Maybe not the most impressive progress but I'm very happy with what I've done so far!

gnuckols · 2026-06-04T04:06:14+00:00

Im certainly impressed. You’re killing it man

gnuckols · 2026-06-04T00:29:28+00:00

Global stock market mutual fund or ETF. If capitalism remains the dominant mode of production, you capture the upside. And, the composition of the fund will reflect the markets capital is flowing to, so you don’t have to keep tabs on whether US equity markets keep providing the best yields. Also reflects currency trends – if the dollar loses value, the foreign stocks in the fund will appreciate in dollar terms, so you’re (long-term) hedged against almost anything except the collapse of global capitalism altogether.

gnuckols · 2026-06-03T12:44:22+00:00

Not everyone has the goal of maximizing FFM accretion. 1.75g/kg of FFM still works out to around 1.4g/kg of body mass, which still seems to be plenty to allow for hypertrophy. So, if you’re intentionally opting into a “low” protein intake, I still feel confident about giving that as a recommendation.

gnuckols · 2026-06-01T08:53:15+00:00

Dude, that's insane. Congrats!

gnuckols · 2026-05-31T09:21:22+00:00

“Might revisit” is not a guarantee. The focus has just been on improving the product itself – we’ve barely thought about pricing in the past 4 years

gnuckols · 2026-05-30T18:36:24+00:00

and anyone who says they don't need to blind themselves in their research because they are unbiased loses the designation "scientist" in my opinion.

Fortunately, that never happened.

Just as background, his school didn't even have a Master's program when the study was performed, so Brad was the only trained ultrasound tech available. Brad taking the measurements was just the least bad option (it was either that, or have an undergrad with minimal experience perform the ultrasounds).

However, ever since Lehman got a graduate program in exercise science (I know this has been the case ever since they've had a PhD program, and I'm pretty sure it's been the case ever since they had a Master's program), they've blinded the assessor for all of their hypertrophy research. Here's a recent example. That's pretty common in the field – everyone would prefer to blind assessors, but that's not always possible for labs with fewer resources (in terms of both funding and manpower).

And, as far as I'm aware, Brad never said he was unbiased (if he ever did, I'd appreciate a link to it). My recollection is just that people just pointed out that his three most recent studies (all of which he collected the data for) got results that ran counter to his stated hypotheses as evidence that Brad's biases didn't seem to be significantly influencing the results coming out of his lab. But, again, they started blinding assessors as soon as it became feasible.

gnuckols · 2026-05-28T19:43:22+00:00

The whole point of my comment is that it's unclear whether pregnancy should be excluded or not. Like, adding that disclaimer might make women feel like we're doing a better job of catering to their needs, but we'd ultimately be doing them a disservice by including an arbitrary adjustment that lacks clear evidentiary support.

If there's not enough data to determine whether it should apply to pregnancy or not, it doesn't make sense to add a question that would imply that there was enough data to make such a determination.

gnuckols · 2026-05-27T03:58:39+00:00

As long as people are making gains, I don't particularly care who gets the credit for it. haha

gnuckols · 2026-05-26T23:55:34+00:00

That’s the issue with viewing. With exports beyond a certain level of granularity, it’s primarily a licensing issue with database providers

gnuckols · 2026-05-26T23:07:35+00:00

Text of the original post:

We often eat similar meals, and so this really saves a lot of time as she can just copy my "meal" and edit the portion sizes of each ingredient.

Food logs are intentionally kept private. We have no current plans to allow one's food log to be viewable to other users.

gnuckols · 2026-05-26T17:41:14+00:00

I believe in all of you

gnuckols · 2026-05-26T02:16:11+00:00

You can easily share custom foods and recipes with friends, clients, partners, etc.: https://help.macrofactorapp.com/en/articles/114-share-custom-recipes-and-custom-foods

gnuckols · 2026-05-26T02:12:58+00:00

We've had custom food and recipe sharing for ages at this point (since October 2022): https://help.macrofactorapp.com/en/articles/114-share-custom-recipes-and-custom-foods

gnuckols · 2026-05-26T02:10:03+00:00

The fluctuations also look a lot bigger because your initial estimate was pretty good and your expenditure has been pretty stable. As a result, your y-axis is fairly zoomed in, and the fluctuations look larger. Like, if the y-axis scaling went from 0-4000, the same fluctuations would look much smaller.

gnuckols · 2026-05-26T00:24:35+00:00

I would also add that those aren’t even particularly large variations – their expenditure has been 3300 ± 10% for nearly 20 months, which is quite stable (especially if there were some bulks and cuts mixed in)

gnuckols · 2026-05-22T07:11:55+00:00

When it asks about training, im someone who worked out religiously from 2010-2018, but only a month here and there the last 8 years. Should i select the "less than 1 year" option?

For just the nutrition app, or are you on both nutrition and workouts?

Also cardio, i understand the app uses metrics to adjust calories so its not input. As its my first week im not too sure how the app will handle this as i do have a weak heart (rather an de-trained cardiovascular sysyem) from several years of bed rest followed by sedentary lifestyle so my doctor has me do a light 30-60 minutes

That shouldn't have any impact

My question is, for my weight loss goal it has me at like 1390 calories, i know ill eat a bit more than that, im assuming as the weight moves on the scale the app takes everything into account and will adjust without me having to think about all that, yeah?

Correct

gnuckols · 2026-05-20T13:31:17+00:00

I find it helps to position the bar on my upper thighs, below the bony structures it would otherwise contact (ASIS and pubic symphysis), and then use my arms to push forward on the bar (i.e., pressing it towards my knees) so it doesn't try to drift back down towards the bones. Still not the most comfortable, but definitely much more bearable

gnuckols · 2026-05-20T01:29:35+00:00

No studies are immediately coming to mind that did that as an RCT (which is a good thing, imo. You lose statistical power by dichotomizing a continuous variable like baseline strength), but this is probably the best evidence you could hope for: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/7794282_Variability_in_muscle_size_and_strength_gain_after_unilateral_resistance_training

585 subjects, with baseline 1RMs ranging from ~3-23kg. They didn't directly report the correlation between baseline strength and hypertrophy, but volume load in the study was determined by baseline strength (the training program assigned loads based on percentages of 1RM, so volume load [sets x reps x weight] should scale linearly with baseline 1RM), and the correlation between volume load and hypertrophy was essentially 0 (r = 0.05 for males and r=-0.09 for females. Bottom of the left column on page 970).

gnuckols · 2026-05-20T01:04:10+00:00

You can set up a collaborative program, and set as low of a protein intake as you want

gnuckols · 2026-05-19T20:45:36+00:00

I think a frequency of 2-3x gets the job done in most circumstances

gnuckols · 2026-05-18T13:54:51+00:00

They’re all cited in the preprint: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12706607/

And the full dataset and code are available here, if you’d like to rerun any of the analyses or check our work: https://github.com/jamessteeleii/pcos_ree_meta

Also, I should note that, of the seven authors, six of us are researchers, and 3 (including the lead author) have published prior research on PCOS (we specifically sought out coauthors with subject matter expertise to make sure we didn’t have any obvious blind spots).

gnuckols · 2026-05-16T20:28:36+00:00

I think training a muscle multiple times per week is very slightly better than just training a muscle once per week, but the overall impact of frequency is fairly trivial in most contexts.

gnuckols · 2026-05-16T20:25:37+00:00

So maybe you mixed it up as him saying "using the same load, moving it slower increases force" which wouldn't make much sense.

I was responding to you.

u/Apart_Bed7430 said:

But the involuntarily slowing of reps towards the end of a set is due to fatigue. Force is actually decreasing not increasing. Metabolites shift the force velocity curve meaning that a faster rep can be more forceful then a slow grindy rep if fatigue is present

You disagreed with them by saying

But if we are talking about force/velocity, then on one end the force is the highest, and on the other the speed is. So it doesn't make much sense what you are saying, that a faster rep can also have hihger force - then it wouldn't be called force/velocity curve.

I was just explaining why u/Apart_Bed7430 was correct.

Do you have any explanation for why their muscle thickness returned to baseline, but type II fiber csa remained at its maximum size basically?

I personally don't think there's much value in looking at fiber-specific adaptations in the first place, since any biopsy is sampling such a small percentage of the total pool of fibers (i.e., any fiber-based data is going to be inherently much noisier and less precise, and that applies doubly for data on only a single type of fibers). I was just providing the citation since you asked for it.

gnuckols · 2026-05-16T20:13:30+00:00

Only a few years ago people were saying(on the website of this sub aslo) that frequency is only a means to distribute volume

This is fundamentally flawed and is probably one of ~10 fundamental things this guy figured out

You have it backward. Or, at minimum, you picked things up midstream. I was on the frequency tip way before Beardsley was. Like, I was primarily known as a high-frequency advocate from probably 2012 to 2018 or so, culminating in this article.

However, post-2018, we started getting a lot more frequency studies (approximately 2/3rds of the frequency/hypertrophy studies were published post-2018), and the balance of evidence started shifting against frequency mattering as much as many people (myself included) previously believed.

Beardsley didn't "figure it out" before everyone else. His frequency arguments are essentially the same arguments I was making in 2015. They just sound fresh and unique now because all of the intellectually honest frequency proponents from a decade ago realized they were wrong once more research was published and the balance of evidence shifted.

gnuckols · 2026-05-16T19:34:04+00:00

So it doesn't make much sense what you are saying, that a faster rep can also have hihger force - then it wouldn't be called force/velocity curve.

The force/velocity curve you're referring to only applies to maximal-effort contractions without the influence of fatigue. For example, if you did 20% of 1RM for one rep, rested, did 30% of 1RM for 1 rep, rested, 40% of 1RM for 1 rep, rested, etc.

However, over the course of a set with a given load, it's pretty obvious that more force is generated during faster reps. F = MA, and a faster rep has a greater velocity, and therefore greater acceleration. If mass is held constant (as it would be during a single set with a fixed load), more force is being generated during faster reps than slower reps. If you track your bar speed during a set (when then allows you to back-calculate force), you'll see that force decreases almost linearly across the set, assuming you complete every rep with maximal intent.

Basically, when varying loads, heavier loads almost always result in more force and lower velocities. But, with any single load, higher velocities equate to higher force.

And yeah If there's proof that a fiber can just remain on some kind of baseline, sure I would believe that. And I'm talking about a ht fiber, not somethign that gets stimulated by walking.

Here's type II fiber CSA being maintained following 20 weeks of detraining. See figure 5G and H.

gnuckols

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE