I certainly agree with the overall sentiment of this article, but I think the disconnect here is in understanding the type of training being done. In Schoenfeld et al., 2017 they are looking at studies with a mix of trained and untrained people of vastly different ages (this is clearly not ideal). But that aside, the training being done in the studies is mostly sets of 7-15 rep maxes and in most cases not using the compound barbell movements. So, basically the individuals are not lifting heavy and are lifting muscles in isolation. Given this I think it's perfectly reasonable that they would need more sets per week. I think this highlights what I see as the bigger problem with the "evidence-based bois" and that is their tendency to point to a "finding" of a study without looking into/understanding what the finding is actually be applicable to (or if the finding is even supported by the data).
That's a good point. While there are limitations to exercise science as its currently done as an overall discipline: the inability to isolate many variables, small samples and short durations, etc... that make it inherently less rigorous than, say, physical chemistry - still, there would be more value in it if its biggest promotors were more honest and humble about what it actually tells us.
I certainly agree with the overall sentiment of this article, but I think the disconnect here is in understanding the type of training being done. In Schoenfeld et al., 2017 they are looking at studies with a mix of trained and untrained people of vastly different ages (this is clearly not ideal). But that aside, the training being done in the studies is mostly sets of 7-15 rep maxes and in most cases not using the compound barbell movements. So, basically the individuals are not lifting heavy and are lifting muscles in isolation. Given this I think it's perfectly reasonable that they would need more sets per week. I think this highlights what I see as the bigger problem with the "evidence-based bois" and that is their tendency to point to a "finding" of a study without looking into/understanding what the finding is actually be applicable to (or if the finding is even supported by the data).
That's a good point. While there are limitations to exercise science as its currently done as an overall discipline: the inability to isolate many variables, small samples and short durations, etc... that make it inherently less rigorous than, say, physical chemistry - still, there would be more value in it if its biggest promotors were more honest and humble about what it actually tells us.