A H.I.T.-less At-Bat, Part 1: My Response to Carpinelli’s Review of My Strength Meta-Analysis


Get the latest science on muscle gain and fat loss every month

Keeping up with the research is tough, so let us do the work for you. Consider signing up for Research Explained in Practical Summaries (REPS). We cover five studies per month and break everything down for you, so you don't need a PhD to interpret the data. Click here to learn more.

Get access to over seven years of past research reviews, video content, and Q&As on training and nutrition

Get access to the Weightology Archives of over 400 video and written research reviews, evidence-based guides, and Q&As. A total of 7.5 years of content! A huge variety of topics related to muscle building, fat loss, nutrition, and fitness are covered. Click here to obtain lifetime access.  
0 0 votes
Article Rating
Subscribe
Notify of
guest
5 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Hahn
Hahn
11 years ago

“Carpinelli has not offered any original work to support his own views.”

He doesn’t need to. The burden of proof lies with the claimant. The claim is that multiple sets are superior to single sets. Carpinelli is not making any claims. He is calling out, so to speak, the claims made by the multiple set proponents and critically reviewing their work. One need not conduct their own research to do this.

You’re response is quite defensive.

R.
R.
13 years ago

RE: “Medicina Sportiva”. I think this is a case of mistaken identity. The critique of your meta-analysis actually appeared in the Polish journal “Medicina Sportiva”, not the Romanian journal sharing the same name. You might try contacting the editor there? See http://www.medicinasportiva.pl.

Bret Contreras
13 years ago

Nice response James!!!

5
0
Would love your thoughts, please comment.x
()
x