people think.

Chris (28:45)
That was fun.

Jake (28:55)
Now, what we're gonna talk about in the second half, I can say that honestly this time.

Chris (29:00)
Yeah, you can, because we've actually spent nearly half an hour talking about Silver Era lifting, which is cool.

Jake (29:06)
So but we're actually gonna be it's it's relevant to what we just talked about, where we're gonna go with this second half.

Chris (29:09)
It is it is ⁓ a really good choice for that that program. It's perfect. Perfect. So basically, I want to talk a little bit about fatigue, post-workout, fatigue accumulation, because this is one of those ⁓ areas that has a little bit of a sports science story behind it that a lot of people probably haven't heard. But, you know, I mean, if you ask a

kind of sort of standard ⁓ industry strength and conditioning professional, whether they think post-workout fatigue accumulates and you don't necessarily phrase it in that way. You just kind of speak whatever language they've kind of grown up speaking that implies, you know, just some fatigue. Can it kind of build up over time if people are not having enough rest in between workouts? They'd probably say, yeah, of course it can. The interesting thing is that exercise science, when it first looked at that question,

found the opposite answer. I think that's really interesting. So I go back to 1990s or whatever, 2000s, and people were doing studies looking at whether ⁓ an initial workout produced a certain amount of fatigue. And then if you did another workout exactly the same inside that post-workout recovery period. So let's imagine you've got a group of people or you've got a protocol that you follow.

You bring in some untrained people into the lab and you give them either a knee extension or elbow flexion, eccentric exercise, because that's kind of what they did back then to create post-workout. You measure strength over the next couple of days and it kind of stays low and it gradually comes up over the space of a week ish, depending on the protocol, how many sets were done and whether it was elbow flexors or knee extensors. What you could do is when you know roughly what kind of happens when you've got a group of people doing that.

then you could say, OK, well, I know that it usually takes about a week for people to get their strength back to normal. So what happens if we do a second workout like on day two or day three, usually day three, I think. So the idea being that if post-workout fatigue accumulates in the context of this scenario, then you do your first workout and you would give everybody that workout and then you divide that group of people into two and half of them would literally just come back every day and measure strength until they got to the end of the week.

The other half would do the same thing, but they'd also do another workout midweek. And essentially what you'd be looking for is a difference between the trajectories of your strength recoveries on those two groups. So the idea would be that if there was a big difference in the group that did the workout again midweek, ⁓ longer to get back to baseline, you'd be like, yeah, post workout accumulates because I did a workout a couple of days after the original one, and it therefore took longer to get back strength back to baseline. But, you know, if they're the same.

then what that tells you is that there's essentially a protective effect to your first workout. I will explain that that's not a repeat about effect in the moment. Come on to that. And then obviously you get all the way back to baseline, you know, in the same trajectory as the group that didn't do the workout. So is that study design relatively clear? Is that making sense? Cool. So that's a really popular design.

Jake (32:23)
Mm, yeah, it is. And and so obviously when you talk about recovery, like literally they're just doing a a force recovery, the checking strength.

Chris (32:31)
Absolutely, it's just an isometric strength test. It's not muscle damaging. It's just a single kind of three to five second isometric test the strength and that's it. So not adding anything in that way, but then both groups are getting it anyway. So shouldn't really make any difference. And the interesting thing is, as I say, these are all kind of very sort of similar designs, all done with dynamometers, all done with supermaximal eccentrics, and they all show pretty much exactly the same thing, which is that there is absolutely zero difference between groups, which is mad.

So basically on the one hand, this is one of those great kind of instances where sports science finds something and they're kind of like looking at the data going, well, we can't talk to the strength and conditioning professionals about this because the laugh was out of the room. I mean, it's like nobody's going to take it seriously when we say, yeah, just by the way, fatigue doesn't accumulate. Like, don't be silly, go away. Go back to playing with your dynamometer because it's impossible. You know, so so there's a really interesting kind of phenomenon anyway. So that literature kind of I mean, like, OK, fine. Sometimes

Jake (33:21)
Mm-hmm.

Chris (33:30)
study series get done and people kind of get interested in an area and they do a couple of studies and you know and then it stops happening and people stop looking at it and forget about what happened. But it's there. mean it's all there. The interesting thing is people pick that up again in kind of the last sort of five or so years and they've picked it up again from completely different perspective and they've done it in the context of normal strength training. One of the studies has been done with normal strength training in combination with bluffer restriction but that doesn't change anything at all.

So ultimately what they're now showing is that post-workout does accumulate in the context of normal strength training. So this is one of those really cool kind of ⁓ connections that you can do if you kind of thinking in science based terms. I was laughing before the podcast because I was like, I was expecting to get absolutely destroyed after the last podcast by people kind of complaining about the whole kind of evidence base versus science base. And actually, know, feedback we've had has been relatively positive. So, you know, hope.

what's happening is people are understanding that evidence-based and science-based are not actually exactly the same thing. I was kind of thinking about it, it's kind of like, know, various, various differences, but for me, you know, science is just about trying to figure out what happens, it doesn't really matter how you get there, if the answer's right at the end of the day, who cares? You know, but evidence-based is more about, did you follow the right protocol? Did you follow the rules? You know, if you didn't follow the rules, it doesn't matter whether you got the right answer.

So, but anyway, I think it's really cool what you can do is you take these two different areas of literature and you can combine them and say, well, what are they telling us if we put them together? You know, put them together. It's like, well, on the one hand, if you do super max placentrics and bear in mind that when you come back, if you look on the group level, if you come back the day after a super max placentric workout in untrained people, the following day, you're going to be sub 50 % strength, most likely. Some people are going to just be incapacitated. It's going to be mad.

Jake (35:06)
Mm.

Chris (35:25)
So you've got to be kind of aware that there's that difference. Obviously, you come back the day after a normal strength training workout and you maybe dipped 10 % strength, maybe something like that kind of territory. It's just a totally different animal. So I put these two kind of areas of literature together and go, OK, well, what might be explaining the difference? And this is another great example of how science-based thinking works. It's like, physiologically, why are these two areas of literature different? Why is this happening?

And you look at it and go,

Jake (35:56)
I'm I'm laughing. I'm laughing. I need to sort of tell you this. In our last podcast we talked about ⁓ how science base would try to predict like a physiological boundary, whereas evidence based would only predict a boundary within the the data set. And then I I heard a a little snippet this week ⁓ of an someone who's a researcher and they just were talking about volume and they just mentioned in our data there's no ceiling.

Chris (35:59)
Go on. Go on.

Jake (36:21)
to volume causing stimulus and and they just made this comment, yeah, it was like you you can indefinitely just do more volume.

Chris (36:22)
They can't help themselves. They literally can't help themselves. Yeah, they can't help themselves. It's like, you know, what planet are you on? Honestly, you know, and it's a really big problem. like, you know, interestingly, if you talk to anyone who really thinks about this stuff, even if they have a completely different kind of perspective, you know, or model or whatever, you know, generally speaking, people really think about this stuff.

they have boundary conditions imposed by the physiological reading that they've done, however much that may have been. You know, it's only these evidence based crowd that do this thing that is like, there's only a boundary condition if we found one. Like, come on, dude, what planet are you on? But yeah, so ⁓ in this example, what we've got is two areas of literature that are very, similar, but only different in this one respect, which is, did you do a super maximum eccentric?

Jake (36:52)
Mm.

Mm.

Yeah.

Chris (37:15)
⁓ producing a huge amount of post-workout PD or did you just do a normal strength training workout producing a small amount of post-workout PD? If you produce a small amount of post-workout PD you can accumulate that. There's some really nice studies that show you if you do like daily workouts with like you know kind of four sets, ten or whatever to failure and by the end of a week then you're pretty much two weeks kind of in you need then two weeks to recover from that.

Jake (37:22)
Mm-hmm.

Chris (37:42)
Well, four sets of 10 doesn't do it. Never in the history of mankind has four sets of 10 required two weeks to recover from. So it's obviously the weak accumulating fatigue that has then, you know, the weekly week of daily workouts that's got you to the point where you've needed two weeks to get back to baseline. So really, really cool demonstration of how post workout fatigue is actually accumulating in the context of normal strength training, kind of moderate loads to failure type scenarios.

Jake (37:42)
Mm.

Mm.

Chris (38:10)
But if you go back look at the super maximally centric stuff that was where it all started, it doesn't do anything like that. It's like it's just as if the second workout has never taken place. ⁓ Now, what's really cool is if you then go and look at the fatigue physiology literature, which is completely out of bounds to all evidence based practitioners, they must never look at it. It's totally illegal for them to even open the paper. It's restricted section.

Jake (38:32)
It's in like the restricted section of the the Hogwarts library.

Chris (38:36)
Yeah, it is. It's like you must never go there. You must never go there. It's forbidden. But if you do, if you do venture into that area, then you will discover that there are a couple of interesting post-workout mechanisms that probably prevent us from creating additional damage. The obvious one, you know, is supraspinal central nervous system, which kind of goes along for the ride with muscle damage. So if you create a lot of muscle damage, you can get an inflammatory response that's going to circulate. The brain's going to detect it.

and you're end up experiencing a sensation of fatigue, which is going to cause you to reach maximum tolerable perception of effort earlier ⁓ for the level of central motor command that you are generating. So essentially, I mean, that's the most obvious one. ⁓ mean, but arguably... ⁓

If you have a lot of excitation contraction coupling failure, which is kind one of the other major post-workout mechanisms, then arguably that would stop you using the muscle fibers again, because it would switch the muscle fiber off internally. So even if you did activate it, potentially wouldn't allow you to use that fiber. I don't think that's as persuasive. think you can kind I mean, there's animal models with electrical stimulation showing that you can still pump calcium ions into a muscle fiber if you are even if they're, you know, pretty fatigued and not really able to produce very much force. And that's got

that we of calcium-undulated fatigue mechanisms, but it potentially does sit there alongside the others as well. potentially we've got this kind of, I think, mainly CNFT protective effect. Drop down one level, maybe there's a low-core muscular effect that's slightly protective or somewhat protective as well. And that basically means that you go in the gym and essentially that kind 50 % strength loss in eccentric and isometric contractions is approximately, if you've got a...

isometric strength kind of test and you get 50 % strength that's approximately half the muscle fibers in the muscle by volume not by number by volume because they're obviously different in size but by volume it's about half the muscle so if you say your muscle is 50-50 by cross-sectional area slow twitch fast twitch what you've basically done is just stopped any of your fast twitch fibers from working whatsoever it's just off now in that scenario if you're 50 % strength down essentially

Jake (40:39)
Mm.

Chris (40:46)
you're not using any fast twitch fibers. They're either out from a CNSP perspective or they're out from CNSP plus excited coupling failure. You can't really damage slow twitch fibers that easily. They just don't be the kind of notice when you put calcium ions into them. They're too oxidative. So yes, you can if you kind of do silly things. But in the context of this, arguably this workout is a silly thing, to be honest. But, you know, it's not going to register in the same way that a kind of un

Jake (40:54)
Mm.

Chris (41:15)
unpatigued muscle would register. So the fatigue is very, very protective in that kind of period. It's not going to let you do that. In contrast, if you then look at the kind of strength training workouts, what you've got are the, you know, kind of conventional strength training workouts where you're just doing four sets of ten to failure or whatever. You're not really going to be dropping very much strength. You're going be 10 % down and that's going to be OK. That very, very top slice of the most sensitive fibres, they're not going to be able to.

Kind of contribute but everything else is and you still got another 40 % of fast which fibers in the muscle you could damage and that is then obviously what happens now as I say This is a very kind of clean mathematical model Please don't run away with this thinking that you can actually kind of map this perfectly there will be scenarios where CNSP doesn't kind of capture exactly the right thing classic example would be you know if you're using if you're using using two different exercises for example and

Jake (42:00)
Mm-hmm.

Chris (42:11)
want, you know, kind of maybe shoulder exercises or whatever, and you'd use a slightly different variation, you've got a different coverage. Of course, the way that the Henneman-Sage principle works in combination with neuromachanogrammaty means that some muscles are going to be more activated than others at different levels of ⁓ effort, according to which is more important in the exercise that you're doing. So you could have a scenario where you actually did activate some fibers that should have been protected because they weren't being, but they weren't being because you changed the exercise slightly, or maybe you just changed the way you were doing it.

It's not always going to line up perfectly. And again, as I say, I don't think excitation and direction coupling failure is anywhere near perfectly protective. I think you can still push calcium ions into it so you can still get more fatigue in the same fibres that you have already damaged, in my opinion. But broadly speaking, I think this observation explains why we see a massive difference between the supermax me centrics and the conventional strength training in terms of being able to.

Jake (42:42)
Mm-hmm.

Chris (43:04)
accumulate for tea. So what I would predict is that if you did a really kind of silly high volume strength training program for long enough, you could probably get to a point as long as you weren't getting other adaptions that were contributing to strength gains, you could get to a point where you maybe got your strength down to about half the level and it would never grow from that point onwards. It would just kind of stay about there. But I think that would take some doing and I don't think many people would want to do that. I think theoretically you probably could get there.

Jake (43:31)
Mm.

Chris (43:32)
So is that kind of hanging together?

Jake (43:34)
Yeah, so essentially if you cause enough damage then you won't accumulate more fatigue and if you cause a normal amount of damage then you'll be able to accumulate fatigue until the point that you cause so much damage that you can't accumulate more fatigue.

Chris (43:48)
The interesting thing is, mean, like prediction wise, what's interesting is if you kind of look at some of the older studies where they ask people to do like silly things like daily eccentric training or whatever, then you can look at it you go, what do I think is going to happen here? You know, and if you think fatigue is going to accumulate, you would expect strength to kind of drop throughout that program because you'd expect the continuous battering with the eccentric contractions.

Jake (44:11)
Mm-hmm.

Chris (44:17)
would continually push you down and down and down into a fatigue hole. And it doesn't. You just kind go down and you just kind of stay. You just kind of sit on this low plateau and it very, very gradually climbs a little bit, but not very much. And then similarly, you would kind of look at it go, well, you know, do I expect any kind of muscle growth to be happening or, you know, what do I expect to be occurring? And you just kind of see kind of bit of an increase at beginning, which is obviously going to muscle swelling. And then it just kind of sits there the whole time. just kind of sort of...

Jake (44:25)
Mm.

Chris (44:46)
more or less stays there. Now, if it was growing, again, that would mirror the kind of decrease in strength. You'd be saying you're accumulating more damage, which was then creating more inflammation, which was then creating more muscle swelling, because muscle swelling in the post-workout period is a direct result of inflammation. During the workout, it's direct result of acidosis. After the workout, it's direct result of inflammation. So you kind of look at it and go, well, I'm not seeing any continued decrease in strength, and I'm not also seeing an increase in swelling. And then you kind of...

stop and you take a few days off and they both just gradually come back towards baseline again. So it kind of tells you what you did was you did this kind of muscle damaging swelling workout like three weeks ago and then you kind of just held it in that state for three weeks without really changing very much ⁓ and then kind of stopped and then it all kind of came back to zero.

Jake (45:35)
So okay, so you said they're essentially swelling and inflammation track alongside each other?

Chris (45:42)
Well, you know, that's kind of the model that I think we probably should be using. I mean, like what else is causing it? Really?

Jake (45:50)
So and then strength deficit and inflammation would track alongside each other as well.

Chris (45:57)
Okay, so the interesting thing is that I think it's going to depend on what you did. So the example I gave was super maximally eccentric. So you do one workout and then you just kind of just hold it there. I think if you were doing a conventional strength training scenario and you were building kind of fatigue over time, let's you're just doing crazy workout every single day for like several weeks.

Jake (46:11)
Mm.

Mm-hmm.

Chris (46:26)
I think you would be building a problem over time. And I don't think necessarily that you would get the same kind of close relationship because I think you would see sort of small differences in terms of what was going on. I think the muscle damage would probably start to, mean, like if I look at the rodent literature, for example, and I go, if I look at rodent data in Alaska a year or two, where they've looked at. ⁓

fatigue accumulation in overreaching models in rodents, what it shows is that the proportional contributions of each fatigue mechanism changes over time. So you don't just get like, it's like when we talk about, when I explained the first post-workout team model before, I've said, look, what you've got to remember is that everything bottlenecks through calcium ions during the workout. So when you start, you've got basically ⁓ a single input.

Jake (47:13)
Mm.

Chris (47:20)
that creates every single one of your fatigue outputs. You can't change the relative contributions of your fatigue outputs because there's only one input. So you create the calcium ion influx during the workout from activating the muscle fiber or stretching the muscle and activating at the same time, which is what eccentrics do, which is why they're so much more damaging. You do that. And then what you get is you get a couple of local calcium ion rate fee mechanisms. You get

Jake (47:29)
Mm-hmm.

Chris (47:48)
excitation contraction coupling failure, which I mentioned before, you get some oxidative stress induced changes in myofibrilla sensitivity, and then you get some damage to the cell membrane. So you've got these kind of three things going on calcium ion related ⁓ calcium iron fatigue mechanisms going on. And then obviously you've also then got the myofibrilla damage, which is again downstream of the same calcium ion kind of processes. Calpains then start damaging the proteins.

And after that, you get the inflammation that arises because there's muscle damage that then circulates, creates supraspinal CNF fatigue. And then you've got this kind of whole model. And so you can't really go, well, no, this type of workout creates more kind of CNF fatigue. It's like, what nonsense are you talking? That's impossible. I mean, interesting, just can see how much the fitness industry claims that particular types of workout create more types of post-workout CNF fatigue and other types create less. It's like, that's impossible. It's like you can't change the proportional contents of a post-workout fatigue.

Jake (48:29)
Mm.

Chris (48:45)
⁓ kind of effect. It's like, yes, you can have more fatigue or less fatigue, but you can't have more of one type of fatigue and less of another. You can't do that. It's a package deal. Interesting thing is with overreaching, can start to kind of change the relative components because some types of post-workout fatigue dissipate really quickly, some don't, and some keep coming back. So like...

Jake (48:51)
Mm.

Chris (49:10)
⁓ So excitation contraction, it probably takes a couple of days to get rid of. Muscle damage probably takes a lot longer. ⁓ Similarly, if you look at oxidative stress and how that influences on ⁓ damage and how it influences on cell membrane permeability, for example, is the classic one. Also on my friend, the sensitivity, which I mentioned earlier. But like, for example, ⁓ just brief rabbit hole.

A lot of the time when we talk about sort of cell membrane damage, mean, the hypertrich researchers are still trapped in their own little room, you know, kind of on the top floor of Hogwarts. I mean, they still think that tearing forces tear cell membranes. like, you know, if you look at cell membranes, if you poke a hole in a cell membrane, like just as a kind of experiment, I mean, I'm not saying do this at home. I'm saying that when researchers do this as an experiment.

So when researchers poke holes in cell membranes as an experiment, they pretty much reseal instantaneously, like within 30 seconds. Like you can't mechanically sort of tear a cell membrane and then go, well, you know that, yeah, that was kind of still torn three days later, like one nonsense you're talking. I mean, that's impossible because they just reseal. We've got really, really fast capacity to reseal because if they don't, they're going to go necrotic and die and then you've lost the fibers. So you're not going to do that. So.

The interesting thing is that the reason we keep ⁓ the cell membrane with some degree of permeability is because the oxidative stress keeps breaking the membrane again. It's a chemical effect. It just keeps going back in and destroying the membrane. it's actually when you say cell membrane permeability is reduced, it's like in terms of time.

Jake (50:40)
⁓

Chris (50:50)
it might be reducing and then coming back again, then going away again, then coming back again. It really depends on what the oxidative stress do. And inflammation is going to be kicking off different, because oxidative stress comes mainly in the post-workout period from the inflammation response. So you do get an oxidative stress response during workout, but the primary one in the post-workout period is actually coming from the inflammatory processes. So you've got the neutrophils, then you've got another spike of macrophages. And they've got their own oxidative stress generating engines.

Jake (50:53)
Mm.

Chris (51:19)
All in the time, you've got these kind of peaks and troughs. Well, in those scenarios, you're to have increased permeability. So you could find that your cell membrane ⁓ damage, which is a mechanism that creates post-workout fatigue because it stops the action potentials from traveling along the membrane producing the muscle fire activation. ⁓ You could find that they're coming and going. It could be here and then gone and then here and then gone. It's like it's not something that is done and then you kind of like, I'm going to watch it repair. It's like it.

Jake (51:43)
Mm.

Chris (51:44)
It gets damaged and repaired and then it's gone again and then, you know, kind of then it comes back again. It's really interesting to kind of start looking at how these mechanisms might work if we just track, you know, one of the prime causes of damage to cell membrane, which is oxidative stress. So I think there's there's some really interesting kind of bits and pieces going on anyway. So I got sidetracked. Where was I? I think I was talking about

Jake (52:01)
Hmm.

I sidetracked you with inflammation and asking if inflammation and swelling and

Chris (52:18)
I was talking about how different fatigue mechanisms might accumulate in the over-reaching literature. So yeah, there's some rodent literature on overreaching, and they show that the actual kind of mechanisms can change their proportions over time. And it's not because you're creating different amounts. It's because some of it stays around longer and some doesn't. So if you have like a lot of fatigue accumulation, what you're going to find is that every time you create some, like let's say you create a sort of.

certain amount of each post-reductivity mechanism. I'm not saying they're all equal, but let's say you kind of create a certain amount of it. Like, muscle damage is much less likely to go away because it takes longer to fix. Whereas, like, the other stuff, the kind of other calcium amyloid mechanisms, they're much less likely to be kind of sort of, they're easier to deal with. So you might find that, and one of the...

Jake (52:49)
Mm-hmm.

Mm.

Chris (53:08)
kind of rodent studies that was done in the last year showed that over time the relative contribution of muscle damage to the overall fatigue effect increases, which is what you would predict given that it takes longer than everything else to fix.

Jake (53:17)
Mm-hmm, mm-hmm. ⁓

Chris (53:21)
Yeah, this is messy and you've got influences like if you've got muscle damage, you're going to have inflammation, therefore you are going to have oxidative stress and therefore you are going to have cell membrane permeability issues. Therefore you are going to have CNSD. You can't kind of say, well, no, this is all kind of, you know, suddenly changing. It's like, no, it's still going to hold its kind of equilibrium more or less. But I do think you are going to start to see a rise in the amount of muscle damage. Now, in that scenario, and this is the really interesting thing.

Jake (53:30)
Mm.

Chris (53:49)
In that scenario, if you got to the end of that period of time and you said, OK, I'm now going to measure how long it takes, I'm not going to detrain or I'm going to deload or whatever it is that we're to do, go down to really, really low volume and try and maintain. I'm going to watch the fatigue dissipate and watch what happens. In the scenario that you are kind of sort of, ⁓ you know, just got there all in one go, you might find that. ⁓

it takes one speed to get rid of. In the scenario where you built up to it, it might take a different rate of time to get rid of because you actually got a different proportion of the relativity mechanisms, potentially. I think that's really interesting. So if somebody were to come to me and say like, know, you know, I overtrain, not overtrain inverted commas. You know, I did, you know, silly volumes for a long period of time and then it's actually taken me six weeks or whatever to get back to a point where I feel like my strength is normal again. I'm like,

Jake (54:23)
Hmm.

Chris (54:45)
That's not impossible. Potentially you could find that there's some moving parts that we're not really sort of taking into consideration in the standard models because of the differences in time that it actually takes to dissipate e-fatigue mechanism. So if you accumulate a lot of fatigue and you gradually increase the proportion of that fatigue that is accounted for by muscle damage, you might find actually it takes you a lot longer to get rid of that at the end than it would do if it was just a normal kind of.

Jake (54:47)
Mm.

Mm.

Chris (55:14)
equal proportion normal kind of sort set of fatigue mechanisms where you've got you know kind of everything playing into it it actually might take you longer simply because muscle damage does take longer to fix.

Jake (55:26)
So that elbow flexor study you talked about at the start, the eccentric one, do we know how long that took for full

Chris (55:33)
Or sometimes they don't actually measure. mean, like, it depends. There's actually a batch of the studies. They're all kind of in the same ⁓ kind of lab, think. But sometimes they don't measure all the way to the end. ⁓ They kind of measure it like kind of a week or whatever, and they're a little bit below baseline. Honestly, it depends. And the thing is, I wouldn't read too much into it and say, you know, well, you know, ⁓ that kind of

Jake (55:46)
Mm.

Mm.

Chris (56:03)
took people a week to recover from the inter individual variability, inter individual variability is, even if I said that right then, the variation between people is just monstrous. You know, it's absolutely crazy. You know, like, there's some very famous studies where they did that kind of workout, I think, again, elbow flexor eccentric. And some people came back the following day, and they were like down at 20 % strength, which is which is incapacitated. I mean, that is just like, you get trouble these days if you did that.

Jake (56:31)
Mm.

Chris (56:33)
you know, you would. like, whereas other people, and I say this to people and they kind of look at me as it's saying, no, you don't mean that. And I do, I do mean this. Some people came back and they actually stronger than

Jake (56:33)
Ha ha.

Chris (56:47)
So you literally have a group of like 50, 60 people. I think actually it was more than that. I maybe 120 people. But like a group of people, a big group of people, some people are gonna come back the following day they're gonna be in bits. I don't mean that, you know, kind of, I do mean that they're not gonna be happy with you. you know, lawyers might be involved. Like.

Jake (57:07)
Ha ha

Chris (57:07)
Whereas on the other hand, some people are going come back the following day and they are going to be basically potentiated. They're going to be stronger. They're going to either adapted or they're going to be potentiated, whichever you kind of believe. But, you know, that for me is insane. That can only really happen if you start kind of saying, well, OK, why is there a difference there? Is it because, you know, really low volumetric activation levels, really high slow twitch fibre proportions, combination of those two at the same time means that they basically don't have any fast twitch fibres to damage.

Jake (57:36)
Mm-hmm. Yeah, I was wondering that when you were talking about this. And and just on your point there, like something that has just shocked me is looking at when some studies provide you raw data and you can actually see like the participant ⁓ variation. And obviously not just with you know fatigue and what you're talking about here, but even in things like hypertrophy or or you know muscle size changes, the changes can be massive between people. Like some can be like fifty

Chris (58:04)
Sure, but this. Yeah, but let's just kind of add an extra level of detail, which is really important. The data you've been looking at are on muscle size and that has an enormous operator error in it. Muscle strength measurements are super reliable, super reliable. They don't have anything like that degree of of of error in them. You know, so like if you take a muscle strength measurement.

Jake (58:19)
Mm.

Mm-hmm.

Chris (58:32)
and it's up or down, it's because it's up or down. If you take a muscle size measurement and it's up or down, it could be that the operator's got the screen upside down. mean, like honestly, it could be really nothing to do with the person. It could literally be the operator in that scenario.

Jake (58:36)
Hm.

Mm.

Regardless of what's causing that that variation though, it's still I feel like it still leads to a problem when you then try to extrapolate and you're like, well, okay, on average, you know, this there's this much fatigue present, on average we saw this much muscle growth or whatever, when you're looking at the individual participants and and whether it's due to individual variability or due to measurement error. And like for me, I'm looking at the research, I'm like, how do how how can you actually extrapolate this to the general population at all sometimes?

Chris (59:00)
Mm-hmm. Sure. Yeah.

Yeah. Yeah, yeah.

Totally. And that's that's that's absolutely right. And that's that's kind of why when you kind of come back to it, you have to say, well, if you're writing a strength training program and you know, you're flirting with the top end of the kind of recoverable volume guidance that we've got for trained lifters. So just to repeat myself like a millionth time, you know, three sets, three times a week, five sets twice a week. You know, that's kind of recoverable territory. If you're at or sort of just below or just above that.

then I think it means you have to be sensitive to what your long term progress looks like. If you're sitting on three sets three times a week or five sets twice a week and you're ⁓ not progressing and your numbers show that you're not progressing, I think you have to ask yourself the question about whether you are accumulating fatigue and you're preventing yourself from really achieving maximal adaptions. So let me again, let me just justify that statement.

Fatigue doesn't just protect us from damaging muscle again, which it does. It also stops you from stimulating the muscle very effectively again. So you don't want to be training in a fatigue state. All the nonsense that people are saying about needing to kind of push into fatigue states and accumulate volume, it's just absolute rubbish. want to be physiologically, it's obvious that you want to be training in a non fatigue state. It just goes without saying, really. So, yeah, if you are at or

Jake (1:00:18)
Mm-hmm.

Chris (1:00:40)
kind of around those numbers, then I think, and you're not progressing, then I think you have to ask yourself the question, maybe the reason I'm not progressing is because I'm too fatigued, and so I need to take my volume down slightly. If you're doing single sets three times a week like I do, then you probably don't need to be quite so obsessive. You can be fairly kind of confident that there's not a fatigue issue going on, unless you're like really old.

Jake (1:00:57)
Ha ha ha.

Fairly confident, yeah.

I mean again, your point with the Alblo Flexor study and and saying some participants came back and they are potentiated. Well

Chris (1:01:10)
That's the point I'm making. You could you could be the opposite. I mean, if you like got the kind of mentality that Sorin has got and you want to experiment, but instead of experimenting on the kind of exercise variation side, you're interested in experimenting on the volume side and want to see how far you could personally push things in terms of a single muscle group and boy, strongly recommend you only do this for one muscle group at a time. But, know, you could play around with that and see like.

Jake (1:01:35)
Mm.

Chris (1:01:36)
at what level you stop progressing. I used to talk about this, Paul and I used to talk about this, our own experiments on this all the time. It would be like, I did three sets or whatever, and then I went up to four sets for a period of time. This was like four or five years ago. And I stopped progressing straight away. As soon as I went from three to four, three times a week, I stopped progressing. And that was for me, like I'm bang on the kind of, back then I was bang on the limit. I'm probably a set lower than that now, because I've got a lot older since then.

Jake (1:02:00)
Mm. Mm. Yeah. Yeah. So there might be some people who could do couple of sets more. Might be some people, like you're saying, for you, two sets is probably the limit now.

Chris (1:02:09)
Totally, but the variability is gigantic. I just happened to drop at that particular point in my life. I happened to drop right on the average line. ⁓ You know, I don't know. ⁓ But yeah, I think certain people could easily be substantially above that. ⁓ But I would kind of, ⁓ I would just, no.

Jake (1:02:14)
Yeah. Yeah.

That's not trainable though, is it? Like if someone yeah, so if someone's like, you know what, I can do seven sets and I can I can recover and progress, someone else can't then do whatever training method to get to the point where they can do seven sets.

Chris (1:02:43)
There is no training method that you can do because we can't convert type two and type one fibers into each other. Not really. A little bit of variation probably exists at the margin, but you can't wholesale convert your type twos into type ones. Not really. So ⁓ and ultimately your motunet recruitment and adaption is going in the opposite direction. You can't decrease motunet unless you immobilize yourself for like a period of time. can't actually. There's nobody wants to do.

Jake (1:02:58)
Mm.

Mm, mm.

Chris (1:03:13)
You can't actually decrease motor equipment in kind of persistent way. So and you wouldn't want to. I mean, it's just like you're just decreasing your capacity to grow. But yeah, I mean, essentially, the repeat about effect. I said this 100 million times and I'll say it again. The repeat about effect refers to a single workout. It doesn't refer to multiple workouts. So when people say, look, yeah, but I found this training program and, know, like, OK, cool, but it's not repeat about effect. So describe it.

tell me what you think is happening, but don't leverage somebody else's work and pretend that it's the same thing. This is kind of the opposite of what, you know, kind of. It's like the opposite to what we were talking about last time when I was saying like evidence based community don't talk about mechanisms. Well, they do when it suits them, I suppose, because they reference the repeat about effect in the wrong context, because like the repeat about effect has been described a lot and it refers to one workout to a second workout.

Jake (1:04:09)
Mm.

Chris (1:04:09)
Repeat the bad effect does not apply and we've got data showing it does not apply from workouts two to three to four. There's a multiple repeat the bad effect, which has a very small change from like workouts two to three to four. But that's not the same thing. They're separate entities. They're completely different animals. know, so you can't just say, you know, I think because the repeat the bad effect, then I'm going to indefinitely get more and more ⁓ capable of handling, you know, more and more sets. That's a scientifically illiterate statement.

And it's not how it works. So, you know, read about it. Work out one to work out two. And that's how the literature is describing it. And it does relate to certain things are actually unique to that specific one workout shift. It's got a multiple set of mechanisms on the pinning it, which I'm not going to kind of bore everyone with now. But, you know, some of those are actually quite localized that short period of time, which is why the transition is very small.

Jake (1:05:06)
If someone was if someone was capable of doing ⁓ more volume, so you someone's like, you know what, I can recover from let's just say five sets every other day, would that person have, do you think, a higher muscle th yeah. That's what I would have thought.

Chris (1:05:20)
lower because they would have to have more slow twitch fibers they would have to or they would have to well okay it depends like if they were if we were talking about trained people then I would say lower so if you've got two people have been training for a couple of years and one can bang out sets you know five sets and the other one is struggling to get three out you know and still actually make progressive overload numbers then I would say that the one with who's struggling to get three would be more likely to be on the muscular end of the spectrum

Jake (1:05:49)
Mm.

Chris (1:05:50)
⁓ in terms of their ultimate capacity. ⁓ That's probably a good metric, actually. I think if somebody is in their kind of 20s and they can bash out three sets three times a week, I'd say they were borderline. If somebody is only capable of getting two, I would say they're probably actually in quite a good place in terms of being able to grow to a natural bodybuilding kind of potential. If somebody's getting four out, I'd say just maybe take up cycling or something.

Jake (1:06:09)
Mm.

Mm.

Mm.

Chris (1:06:19)
It's not really going to work out that well. But if on the other hand, if on the other hand, ⁓ if on the other hand somebody is an untrained person and they get horrible, ⁓ not horrible, the opposite. If somebody gets is an untrained person and like after a couple of workouts, they're bashing out, you know, kind of six sets, kind of twice a week, seven sets, eight sets, twice a week or four sets, five sets, three times a week. And they're fine with that. ⁓ It might be just because their recruitment levels are really low.

Jake (1:06:21)
Ha ha ha.

Mm. Yeah, okay. Yeah. So it might not really be predictive of anything, that could change quite quickly.

Chris (1:06:50)
what you. It might not tell you anything. What you might find is that when they get their recruitment levels up over the space, the next six months, then they drop back down to three sets and they're kind of in line with most other people again. I think that probably is going to happen more often than you might realize.

Jake (1:07:00)
Yeah. Yeah.

Yeah. So this might be like a okay lit mis test after maybe six months to a year of training, but before that's criminal.

Chris (1:07:11)
I think if somebody, yeah, somebody's on six months to a year of strength training and they've been, you know, kind of exerting high efforts in muscular failure type sets or, you know, close to failure type sets, then I would say at that point, they're kind of recoverable numbers are giving you a pretty insightful look into what that fibre composition looks like. And just to kind of add on to that, if you kind of score like high on the fast twitch fire end or low on high on the stochage fire end for one kind of major muscle group.

you've got a very, very high probability of scoring high on all your other muscle groups as well. So it's not like, I've got really fast twitch lats, but really slow. No, you haven't. It's mostly going to be more or less in the same ballpark. ⁓ People tend to be fast twitch or slow twitch. So, yeah, so I'm as I say, I'm kind of pretty much on I was pretty much on the line around about three sets mark. So, you know, I'm probably kind of pretty average in that regard.

Jake (1:07:44)
Mm-hmm, mm-hmm.

Mm.

When you look at some of the silver era stuff and in magazines and stuff, a lot of the time they talk about the volumes that some people are doing. ⁓ often, you know, the Mr. Universe winners and whatnot. And they'll often say, you know, this person's been training for so long, they're advanced, don't start with the volumes they're using. But typically they're talking more about whole session volumes. And so they know it might like, here, you know, they're doing forty sets. Yeah. Yeah.

Chris (1:08:27)
Sure, so it's just cardiovascular capacity really. It's not really got anything to do with what the muscles are capable of recovering from. And you know, again, in certain scenarios, they may have been describing their pre-competition routines as well anyway. you know, that trips a lot of people up.

Jake (1:08:43)
Well, that's true as well, a hundred percent. Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah.

So you you made a comment a while ago saying it possibly s like it wouldn't shock you if someone said, Hey, it took me like over a month to get back to my

Chris (1:08:57)
No, not at all. No, I think again, it's like, ⁓ you know, because of the proportional type. mean, OK, so generally speaking, most fibers probably can kind of. OK, let me just take another step back. So I've taken two steps back now. OK, so ⁓ what I wanted to kind of clarify before I started that was to say terminology in exercise science is relatively clear if you go looking in the right place. ⁓ But if you

kind of read fatigue terminology in hypertrophy literature and getting it wrapped around your neck because they don't use it correctly. But the physiologists obviously do. So the physiologists have a specific terminology. They say regeneration is not the same as repair. Sometimes, as I say, other areas of exercise don't don't make that distinction. But that's incorrect. The correct distinction is to say that repair is when you're kind of just fixing certain elements inside the muscle fiber, you know, actually kind of

destroying the entire muscle fiber through either apoptosis or more likely necrosis. So if you look at the kind of like regeneration process, regeneration involves actually completely dismantling the entirety of the fiber and regrowing it inside the old cell membrane until it reaches the old cell membrane outside and merges with it. So regeneration is literally regrowing a new fiber inside the old cell membrane of the one that you've got rid of. ⁓ So the two...

kind of separate processes, but essentially, it's a ⁓ relatively important distinction from the fatigue physiologist's point of view, a little bit probably less relevant from the hypertrophy guy's point of view, which is why they don't generally kind of make the distinction. So I'm now trying to remember why I needed to say that. It was very important in my mind, and now it's much less important. ⁓ What were we talking about?

Jake (1:10:51)
How long it might take to recover?

Chris (1:10:53)
That was it. That was why I needed to say regeneration and define what it was. So repairing bits of emulsifier isn't really a kind of a massive task. Regenerating emulsifier is a bit of a massive task. But there will be scenarios in which the emulsifier will need to completely dismantle itself because it's just not worth kind of trying to go through the rigmarole of repairing all the little bits that are kind of damaged all over.

Jake (1:11:05)
Mm-hmm.

Mm-hmm.

Chris (1:11:21)
that regeneration process probably caps out around the kind of four or five week mark maybe. So ultimately, you know, if you are saying that a big chunk of your kind of damage is, a big chunk of your fatigue is, accumulated fatigue is caused by muscle damage, then I would say that honestly, if you get to kind of five or six weeks and you're still not really seeing, I think maybe you might want to ask other questions. ⁓ Might be something else going on, but you know, I would say that's probably enough. Five or six weeks is probably enough to get rid of all of that.

Jake (1:11:26)
Mm-hmm.

Mm-hmm.

Chris (1:11:50)
So, yeah, that would be my kind of starting.

Jake (1:11:54)
Okay, so so if they had actually killed cells, then you're saying that's where that top ends.

Chris (1:11:59)
Yeah, and I know that some people get very agitated about this and they're like, no, no, no, no, I don't think that kind of of muscle fibers go through the necrosis process ⁓ and then regenerate afterwards in strength training situations. ⁓ I think they do. I think we've got some reasonable data from a range of different exercise types, not just strength training. There's marathon running. You can see necrosis happening.

We've got data cross-sectional data and powerlifters showing that necrosis happens. ⁓ You know, and ⁓ and also the enzyme leak that we see, mean, ⁓ apoptosis can kind of happen without you really knowing about it. So just to just kind of clarify apoptosis is where you kind of go through a programmed cell death process. So the cell kind of dismantles itself using cellular energy gradually kind of just kind of folds up its

kind of chairs and tables and goes away. ⁓ It doesn't kind of leak really very much into the ⁓ bloodstream very much enzymes, ⁓ whereas necrosis does. It's completely kind of just disorganized route. Everything just goes into the bloodstream. So if you've got a lot of blood enzymes kind of firing around, then that indicates you probably do have necrosis, in my opinion. ⁓ So yeah.

Jake (1:12:58)
Ha ha.

Interesting. So if you did a blood test a week after training and just CK was so elevated, AST was so elevated, then that

Chris (1:13:31)
I would say it's a pretty good hint, yeah. I mean, at very least you've got some serious cell permeability going on. As I say, that could be kind of oxidative stress coming and going, coming and going, coming and going, which I think is a big part of it. But yeah, mean, sort of, necrosis is definitely visible in exercise, after exercise situations in humans. You know, it's just generally not really talked about.

But yeah, so regeneration process ⁓ is probably done and us to be in kind of maybe five or so weeks. So that would be kind of my sort of marker in the sand of saying that would be where I would be expecting everything to be back to normal, at very, very least.

Jake (1:14:12)
Got it.

And if there weren't necrotic cells, then what do you think the top end of that timeline might be?

So y so y if cells had died that whole process can take one and a half months or so?

Chris (1:14:28)
The thing is, the cell will make that decision based on the magnitude of problem. So you can't really have a worse problem than needing regeneration because what the cell will do is...

Jake (1:14:38)
No, yeah. So what I'm saying i is i would we'd be saying maybe two weeks would be the top end if if someone had

Chris (1:14:43)
⁓ it can be nothing, can't it? mean, like, I mean, it just depends where you are. I mean, realistically, I think if you start to get to the point where you're seeing accumulated fatigue, I think you're to need at least a week. And I would probably suggest to I think that would be the safe place. Sure. I would say two weeks. Yeah, I would say two weeks. Yeah, yeah, yeah.

Jake (1:14:59)
'Cause I'm I'm thinking back to the plan we started with and so I'm s ⁓ yeah, okay. And so in the case where there was cell death, I would imagine that that wouldn't there would I would imagine there'd be more swelling with muscle damage than there would be with the cell dying and needing to regrow itself. Is that a fair assumption or not?

Chris (1:15:22)
Not really. mean, ultimately, they all all need. mean, necrosis generally is highly characterized by inflammation. So like if you would kind of. Yeah, I mean, if you were to kind of just say, look, you know, I'm looking at this scan and I can see or I've taken a biopsy or whatever and I can see necrotic cells, then your assumption immediately would be that there was profound inflammation in that area.

Jake (1:15:34)
Okay. So both there's gonna be swelling.

Chris (1:15:51)
That's just kind of one of the things that happens when the crisis is going on. So I mean like ⁓ Yeah, I mean I think it's more likely that if you've got necrotic cells you're more likely to see inflammation rather than the other way around

Jake (1:16:04)
So if we go back to our our plan we started with, and if we're working with our hypothesis here that they in fact wanted to be swollen when they're coming into this, would in in that instance you would actually need the fatigue to accumulate. Like there's no point actually doing a volume that you can fully recover from.

Chris (1:16:09)
Sure, yeah yeah.

Logically, you would ramp up, really. I mean, you wouldn't just kind of go from sort of zero to here. I mean, you would kind of be like, I'm doing this as my normal program and I would have a set a week over the course of couple of weeks and then final week would be the mass volume. And it would probably not linear. I probably expected to be kind of more exponential.

Jake (1:16:43)
Yeah. And you do see this again, I ⁓ Isaac didn't do this, but you do like Rage for example, a lot of these people would do two a days then coming into the last couple of weeks or whatever.

Chris (1:16:51)
There you go, yeah, that would be a very similar kind thing.

Jake (1:16:55)
Interesting. And so if they're identifying that it takes at least a week after the comp for that to dissipate, my assumption would be that that means A, fatigue is taking at least a week and then probably swelling is taking at least a week as well.

Chris (1:17:09)
Yeah, I mean, again, as I say, I think when it looked when you're looking at the accumulation, the rules change very slightly in terms of what's contributing. So, you know, muscle damage is probably starting to occupy a larger amount of space. Does that mean that muscle damage is driving a similar inflammation response or is that inflammation response only happening because it tends to have a very specific time course? Is that happening kind of in a slightly different way or is it flattened or is it bigger? I don't know. I mean,

Jake (1:17:18)
Mm.

Mm. Mm.

Chris (1:17:37)
It's a really open questions. you know, I think. Ultimately, you know, when you when you look at the very limited data you've got that we've got. I think it's quite likely that it probably doesn't move around that much. I think it probably kind of sits. But then again, how many studies have we got that kind of measure muscle size and

very short time scales and, you know, kind of with increasing volumes, like none. So it's like, I just don't know what it would look like. ⁓ Really.

Jake (1:18:17)
Hmm. Yeah. Something else that I found striking is not just the variability between individuals in some of these studies, but also some of these things that you've just talked about here, whether it's damage or swelling or whatever, and how short some of those studies actually are that are measuring that. And they might, you know, they'll cut off at ninety-six hours, usually, you know, maybe sometimes even less, forty-eight hours.

And it might be that either it's it's still elevated when they stop to study, or sometimes what you might see is something comes back to like not being s significantly statistically significantly different at say twenty four hours, but then you see it trending up again, but then they stop to study.

Chris (1:18:59)
Yeah, know people I think don't ⁓ a lot of the researchers who are measuring post workout fatigue and swelling and strength, you know, all the rest of it in the post-workout period, they don't go and really immerse themselves in the fatigue side of things before they do their experiment. And so they don't really expect to see swelling coming down initially and then back up again.

Jake (1:19:24)
Yeah.

Chris (1:19:25)
That's one of the major errors that I tend to see is like people go, ⁓ no, no, like 24, 48 hours, swelling was a bit lower, so I'm gonna assume that it's gonna carry on going down. It's that whole boundary condition thing again. It's like, well, hang on, if you look at the fatigue literature, it actually shows that fatigue will follow inflammation, which means it's gonna go back up again, because you've got this secondary muscle damage effect kicking in and creating inflammation, and then you've got a bigger swelling effect. If you don't go and look at that, like...

Jake (1:19:34)
Yeah. Yeah.

Yeah.

Chris (1:19:51)
kind of base phenomenon and understand what it's doing, then you're make mistakes when you start predicting what is gonna happen in your study. And that's, think, what a people are doing now. They're just kind of...

Jake (1:19:59)
Mm.

That's almost like quick, we need to stop the study now, other otherwise we're gonna see something if we keep going.

Chris (1:20:04)
Quick before sweating, so you start to come back up again. It's kind of quick, get rid of it. But yeah, I don't know. Yes, sweating I think is probably going to be the biggest problem in the next kind of five years or so for hypertrophy researchers. They're eventually going to get sensitive enough measurements to be picking it up all the time. And then they're going to have to figure out a way to normalise it in their studies. from what we've been saying, we think that's probably going to change.

⁓ the kind of overall numbers especially on things like volume and frequency studies. I think it's going change quite a lot.

Jake (1:20:39)
Mm. Mm.

Okay. Anything you wanna conclude with or is that done and dusted for fatigue accumulation? I guess the takeaways there, if you've been doing silly amounts of volume that you're listening to this and you're like, ⁓ I don't think that's actually recoverable, then you're saying, Hey, if it's short term a week, probably gonna be enough. If it's been you've been doing this forever. Yeah, but if you've been doing it forever, then you're saying reduce volumes down.

Chris (1:21:00)
Just take, yeah, one or two weeks, probably fine. But then start back doing a proper training program. Don't go back to your high volume program that you were doing previously, because you just repeat the same mistake. So yeah, so that's the key.

Jake (1:21:16)
And and one practical note there that's helpful as well is you don't technically need to stop completely, do you? You could drop down to just single set and that will allow fatigue to dissipate while you're continuing to train as well.

Chris (1:21:29)
Totally, totally. If you're really worried, then do them twice a week, but otherwise three times is probably good.

Jake (1:21:36)
Yeah. Okay, great. Anything else you wanna leave us with?

Chris (1:21:40)
No, just to say to people, please do give us feedback on the extended kind of silver era content that we're doing at beginning of the podcast now, because I think that's going to be a feature going forward. So if people have suggestions, comments, know, questions or whatever about what we're doing there, please do let us know. We'll keep doing it and try and make it better.

Jake (1:22:02)
I should mention my better this, but we also do have a silver era inspired training group on Train Heroic. ⁓ I have got the link in. Well, I don't actually have the link in the show notes. I have I mention it in the show notes. Maybe I'll put the link in. But if you guys are interested in training, I guess it actually ends up looking. What would it look like? It would look like

Chris (1:22:18)
That would be good idea.

Jake (1:22:28)
Honestly, it probably ends up looking kind of like my plan, where it's not going down to the volumes that you would do. It's probably using more volumes that are like, I guess, the mean of what most people are gonna be able to tolerate.

Chris (1:22:42)
but your target audience is probably not a 50 year old man.

Jake (1:22:47)
I do, you know what, there's a couple of 50 old men in there, but maybe it's between what you you would do and what I would do. ⁓ but if you want to know more about that, then that is the link will now be in the show notes. Okay, thank you guys. Thanks for joining us. We'll be back next week with another episode.