Response to Bret Contreras Critique of the Hip Thrust vs Squat Study by Barbalho & Gentil.

Did they do Additional training? Huge factor, however what would we say about the results if we assume they did? If we look at this as additional Hip Thrust Vs additional Squating, it sings the same tune. Likely no chance they would have lost strength or size with 6 sets per week because they were training to failure. So the intensity make the volume higher. Hip Thrust VS Squat Weight Ratio? I don’t think the hip thrust vs squat weights are off considering the tempo used. BC can argue that tempo is not the best for the Hip Thrust, but then we need a study showing his tempo us superior versus the slower tempo in the study. 1:1 is very similar to what I have found with slower tempo and iso type hip thrust/bridge variations. Also any exaggerated “intent” of the glute squeeze on that slower tempo would decrease the load. Exaggerated Strength Gains? If they have been doing a lot of non squat glute work and induced more squatting, I could see a large increase in the squat because neurological gains would be a big part of it. The total weights are a little spectacular, but not impossible. If anything this is the most questionable result of the study to me. Inferior protocol for hip thrust? I don’t think thats a valid argument for the context, as the exercises where meant to be compared in similar conditions. Doing another study where both were don 3x per week would be another worth while investigation as would a variety of other programming setups, but since the established program design principles in the EB community are so incredible vague and un-agreeable, I simply don’t think many people are ready for that. It could be argued that the periodization they used would work better for a squat than the hip thrust for hypertrophy in this case, so programming could be a factor. I think the goal of the periodization model was to eliminate one particular set of reps:rest favoring one exercise over the other. So it looks like an attempt to equal the playing ground to me. It’s one thing to argue that a different study protocol would yield different results. I am all for those discussions. But all we can do with this study is discuss the results under the conditions. Protocol is impossible to do? There are plausible solutions to achieving the logistics of the protocol. We can’t say one way or another without more information. Then the argument goes complete out the window and comes way to personal. BC uses the changes in the bikini division from 2010 to 2019 and attribute the hip thrust and his methods as the cause of bigger glutes on the competition stage. I don’t even know what the picture (I’m assuming winners from each year 2010-2019) i suppose to illustrate because it’s not a linear progression of larger glutes. To say BC hasn’t had an impact on the industry would be false, but to make such a bold claim, especially in the context of criticizing a study for possible confounding variables etc completely takes away from the point. Bret made the claim that Hip thrust leads to the highest tension, but also can be trained very frequently. These tend to be inversely correlated. There is no way a short position exercise is going to be highest in tension, and the exercises with the greatest amount of mechanical tension cause the greatest amount of tissue stress, and therefore can not be repeated as often when intensity and fatigued are standardized for. This is the only statement that Bret makes that I would say is flat out false. Overall Bret makes some good points, and criticisms of the study (though many of them are not unique to this study). It is enough to warrant further research for sure, or at the least some additional data and information from the authors. Unfortunately the article doesn’t go about accomplishing this in the right way. The article makes far too many branded references that it distracts from the points Bret is making. It reads too much like an informational and self promotion. It comes off too personal, and Bret bases a lot of points that either aren’t comparable, or of a standard worth referencing in this context. For example bringing in an instagram poll that is based on people doing the exercise with a different intent and tempo than done in the study. To me that hurts the credibility of Brets argument and takes away from the relevant points. Lastly, he proceeds to “call out” several other people that gave a pretty fair conclusion of what people should take away from the study (Do both). I’d rather see this study debated on a principle basis and future research. Membership Site with the most innovative Exercise Library, Articles, Videos, and Workout & Nutrition Programs www.N1.Training Shirts & Steel Shakers www.N1.Training/Merch Online Courses and Live Practical Events/Seminars www.N1.education Facebook   / n1education     / n1training   Instagram @N1.education @N1.training & @Coach_kassem