In this video I explain that people are not injured because they perform exercises to momentary muscle failure; they are injured because they use poor form, usually with excessive weight, and sometimes choose poor exercises.

If you are injured during exercise it is because a tissue is exposed to a level of force that exceeds its structural strength. The force your body is exposed to during exercise can reach dangerous levels due to excessive acceleration, excessive load, and incorrect body positioning, path, and/or range of motion.

If you perform exercises correctly your risk of injury is minimal:

• Use only enough resistance to achieve MMF within 1-2 min of continuous muscular loading
• Use proper body positioning, path, and range of motion
• Apply force gradually
• Accelerate and move slowly
• Reverse direction smoothly
• Breathe freely (avoid ValSalva’s maneuver, grunting, yelling, and other vocalization)
• Maintain a neutral head and neck
• Minimize instability

People aren’t injured because they perform exercises to momentary muscle failure; they are injured because they loosen their form as they approach momentary muscle failure. If you perform the last repetition as strictly as the first you can safely exercise with maximum effort.

I have instructed tens of thousands of high intensity training workouts without a single injury by teaching the guidelines I discuss in the video.

If you want to learn more about how you can exercise intensely with minimal risk of injury, or want to learn how to improve your ability to perform exercises to momentary muscle failure while maintaining strict form, I discuss these in detail in several videos in my private high intensity training community The HIT List, and I demonstrate correct exercise form weekly in workout videos with commentary and Q&A,

Save 25% on all my high intensity training books from 11/22/23-11/26/23 with code DBHITBF25 at http://Baye.com/Store/

Or, save 50% when you join my private HIT List high intensity training community at http://Baye.com/HIT-List/ (details in forum)

I’ve recently noticed more trainers marketing programs specifically to older men and women, but there is no difference in the general principles or guidelines for exercise for older compared with younger people. The things most frequently emphasized in marketing to older populations—safety and time-efficiency—are important for younger people, too. Most just don’t appreciate it until they’re older.

Regardless of your age you should exercise intensely and progressively, with exercises and form which maximize benefit and minimize risk, and keep your workouts brief and infrequent.

In most cases, all that is required for best results, is one correctly performed set of 1-2 exercises per muscle group, 1-2 times per week.

You do not need to perform multiple sets of a wide variety of exercises for any muscle group.

You do not need to work out 1-2 hours, 3-4 times or more each week.

You do not need to perform separate “cardio” workouts for either fat loss or metabolic and cardiovascular conditioning and health.

I discussed this in a recent live video, during which I also debunk some common misconceptions about exercise intensity, volume, and safety.

If you have questions about anything in the video, I will be answering them in my private forum and online training group.

In this video I discuss a few of the most important things I’ve learned about exercise since I started doing high intensity training in late 1993 after learning about it from Mike Mentzer’s Heavy Duty column in Iron Man magazine. Topics include the relative effects of genetics versus training methods on long-term muscular strength and size gains and implications for selecting exercise methods, the need to minimize variation in exercise programming and prioritize mastering the basics, that although the principles of exercise are universal their application must be individualized for best results, and more.

I will be doing an entire series of videos on this, uploading a new video every week in my private discussion forum and online training group. If you have questions about anything in this video, click here to join The HIT List and I will gladly answer them there.

In two recent videos I discussed common misconceptions about rep speed, load, repetition count/time under load, strength, and hypertrophy, including the myths that you must move fast and lift heavy weights during exercise to recruit your fast twitch motor units, improve your speed, power, and explosiveness, in other activities, maximize muscular strength and size, and more.

Common Misconceptions About Repetition Speed

Thoughts on Repetition Speed, Time Under Load, Strength, and Hypertrophy

When explaining exercise principles and criticizing beliefs and practices which violate them, it is common to be accused of dogmatism by one holding erroneous beliefs. This is often an attempt by the accuser to dismiss novel assertions or criticisms of his beliefs without providing sound counter-arguments. Ironically, this is frequently the result of his own dogmatism.

Dogmatism involves making assertions which may be unproven or unsupported, and/or rejecting criticism without consideration.

When assertions and rejection of criticism are supported by evidence and reason and are carefully considered, one is not being dogmatic, one is being intransigent—unwilling to compromise or to agree.

We must always keep in mind there is much we don’t know or understand, and we must always be willing to consider the possibility we are wrong about some things, but when we know we are correct, given the best evidence currently available and extensive experience with the subject, we must be unwilling to compromise; we must not concede to erroneous beliefs or unsound arguments. We must not compromise our standards.

Exercise is one of the most important things we can do to improve our functional ability, health, and overall quality of life, and when it is neglected or done incorrectly or poorly it has the potential to negatively affect these. If we compromise on this, we harm ourselves and others.

People don’t like to be told they’re incorrect about something, especially if they consider themselves to be a professional or expert on the subject, or if being knowledgeable about it is part of their identity, or if they’ve studied and/or practiced it for a very long time. Some will get upset, even angry, especially if told they’re incorrect publicly.

However, if you correct someone’s erroneous beliefs and improve their understanding of something, you are doing them a favor because our ability to make good decisions depends on our knowledge.

Even if the person you’re debating can not be helped, it is important to also consider the greater audience in any public venue. Some, perhaps many, onlookers will learn more from the debate than its direct participants. And this includes countering accusations of dogmatism.

An effective way to do this is to point out the above, explaining what dogmatism is and why it does not apply here. This leaves them with few options other than to attempt to formulate better arguments or accept that they’re incorrect.

For example:

“Dogmatism involves making assertions which may be unproven and/or rejecting criticism without consideration. I have presented evidence and sound arguments for my assertions, and I reject your criticisms because I have considered them and have determined that they are incorrect.”

In the 1990s Iron Man magazine published a series of articles from Nautilus and MedX inventor Arthur Jones. In one of those articles he wrote the following about the number of sets one should perform, citing several then-recent studies,

“When, in 1970, I introduced the first Nautilus exercise machines, together with the statement that only one set of each exercise was required, or even desirable, several people accused me of making false claims in an attempt to encourage the sale of my exercise machines; which charge, in fact, was utterly false, since my statements were based upon clearly established research results that could not be disputed.

And just what does science have to say on the subject in 1996? As it happens, surprisingly little; but most of what little has been published on that subject clearly supports my statements mentioned above.

Three days ago, on January 19, 1996, Dr. Michael Pollock, of the School of Medicine of the University of Florida, gave me a copy of a study that he had just completed, a study that I was not even aware of until after it had been written up for publication.

This study included careful consideration of the results of several research projects conducted by members of Dr. Pollock’s research staff and also considered every other study that they were able to discover by a careful review of the entire scientific literature: in effect, “everything ever published on the subject in any scientific journal.”

Results? ONE: in 1962, a Ph.D. named Berger, using 177 subjects for a period of 12 weeks, and using the bench press as the exercise being tested, compared the results of one set to the results of both two and three sets. One set increased the average strength of that group by 23.6 percent; two sets increased strength by 24 percent, only four tenths of one percent better than one set; three sets increased strength by 26.3 percent, only 2.7 percent better than one set. Whereupon Berger concluded that one set was as good as two but that three sets were better. Well, in fact, any such slight differences fall well within the differences of random variation, and certainly do not indicate any slightest differences in results.

Secondly, considering the fact that Berger was using healthy but previously-untrained college-age young men as subjects, his overall results were somewhere between pitiful and God awful. The starting strength of his subjects was very low, which means that they had the potential for rapid and large-scale increases in strength, yet failed to produce any such results. In contrast, thirteen years later, in 1975, using military cadets as subjects during a study at the U. S. Military Academy, West Point, we produced an average strength increase of 60 percent in a period of only 6 weeks; so our results were more than twice as good as Berger’s even though we trained our people only half as long as he did his. And, of course, we used only one set of each exercise.

TWO: in 1982, a man named Silvester, using 48 subjects, compared the results of one set of biceps curls to three sets. One set increased strength by 24.6 percent within a period of 8 weeks while three sets increased strength by 26.2 percent, a difference of only 1.6 percent; again, a difference so slight that it is meaningless; or, as they say in the scientific community, “non-specific,” or “no significant difference.

THREE: in 1983, a man named Stowers, using 28 subjects, during a program that continued for 7 weeks, compared one set to three sets in both the squat and the bench press. And found, again, that there was no significant difference.

FOUR: in 1986, a man named Westcott, using 79 subjects for a period of 4 weeks, while comparing one set to two sets, actually produced somewhat better results from one set than he did from two sets; but, again, the difference was not significant since one set increased strength by 11.2 percent while two sets increased strength by 10.8 percent.

FIVE: a later study performed by the same man, Westcott, performed in 1989, using 127 subjects, both men and women, and lasting for 10 weeks, using both dips and chin-ups as exercises, found almost no difference in results from one set, two sets, or three sets.

SIX: in 1993, Dr. Pollock’s group, using 140 subjects, for a period of 12 weeks, using the cervical-extension exercise, compared one set to two sets and again found no meaningful difference.

SEVEN: in 1995, Dr. Jay Graves, using 141 subjects for a period of 12 weeks, with lumbar (lower-back) extensions as the exercise, and comparing one set to two sets, produced quite a bit better results from one set than he did from two.

EIGHT: in 1995, a man named Starkey, using 83 subjects for a period of 14 weeks, with both leg extensions and leg flexions as the exercises being tested, compared one set to three sets; in both cases, extension and flexion, one set proved to be better than three sets.

AND SO IT GOES: in some cases one set was better than either two or three sets, and when multiple sets did seem to be better the difference was so slight that it was meaningless. The American Academy of Sports Medicine has now accepted, as its recommended protocol, “one set to failure, not more than three times weekly;” which, frankly, I still believe is too much for most people, and is required by nobody. I get several calls a week from strangers who tell me about the great results they are producing by only one weekly workout, or even less exercise. In the field of exercise, at least, while it is true that “some exercise” is good, it does not follow that “more exercise” is better; in fact, more is usually worse. Remember: exercise does NOT “produce” results; instead, if properly performed, it “stimulates” results.”

In the two decades since Arthur wrote this, studies have only continued to confirm there is no need to perform more than one set of an exercise:

“Single set training appears to provide similar hypertrophic gains to multiple set training. Frequency of training should be self-selected as there appears no evidence which can support any recommendation.”

“Persons should aim to recruit as many motor units, and thus muscle fibres, as possible by training until momentary muscular failure”

Fisher, James & Steele, James & Smith, Dave. (2013). Evidence-Based Resistance Training Recommendations for Muscular Hypertrophy. Medicina Sportiva. 17. 217-235. 10.5604/17342260.1081302.

“Persons can obtain appreciably the same strength gains by performing only a single set of each exercise 1 x / 2 x week, compared to higher volume workouts. Persons should train when they feel physically and mentally ready to do so. Both physical and mental fatigue have the potential to negatively affect a workout and/or muscular growth and development .No specific periodized routine is unequivocally supported within the literature.”

“Persons should train until momentary muscular failure to actively recruit all of the available motor units and muscle fibres, as opposed to a pre-determined number of repetitions.”

Fisher, James & Steele, James & Bruce-Low, Stewart & Smith, Dave. (2011). Evidence-Based Resistance Training Recommendations. Medicina Sportiva. 15. 147-162. 10.2478/v10036-011-0025-x.

“Overall, it is clear that the great majority of well-controlled, peer-reviewed studies support Jones’ (15,16,18-20) contention that one set per exercise is all that is necessary to stimulate optimal increases in muscle strength and hypertrophy. Though there are exceptions in the research literature, these are few and most suffer from confounding variables and, in some cases, blatant experimenter bias.”

Smith, Dave & Bruce-Low, Stewart. (2009). Strength training methods and the work of Arthur Jones. J Exerc Phys online. 7.

“Several researchers have recently claimed that a series of meta-analyses unequivocally support the superiority of multiple sets for resistance training, and that they have ended the single versus multiple set debate. However, our critical analysis of these meta-analyses revealed numerous mathematical and statistical errors. In addition, their conclusions are illogical, inconsistent, and have no practical application to resistance training.”

“The preponderance of studies suggest that there is no significant difference in strength gains as a result of performing a single set or multiple sets of each exercise.”

Otto RM, Carpinelli RN. A Critical Analysis Of The Single Versus Multiple Set Debate. JEPonline 2006;9(1):32-57.

“There is very little peer reviewed evidence to support a high volume strength training protocol.”

Carpinelli RN. Berger in retrospect: effect of varied weight training programmes on strength. British Journal of Sports Medicine 2002;36:319-324.

“Reviewers, editors and publishers are inclined to reject studies that show no significant difference between specific training protocols such as the effect of single versus multiple sets on strength gains. Statisticians call this the file drawer effect or publication bias; that is, the editors cherry-pick the studies for publication that report a significant difference between protocols. The result of this file drawer effect (studies not published) should be that after a complete search for all the published research on a specific topic, the majority of the published research should be skewed toward studies that reported a  statistically significant advantage of one training protocol over another. However, on the specific topic of the effect of single versus multiple sets on strength gains, the majority of published studies – even considering the potential file drawer effect – reported no significant difference between protocols”

Carpinelli, R. N.. “Critical Review of a Meta-Analysis for the Effect of Single and Multiple Sets of Resistance Training on Strength Gains.” Medicina Sportiva 16 (2012): 122-130.

Something else which is important but rarely mentioned is the quality of sets performed by most trainees and demonstrated by some prolific researchers, is terrible compared to how exercises can and should be performed, and this also factors into how many are required for best results.

I recently joined high intensity training instructor and fitness model Jay Vincent to debunk popular myths about a variety of subjects including:

• effectiveness of single versus multiple sets
• effectiveness and safety of training to momentary muscle failure
• effective workout volume and frequency
• repetitions versus time under load
• repetition speed and motor unit recruitment
• how long you should rest between exercises
• effectiveness of “cardio” for fat loss
• effectiveness of “cardio” for metabolic and cardiovascular conditioning
• so-called “functional” training
• balance training

Video 1, September 14, 2022

Video 2, October 5, 2022

If you want to learn more about any of the topics we discussed, join my private forum and online learning platform The HIT List.

I am frustrated and disappointed that Ellington Darden, PhD would write something as contradictory to evidence-based exercise recommendations as his recent M3 Pure Muscle program to promote a bodybuilding supplement. I believe he discredits himself and damages the high intensity training community with this program.

https://forums.t-nation.com/t/m3-pure-muscle/278280

There is no evidence to support the claims in the introductory paragraph.

“M3 Pure Muscle is a strategy for training muscles while fully pumped with growth nutrients.”

The Surge Workout Fuel supplement providing the “growth nutrients” contains 25 grams of dextrin, a carbohydrate, 6 grams L-citrulline malate, 5 grams L-leucine, 2.5 grams betaine anhydrous, 2 grams beta-alanine, and 1.4 grams of an electrolyte blend. This might give you a little more of a pump, but will not provide any other significant benefit compared with drinking a generic sports drink.

“The system’s three repetition layers and specialized workout fuel potentiate muscle volume and protein synthesis for rapid hypertrophy.”

There is no evidence the repetition methods in the M3 program or the supplement promoted will stimulate muscular strength and size increases more effectively than normal, slow repetitions performed to failure, or static contractions performed with a similar intensity of effort and duration.

The M3 program contains far more exercises and weekly volume than anyone needs for best results; three weekly workouts averaging over two dozen sets each, not including the optional abdominal exercises.

“Each workout covers four body parts. A body-part block takes approximately 5 minutes to complete. With the suggested rest, each workout requires 25 minutes or less. Perform the workouts every other day (MWF or TTS) with two days off after three sessions.”

You do not need to perform more than one set to momentary muscle failure of 1-2 exercises for any muscle group in a workout. Most of the exercises recommended are good ones, but there is no need for many of the exercise variations included, and a few of the recommended exercises are poor and should be avoided.

• You do not need to perform squats or leg presses with different foot widths or arm curls with different grip widths.
• You do not need to perform squats with a variety of equipment, only the best piece of equipment available.
• The farmer’s walk is a very poor exercise, and it is silly to recommend performing it on your toes to work your calves instead of a regular, straight-legged heel raise.

“The plan includes three training phases. Each phase consists of six workouts (a total of 18 over 6 weeks) and uses the same body blocks but in a different order.”

There is no evidence that arbitrarily varying workouts or repetition protocols provides  better results compared with performing a few basic, uncomplicated workouts consistently. Frequent program variation also unnecessarily complicates recording workout performance and evaluating progress.

There are no special repetition methods or training techniques that will provide better results in the long run than normal, strict, slow repetitions or static contractions performed intensely, progressively, and consistently. The only thing gimmick repetition methods provide which normal repetitions and statics do not is novelty, frequently at the expense of safety and efficiency.

“The program includes fast and slow reps. Regardless of the speed, move smoothly and avoid impact in the top and bottom positions. Explosive movements are safe when done correctly. So focus on feeling the muscles contracting and un-contracting while the joints move. Accelerate smoothly and carefully.”

There is no evidence that arbitrarily varying repetition cadence provides better results than using a consistent repetition cadence. You should never move fast, much less explosively, during exercise. To recommend moving fast during exercise is not only unsupported, but unethical and irresponsible due to increasing the risk of injury.

Explosive movements involve rapid acceleration by definition. If you are moving explosively during exercise you are not accelerating smoothly and carefully.

“Loaded stretches are major growth stimulators, so learn to do them well. For loaded stretches, hold a bottom position that feels safe. For pull-ups, most people can safely hang in a full stretch. For bench press, protect the shoulders with a hold that’s a little less than a full stretch. It’s a simple rule: Always be and feel safe, or don’t do it.”

There is no evidence to support the claim that loaded stretches are “major growth stimulators”. A recent review of the research on this states “…limited evidence suggests that when stretching is done with a certain degree of tensile strain (particularly when loaded, or added between active muscle contractions) may elicit muscle hypertrophy.

Emphasizing the stretch during some exercises can help improve flexibility in some trainees but is unlikely to make any significant difference for muscular strength and size gains. When in doubt, be cautious with the degree of stretch during an exercise.

“Don’t go to failure. Going to failure overtaxes the nervous system for no benefit. It depletes CNS (central nervous system) reserves and limits the amount of continued mechanical muscle-fiber stimulation. When in doubt, go lighter.”

Performing exercises to momentary muscle failure does not overtax the nervous system as long as the weekly volume of exercise is not excessive.

You will get far better results if you perform exercises to momentary muscle failure and reduce your workout volume and frequency to allow adequate recovery and adaptation, than if you attempt to perform a large volume of exercise weekly and reduce your intensity of effort to avoid overtraining instead.

The exact stimulus for increasing muscular strength and size is still not completely understood, but we do know you do not need to do anything fancy to stimulate a muscle to get bigger and stronger, that normal, strict slow repetitions and static contractions work as well as anything else and are safer and more efficient.

“You want to create layers of effects in targeted muscles. To do that, you have to avoid excessive fatigue to keep the muscles performing during each phase (set).”

This contradicts what is known about intensity of effort, volume, and exercise effectiveness.

During an exercise you want to inroad the target muscles deeply enough within a relatively short time (1-2 min) to recruit and stimulate improvement in all the motor units. If you perform an exercise to momentary muscle failure you do not need to perform additional sets. If you perform exercises to momentary muscle failure, additional sets are at best a waste of time and energy and frequently counterproductive.

“The correct resistance falls within about a 20-percent range. The best way to describe it is, you’ll know when the weight is too heavy or too light – so if it’s not too heavy or too light, it’s just right.”

This is subjective, and most trainees are not accurate judges of intensity of effort or appropriate loads when exercises are not performed to momentary muscle failure. The correct resistance for an exercise is the amount which allows you to achieve momentary muscle failure within the time range your body responds best to.

“Reduce the weight a little if you’re getting anywhere close to failure. In contrast, add a little weight if you’re not feeling the resistance working.”

You should only reduce the resistance for an exercise if you are achieving momentary muscle failure under your target repetition or time range. If you are not “getting anywhere close to failure” within your target repetition or time range the resistance is too low and should be increased.

Ell then describes the pump, stimulate, and flutter “layers” (protocols) used for each block of exercises.

The muscular pump experienced during exercise is the result of increased blood flow to the working muscles, which is beneficial, but getting a pump is not the goal of an exercise.

The goal of an exercise is to efficiently and safely load the target muscles to inroad their strength levels deeply within a relatively short time to stimulate the body to produce an increase in the strength and size of those muscles and improvements in the other general, trainable factors of functional ability. This is what determines the correct process, the proper way to perform exercises, not what produces the best pump. For pumping Ell recommends performing,

“…smooth, rhythmic reps, going about one second up and one second down for most exercises”.

This repetition cadence results in a movement speed which is way too fast.

Exercise needs to be performed with a slow enough speed of movement to allow for strict control of body position and path and range of motion and minimal acceleration during the start, turnarounds, and end to minimize peak forces and allow for more consistent tension on the target muscles. None of this is possible with repetition cadences anywhere near as short as 1/1.

Ell calls the next set of protocols the “stimulate layer”, which is redundant. The purpose of performing an exercise is to stimulate the body to produce the desired adaptations. There is also no evidence the three protocols recommended are more effective for stimulating increases in muscular strength and size compared with normal, strict, slow repetitions or static contractions. These are also gimmick protocols.

“Standard Stimulate Method

Again, select a weight that allows for laser concentration and optimal feel. Use this rep style:

1. Stretch/Hold Bottom for 10 Seconds: Start the first rep in the bottom position with a 10-second stretch/hold. Make sure to breathe during the hold.

2. Launch to the Top Position: Ease out of the bottom stretch and launch the resistance with force to the top (activating the fast-twitch fibers). Don’t throw the weight. Be quick, but then slow down toward the top.

3. Slow Down the Last-Half Negative: Lower in about one second from the top to the halfway point, where you slow down and take 5 seconds to lower to the bottom stretch.

4. Stretch/Hold Bottom Briefly: Stretch/hold the bottom position for about one second before you ease into the launch of the next rep.

5. Repeat Steps 2-4 for 8-10 reps.

6. End Like You Began: End the last rep with a 10-second stretch/hold in the bottom position (like you did on the first rep).”

There is no need to hold the stretch for 10 seconds before starting an exercise or after momentary muscle failure.

It is not necessary to move quickly during exercise to recruit and stimulate the fast twitch motor units. Fast movement should be avoided to minimize risk of injury and keep the target muscle groups under more consistent tension.

There is no evidence to support the recommendation to alter movement speed mid-phase and only move slowly during the second half of the negative. This unnecessarily complicates exercise performance for no benefit.

The next “stimulate layer” protocol Ell recommends is his 30-10-30 protocol which involves performing a 30 second negative, followed by ten repetitions at a 1/2 cadence, followed by a final 30 second negative. There is no good reason to vary the cadence between repetitions like this or to use repetition cadences anywhere near as short as 1/2.

The third “stimulate layer” protocol is 1-1/2 repetitions, which involves alternating between performing repetitions over only the first half of the range of motion and the full range of motion. There is no good reason to alternate between partial-range and full-range repetitions like this, either. He also recommends performing these repetitions with a 1/3 and 2/5 cadence, which are too short (except for the 5 second negative, which is just long enough).

After performing the “stimulate layer” protocol he recommends resting for 1-2 minutes before performing more unnecessary sets for the same muscle group.

The next “flutter layer” protocol involves performing fast partial-range reps in the middle of the range of motion with a light weight. This is another gimmick repetition protocol without any supporting evidence.

“Flutter Layer

Flutter reps activate fast-twitch fibers while further increasing the pump. This is the block’s last phase, so stay focused. Take some time to experiment to get the feel of this technique.

1. Use Lighter Weight: The weight needs to be light enough to do midrange flutters for about 20 seconds.

2. Set Up in Midrange Position: You’re going to do a burst of quick finisher reps in the midrange, traveling only about 4-8 inches (depending upon the exercise).

3. Take Advantage of Stretch Reflex: The stretch-reflex effect plays a role when bouncing up and down in the mid position of a calf-raise finisher (flutter) set. Most of us have seen or done that. The action loop is a controlled drop, followed by a reflex-assisted launch, followed by a controlled drop.

4. End When Performance Slows: Flutter reps, done correctly, should feel automatic and almost effortless. Continue until you begin to slow down naturally, usually after 20 seconds, when you end the set.

At the end of the Flutter phase, you should feel a growth-stimulating super-pump that can last long after the workout ends. Rest 60 seconds before the next body-part block.”

Again, you do not have to move quickly during exercise to recruit the fast-twitch motor units. You must not bounce up and down or drop the weight during the negative to elicit a stretch-reflex to “launch” the weight. Moving faster during exercise provides no benefits, only increases risk of injury.

“At the end of the Flutter phase, you should feel a growth-stimulating super-pump that can last long after the workout ends. Rest 60 seconds before the next body-part block.”

The pump is just the result of increased blood flow to the working muscles and inflammation following exercise; it is an effect, but not the stimulus for muscular strength and size increases. It is possible to get a significant pump performing light, low-effort sets without effectively stimulating growth.

Next, Ell claims your results are dependent on using the Biotest Surge Workout Fuel supplement.

“I saved Surge Workout Fuel for the end because I want to leave you with a lasting impression of its importance. Saying your results are dependent on Surge Workout Fuel is an understatement – and that assessment is based solely on my personal and professional experience.”

There is no evidence to support this. None of the ingredients listed will do more than give you a little better pump, compared with drinking a regular (and much less expensive) sports drink like Gatorade.

If a large group of people performed this program and half used the Surge Workout Fuel as recommended and the other half used a generic sports drink with the same amount of carbohydrate and electrolytes, there would be no significant difference in their results.

“I wouldn’t have and couldn’t have developed my Pump Stimulate & Flutter training system without Surge Workout Fuel.”

I believe this is true, because the primary purpose of this program appears to be to promote the supplement.

“Pumping a muscle with supraphysiologic levels of blood filled with agents that stimulate intracellular growth signaling and protein synthesis, optimize intracellular pH, sustain boosted nitric oxide, and markedly extend work capacity and performance is beyond my educated comprehension.”

I do not believe this. Ell’s degree is in motor learning and he did post-doctoral studies in nutrition. He could very easily review recent research on the ingredients and their effects on exercise performance and hypertrophy and know the claims are unsupported.

A proper, evidence-based, safe and efficient exercise program requires only one set to failure of one or two exercises per muscle group per workout, with a workout frequency of no more than 3x/week for beginners and 2x/week or less for intermediate and advanced trainees. Exercises should be performed using normal, slow, strict repetitions or statics for greater efficiency and safety. Exercises, equipment used, and order of performance should be consistent between workouts, only changing when progress evaluation indicates it is necessary.

While some nutritional supplements like creatine monohydrate and protein powders can improve exercise performance, recovery, and adaptation, no nutritional supplements are necessary for a proper exercise program to work.

If you have any questions about anything in this post or want to learn more about proper exercise programming and performance, join the forum. I will be recording a video discussing all of the above in more detail and answering members questions about it next week (October 2022).