Pack.

All right, so we'll take a couple of steps back.

So w- we'll, we'll go, we'll travel back in time and then essentially look at how deloads, um, the, the popularization of deloads and what the actual science showed a few years ago.

So before 2021, the number of studies that we had directly looking at deloads were zero.

We, [chuckles] we had some studies on taking time off training, but, like, direct studies looking at the concept of deloading as we were implementing it and still are implementing it, were very few.

The general idea behind deloads were always, um, one, fatigue management.

So it was a tool, it was always presented as a tool where you allow fatigue to drop and essentially give your body a rest so you can go back in the gym.

But-

Because, I mean, correct me if I'm wrong, I thought, you know, Dorian would do a few, like, I don't know if I'd call them warm-up sets, but, you know, he might do 315 for 10 on, like, incline and, you know, that's, that's pretty damn good volume right there, and then all of a sudden the top set might be 405 for, you know, like, six or eight, but then he'll do a drop set and kind of keep going, so you only kind of see that, that crazy set.

Yeah, and you also see the one session, uh, so then you have to take the weekly volume into account.

Obviously you'd need to look at his training logs and, and analyze them.

But the point about Dorian or anybody else is, um, a, a moot point 'cause you then also had other insanely successful bodybuilders that did a ton of volume and were also very successful.

But when we're talking about elite genetics, PDs in the mix, and obviously not knowing one's full training history, you can't necessarily...

You shouldn't be using that as, as evidence.

That's why we look at the literature.

Yeah.

Yeah.

It's not even about the credentials.

If what you're saying is supported by evidence, then you don't need a PhD.

You could be somebody literally that has never stepped foot in a school, and you'd still be right.

But in that case, what happens is people will... essentially ignore the literature or say things like oh it doesn't count because insert something they heard somewhere like edema it they will try to say okay if the relationship between strength and volume is different then it doesn't make sense that it's um that it's different also for hypertrophy so if the thing if strength gains plateau then uh with low volumes then why don't like it doesn't make sense that hypertrophy gains don't plateau so whatever they'll say something but The difference here is that a lot of the people that are communicating the literature, because there's no bias here.

There's nothing I'd want more than 20 studies to come out in the next 20 years and say, hey, look, you can maximize gains with 10 sets, 5 sets, 3 sets, whatever, low volumes.

That'd be great.

Your thoughts.