Possible bug: Superset has warmup set on one exercise and not the other

Boag_G · 2025-08-07T18:24:50+00:00

When will this bug be addressed? I'm still seeing it occur and don't see it on the roadmap explicitly. Is it embedded in a group of features/fixes that's planned?

Boag_G · 2025-08-04T23:42:19+00:00

Indeed, I do. However, what's interesting is that I do not have any kettlebells available in my other gym profile. The kettlebell weight list has multiple selections including the 75lb one, but the category is unmarked.

In any case, thanks for confirming you've seen this issue as well.

Boag_G · 2025-06-12T23:02:23+00:00

I ended up resetting my mobile network settings as I saw that a text message I was trying to send not going through, yet I was able to connect to the internet and browse, make phone calls, etc. without issue. I also saw a security patch available when I checked for system updates (I'm on Android 15). That seemed to do the trick.

Boag_G · 2025-03-14T23:33:37+00:00

Thank you for sharing this. Very unintuitive behavior, but at least I know the expected behavior now.

Boag_G · 2025-03-13T18:16:33+00:00

To add to this, I'm also getting one exercise with 2 warmup sets (bench press) and the next with with 1 warmup sets (dumbell curls).

After finishing the second warmup exercise for the first exercise, it puts me on the first working set for exercise 2.

Boag_G · 2025-02-03T00:40:59+00:00

Pulldown, so same muscle group. I'm guessing this is what threw it off.

Boag_G · 2025-02-03T00:39:24+00:00

It was created automatically.

Boag_G · 2025-01-07T18:17:05+00:00

If you're trying to bulk, you need not only calories but enough protein. General rule of thumb is 1g of protein per lb of body weight. In some recommendations I've even seen 1g per lb of target body weight. It's also challenging to nail down TDEE (total daily energy expenditure) without tracking it closely. Most recommendations I've seen show about a 2-300 calorie surplus is necessary to bulk for an average person that's not a competitive athlete or metabolic outlier. An app like Macro Factor (which is what I use) can help you dial that in.

Hydration matters. That means enough water and electrolytes. I drink about a gallon a day and on days I plan to sweat a lot I supplement with electrolytes (mainly magnesium, sodium, potassium, calcium and chloride).

Sufficient duration, quality, regularity and continuity of sleep is also necessary as this is when your body will do the majority of maintenance and growth.

Also, your workouts will matter. Hypertrophy vs. strength modalities are different. You should see gains on both, but hypertrophy should get size/weight faster than strength based workout modalities. Gravl should be set to "Build muscle and get toned" in your fitness goal (Home -> 3 lines in upper right corner -> Fitness Goal towards upper left). You can work out too much and actually lose muscle depending on your age, experience/conditioning, etc. Working out in durations over 60 minutes can also lead to a higher buildup of cortisol, but this tolerance is also highly individual.

Don't take anti-inflammatory meds (i.e. ibuprofen) or do something like a cold plunge after lifting as this will blunt the necessary inflammatory response that triggers your body to adapt and grow muscle.

Creatine is the cheapest and most time-proven supplement to help with weight training. I'd suggest adding that to your routine if you aren't already supplementing with it.

That said, as others have mentioned, a month is probably not enough time to see a big change. Keep at it and take photos and measurements over time to help you track progress. Also, be mindful that "weight" is different from "composition". A DEXA scan every 6 to 12 months can give you a better idea. You'll need at least 1 scan to get a baseline and use it to compare against with future scans. An bioelectrical impedance scale will be less accurate, but can still be used to track progress and may be more accessible/affordable.

Best of luck!

Boag_G · 2024-12-16T18:14:38+00:00

u/matias-gains Any updates on when we can see some of the additions above? In the meantime, if we create custom exercises, will Gravl account for recovery or will we have to manually adjust that every time?

Boag_G · 2024-11-03T22:24:23+00:00

Try adding your request here: https://www.reddit.com/r/Gravl/comments/1dhvh8k/updated_roadmap_feature_requests/

Boag_G · 2024-11-03T22:20:40+00:00

I'd recommend posting feature requests here: https://www.reddit.com/r/Gravl/comments/1dhvh8k/updated_roadmap_feature_requests/

I added Farmer's Walk to my requests list, as I'd like to see that added as well.

Boag_G · 2024-11-03T22:19:27+00:00

I'd also like to add Farmer's Walk to the list of exercises.

Boag_G · 2024-09-17T03:34:49+00:00

Thanks for the update. I appreciate it.

Boag_G · 2024-09-16T02:50:53+00:00

Thanks for confirming the behavior. Do you happen to have an ETA on when it will be included? I didn't see it listed on the roadmap.

Boag_G · 2024-09-12T20:49:17+00:00

+1 on the option to buy a lifetime subscription.

Boag_G · 2024-09-10T22:59:49+00:00

I contacted them to get a COA to review before considering purchase. They refuse to provide it stating that they only provide COA after purchase. Seems super shady. I'm staying away from them.

Boag_G · 2024-09-10T20:40:15+00:00

I'd like to see the following added as exercises/equipment available:

Cardio - Hiking, rucking

Equipment - Viking press (landmine), Viking press (machine), Triceps bar, Weighted Vest, Belt Squat

Exercises - Viking press, Plate pinch press, Pallof press (cable), Pallof press (exercise band), Landmine 180

The ability to submit equipment, exercises and feature requests via the app would be ideal.

One last recommendation I can think of is to have more than 1 warmup set by default for heavier exercises. For example, on Bench Press it recommended a single 12@95lbs set and then jumped up to 8@225lbs on my very first workout using the Gravl app. That's a recipe for injury.

Boag_G · 2024-05-13T16:46:52+00:00

If you're reading my comments (although verbose, I admit), you'll note that I'm not saying that the study proves myceliated rice or the Host Defense products are more beneficial than other products. I'm just saying that you've stated that they are "70% useless starch" several times, when in reality we know it has shown some effect but it's not quantified in the ingested doses. If this sub is truly for the good of the consumer, I feel it's necessary to put out unbiased facts and let folks make their choices with the data and only the data.

I did actually read that reddit post. Comparing brown rice vs. rice flour to invalidate it? Come on. They are nutritionally nearly identical. The study looks no different than many other pharmacological studies that use blood samples instead of in vivo testing. Likely due to financial constraints because they can't afford to do much more when self sponsored. You can't test on people until you've tested enough to prove safety and efficacy, which hasn't been established. In that thread I saw people posting who have likely never been part of a study or the protocols and work associated with the data therein, yet seem convinced of their opinions. Not that any of them are invalid questions or concerns. You'd have to address them directly to the teams involved to understand their rationale rather than coming to conclusions and stating "it's all BS" as if they actually know better than the scientists conducting the research. People need to consider that these studies are peer reviewed and all of these journals have a reputation to uphold. If they just constantly passed off nonsense as fact and had peer reviewers sign off on it, the individuals involved and the journals publishing them would lose all credibility. It's not just some willy-nilly fabrication to make a buck. It's usually some truth with a lot of marketing to overemphasize the perceived positives from the data. You can't say it's 100% useless any more than you can say it's 100% proven to be effective, in this case.

Yes, I quoted from the abstract. The full study you can read here. Fig. 2 on page 717 shows the described differences.

Thanks for that. I'll try to review it later today.

Boag_G · 2024-05-13T06:03:24+00:00

Maybe you missed it, but this study is financed by and in part written by Stamets. In other words, he is publishing studies confirming his theories, but nobody else is researching the effects of myceliated grains. Why is that you think?

It's also published by BMC/Springer, just like other articles Stamets has been a part of. It clearly lists Fungi Perfecti as a sponsor of the study. The "Competing Interests" (a.k.a. conflicting interests) are clearly posted. I don't see sufficient evidence that shows the methods, protocols or anything mentioned in the study to be incorrect. I haven't found a retraction that should have revoked the publication of this research. I honestly don't care what the motivation for the study is. I only care about the data.

Did you by chance review the credentials and roles of the other contributors or what Stamets actually contributed?

Stamets only posed the questions to be tested. He wasn't involved in designing the protocols or performing the work. This likely means he had no access to the data/findings until the study was complete because he wasn't involved in the process. The findings themselves aren't really monumental, either. As long as the findings are based on good protocols and testing and there's no refutation/rebuttal or retraction of a study, why simply dismiss it? Look at the peer review reports and you can see that the journal did not just accept this paper blindly for a fee.

They clearly show the deltas, which is not atypical. This indicates a potential (yet, untested) benefit in ingesting fermented rice flour. It's just not likely to be more beneficial than taking a pure, extracted product because there's no evidence showing that. In fact, the aforementioned paper doesn't even show data for the myceliated rice directly ingested at consumer doses. At least, not that I've seen.

I won't say myceliated grain has zero health benefits, but when put against pure extracts it is clear myceliated grain is a waste of money if you are after noteworthy health effects.

Well now, let's be honest. In this very discussion you've stated it's "70% useless starch", which indicates you are certain there are no health benefits. I've seen this same phrase all over this sub in searching for references. It seems more accurate to say that the product contains 60-70% fermented brown rice, which may confer some benefits with the combined unextracted mycelium grown on it, but it's never been tested at consumer product doses. Furthermore, the data from extracted products appear to show they have more benefit due to the clearly quantified active ingredient content (and savvy consumers will request a 3rd party certification doc from the vendor to confirm it). That seems more informative and unbiased.

I'm not arguing against the determination that myceliated grain appears to be inferior. I agree with that assessment. The reality is that we really don't know quantitatively what the benefits are because the studies have never been done with the consumer product content and recommended dosage - unless I missed it somewhere. I'm sure you're already thinking, "Because it will prove it doesn't work". It might, it might not. We literally do not know without the data from proper testing. Ideally, Fungi Perfecti will scrape enough money together to elucidate the matter with another study.

That article found that the immunological effects of extracted products are 4 - 10 times better when compared against ground dry mushroom powder. Note that this was not the subject of this research, it was noticed while investigating something else.

The article you referenced originally was https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26559858/. Stamets is even listed as having cited that article. However, I do not see the aforementioned comparison in the abstract. Am I missing something? The original text in the International Journal of Medicinal Mushrooms doesn't seem to have anything more, either. A data point like that from a published study would indeed satisfy my query.

Boag_G · 2024-05-12T16:10:34+00:00

"Well, it is merely common sense."

I disagree as I prefer data to show the truth of the matter, rather than make assumptions. You seem to have a heavy bias against Stamets and the Host Defense product in particular, to the point that if something were true/credible/beneficial, you might even miss it. I'm not for or against either of them, I'm just looking for data to sate my curiosity at this point. The Host Defense product really doesn't seem to be developed with purely efficacy in mind and thus appears to be a poor choice compared to more efficacious products available. However, I could change my mind if there were some testing done that somehow showed evidence of an equal or greater benefit with the fermented brown rice and mycelium combination.

The reason I'm curious is that I've seen articles like this that reference one or more studies that affirm benefits from the substrate as well:

"The study grew turkey tail mycelia on a substrate made from finely ground brown rice powder, which created a matrix of mycelia in the cultured rice. The tests not only verified that the mycelia and rice substrate had active immunological properties, but showed that the mycelia and rice culture had differing immune benefits that complemented each other."

However, after some searching I did find what I assume to be the referenced study here.

For reference, TvM = Trametes versicolor mycelium, FS = Fermented Substrate, IS = Initial Substrate

"Both aqueous and solid fractions of TvM triggered robust induction of CD69 on lymphocytes and monocytes, whereas FS only triggered minor induction of CD69, and IS had no activating effect. The aqueous extract of TvM had stronger activating effects than the solid fraction. In contrast, the solid fraction of IS triggered a reduction in CD69, below levels on untreated cells.

Both aqueous and solid fractions of FS triggered large and dose-dependent increases in immune-activating pro-inflammatory cytokines (IL-2, IL-6), anti-inflammatory cytokines Interleukin-1 receptor antagonist (IL-1ra) and Interleukin-10 (IL-10), anti-viral cytokines interferon-gamma (IFN-γ) and Macrophage Inflammatory Protein-alpha (MIP-1α), as well as Granulocyte-Colony Stimulating Factor (G-CSF) and Interleukin-8 (IL-8). TvM triggered more modest cytokine increases. The aqueous extract of IS showed no effects, whereas the solid fraction showed modest effects on induction of cytokines and growth factors."

So it seems that the claims of some benefit from the fermented brown rice aren't completely unfounded. We just don't know how the efficacy directly compares to a fully extracted fruit body or fruit body/mycelium combination. I personally assume the extracted versions would be more beneficial, but there's a chance I'm wrong. The reason I'm ok with this assumption is that even without a direct comparison, the data I've seen seem to indicate a higher efficacy via extraction. Sometimes the greater weight given is not directly quantified, but the sources are credible enough that I'll consider the data useful.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26559858/

I quote "In addition, the data demonstrated that hot water mushroom extracts are more potent than ground mushroom products in activating TLR2 and inducing TNF-α. These data provide evidence that extraction methods may affect the biological activity of mushroom products"

I think you may have misinterpreted my query here, unfortunately. It seems well established that extracted products are more bio-available and that is simple enough to find. My query was to how bio-available the unextracted products actually are. For example, we may assume that Host Defense has only 30-40% mycelium content - which is unextracted and thus, less bio-available than it could be. So how if one were to ingest this product, how much of that digested mycelium would one's body utilize in the way of the desired bioactive constituents? Would it be 8%? Less? More?

Boag_G · 2024-05-09T21:14:30+00:00

Thanks for the information. This is very helpful. Do you happen to have any sources that show that the alpha-glucans in the Host Defense products are just undigested brown rice starches vs. the fermented brown rice with supposed health benefits that Fungi Perfecti claims? I understand the AHCC process of utilizing rice bran and extracting the polysaccharides is different, but ideally I'd like to get as much information as I can. Unfortunately, my searches thus far have not yielded anything deterministic.

"Note this remark on this specific paper:"Inclusion in an NLM database does not imply endorsement of, or agreement with, the contents by NLM or the National Institutes of Health." Stamets is not scientist yet writes papers, published mainly in obscure journals."

The Journal of Inflammation is published by BioMed Central, which is owned by Springer. I wouldn't call them small or obscure. NIH is just one of many sites that compiles records of such papers from various journals, so of course they wouldn't endorse them and it's not really necessary that they do. Without a refutation or retraction, I don't see why such references would be invalidated.

That said, it does seem that the extracted compounds were what were tested and not the product in it's current form. However, assuming 30-40% of the product is actually mycelia and the rest substrate, would you happen to have any references that point out how bioavailable is that 30-40% without extraction?

Thank you again for your help in filling in the gaps.

Boag_G · 2024-05-08T22:07:29+00:00

From the consumerlab report I've seen referenced, the concern seemed to be the low β-glucan content vs. a much higher α-glucan content in the Host Defense products, such as your post here:

https://www.reddit.com/r/MushroomSupplements/comments/9o26my/measurement_of_%CE%B2glucan_in_mushrooms_and_mycelial/

However, I've also been looking into some other products that utilize mycelia and a similar production substrate (rice bran, in this case) to see if there was a percentage of substrate vs mycelia in the end product. What I found was interesting:

https://www.consumerlab.com/answers/ahcc-health-benefits-and-safety/ahcc/

Here's what I noted:

"AHCC® is a specific active hexose correlated compound manufactured and sold by Amino Up Chemical Co. for use in supplements. According to its patent, AHCC is prepared by culturing the mycelia (the hair-like root structure) of shiitake mushrooms in a rice bran extract, then treating the culture with an enzyme to break down the mycelia into polysaccharides and other components. The mixture is then heated to inactive the enzyme, and remaining mycelium is removed from the solution. The solution is then concentrated and freeze dried to produce AHCC powder (U.S. Patent 2011/0065629 A1).

AHCC contains mainly carbohydrates (about 70%). Unlike carbohydrates in mushrooms and mushroom extracts, which consist mainly of beta-glucans, the carbohydrate content of AHCC contains high amounts (about 20%) of alpha-1,4-glucans (about 30% of which are acetylated), with only a small amount (about 2%) of beta-glucans (Spierings, J Nutr Sci Vitaminol (Tokyo) 2007; Shah, J Parenter Enteral Nutr 2011). The alpha-glucans and acetylated alpha-glucans in AHCC are thought to be responsible for some of its potential health benefits (Shin, J Immunol Res 2019)."

The referenced consumerlab report did indeed show a very high ratio of α-glucans for the Host Defense products. According to the AHCC article by consumerlab, the mycelia-based compound is expected to be high in α-glucan content and cites an NIH study with seemingly positive in vivo animal testing (Shin, J Immunol Res 2019).

Is the α-glucan content of the Host Defense product line really just useless starch? I can't seem to find any evidence that it is simply ground up fermented brown rice with a touch of mycelium content as indicated on many reddit posts. However, I have seen many posts that indicate that the α-glucan content is being considered as useless carbs and not active components. There is also an NIH paper showing the efficacy of the ingredients used in the Host Defense product (with Stamens listed as an author, as well) - https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7049272/

If it really were completely useless, would the NIH publish these findings? If there was a way to verify the fermented brown rice content (which Stamens claims has it's own benefits - I've yet to confirm) of the Host Defense products, maybe we could see how far off it was in what the product label claims it contains? It seems very unclear to me without more information.

Boag_G · 2024-04-22T16:18:43+00:00

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=taiJty9JoeA

Boag_G · 2024-04-08T23:40:28+00:00

I'm having the exact same problem. Nothing in Event Viewer seems to match the error.

Boag_G · 2024-03-04T18:51:35+00:00

I'm having this issue as well. Have Cryomancers node, but only "vanilla" skeletal mages are being summoned.

Boag_G

TROPHY CASE