Nicholas Rolnick, The Human Performance Mechanic

12/20/2025

Why though?

12/15/2025

Any exercise can be “dangerous” without proper knowledge of its ex*****on. The pec deck can be an excellent developer, but just like any other exercise, can be done incorrectly. Moreover, if you are going to recommend a replacement exercise to reduce anterior shoulder stress, have a good actual replacement 😭.

Ps: this is how I’m envisioning doing reaction videos. Do you want to see more? Let me know with a like and a comment.

12/12/2025

Another reason why I do not dry needle - besides NY not allowing it 🤔

11/04/2025

I’ll probably be waiting a very long time.

Here’s a simple physiological reasoning as to why heart rate elevations are NOT something to aspire to in a session when is the main goal:
1. We reach muscle failure not because our muscle can’t produce more force, but we reach failure due to maximum tolerable perception of effort (MTPOE).
2. Many things can impact the brain’s bandwidth that can lower threshold to exceed MTPOE.
3. These include things like metabolite accumulation and cardiovascular strain.
4. In order to produce maximal muscle fiber recruitment, we should aim to largely avoid purposefully increasing metabolic stress and elevation of heart rate, as these both take up space in the brain that forms the basis of earlier muscle failure. This is not ideal.
5. Therefore, beating the out of your clients to conflate a good training stimulus to how hard your heart is working is in fact, doing the exact opposite.

11/03/2025

Saw this on Facebook from .williamwallace and loved it. Bookmark and save. This is going to be a good reference moving forward.

10/31/2025

Mainstream trainers say ‘train for endurance first, then strength, then size.’ But here’s the 🫖— muscular endurance has almost nothing to do with especially if it requires you to reduce your rest periods to optimize 🤦🏼‍♂️.

A 2022 study by Fliss et al. (Applied Physiology, Nutrition, and Metabolism) put this to the test. Sixteen untrained women trained one arm and one leg with heavy loads (~85 % 1RM) and the opposite limbs with light loads (~35 % 1RM) — 3 times per week for 10 weeks, always to failure.

Results:
• Strength improved far more with heavy training.
• Muscle size via DEXA was similar in either condition
• Endurance gains were completely load-specific:
 – Heavy training improved endurance only at heavy loads.
 – Light training improved endurance only at light loads.
There was no crossover. Getting better at 30-rep sets didn’t help at 10 reps, and vice versa.

That means “muscle endurance” isn’t a highly transferable capacity to train. Endurance training doesn’t magically make you grow; it just makes you better at the loads specific to the task.

So if your goal is muscle size or real strength, stop chasing fatigue - it’s negative on performance. The physiology is this - hypertrophy is driven by mechanical tension and effort near failure, not by how long you can survive a set.

Train hard, heavy enough to challenge you within 6–12 reps, stay close to failure, recover (48-72 hrs), repeat.

Muscle endurance can improve simply by getting stronger and will not help you grow more muscle.

SOURCE:Fliss (2022). Higher- and lower-load resistance exercise training induce load-specific local muscle endurance changes in young women.

09/20/2025

Do only the last 5 reps before failure “count” for muscle growth? 🤔

The “effective reps” model claims that only reps in close proximity to muscular failure stimulate hypertrophy, since that’s when motor unit recruitment, bar speed, and mechanical tension peak.

But research tells a more nuanced story:
✅ Meta-analyses show similar hypertrophy with both low- and high-load training, as long as effort is sufficient.
✅ Blood flow restriction (BFR) studies found that stopping at ~75% of total reps (well before failure) produced similar growth to training to failure.
✅ Multiple repetition schemes across different BFR contexts yield comparable results.

What does this mean?

Proximity to failure probably does matter, especially for advanced lifters where the margin for error is smaller. However, to what end is still up for discussion.

For beginners, the “window” for effective hypertrophy is probably much wider than the simplified “last 5 reps only” idea. More room for growth while operating further from failure.

Training to or near failure is definitely a useful way to track effort and ensure progression, but it’s not the only way to grow (although I think it still is the best way).

I prefer lower repetition schemes as you will optimize strength and connective tissue as well. Personally, 6-12 reps is a nice sweet spot for me and my clients.

🔑 Takeaway:
Don’t obsess over hitting a magical number of “growth reps.” Instead, focus on training with sufficient effort, accumulating quality volume, and progressing over time. The hypertrophy window is probably wider than social media often tells us.

What are your thoughts? Let’s discuss.

07/29/2025

🔬 Does Having A Enhance Outcomes Associated with ?

A new 2025 RCT by Gavanda et al. compared the outcomes of supervised (in-person), app-guided, and self-directed (PDF) resistance training over 10 weeks in trained men and women (n = 79). Each group performed the same full-body training program 3x/week, differing only in the level of guidance and feedback.

📈 Key Findings:

Supervised training (SUP) led to the greatest gains in squat strength (+26.6 kg), fat-free mass (+1.4 kg), and well-being (+15.7 pts on WHO-5).

All groups improved bench press 1RM, but only the supervised group showed significantly superior squat improvements—highlighting the value of real-time technical feedback in complex, multi-joint lifts.

Adherence rates were highest in SUP (88%), compared to APP (81%) and PDF (52%).

Supervision satisfaction (S-SRQ) was also significantly higher in SUP vs APP.

Fat mass increased slightly in the APP group, possibly due to lack of nutritional control and/or compensatory eating.

💡 Implications:
Direct supervision from a enhances , neuromuscular adaptations, psychological well-being, and accountability—especially in technically demanding exercises. While app-based training showed promise for accessibility and moderate gains, it lacked the effectiveness of live coaching - which can be attributed to possibly many reasons, but most likely you want to be a beast in person and not embarass yourself. That’s motivation enough.

📱 Realistically, hybrid models combining digital platforms with periodic human feedback may offer scalable alternatives where consistent in-person coaching is not feasible. Thoughts?

📚 Source: Gavanda et al., J Strength Cond Res, 2025.

06/30/2025

We're running a super sick July 4 sale on BOTH my companies' products through 7/6!

For BFR Training Online Certification - Save $175 ($274 for the BUNDLE) by using code JULY425. This is 4 courses - 11.75 PT or BOC CEUs and is well reviewed across the board. If you want to be the best at BFR, you have to check out this course. You won't ever find it cheaper or a course with more value...or your money back: https://bfr-pros.teachable.com/p/the-complete-bfr-certification

For the Revolution 2.0 - Save $30 ($155 for the Revolution 2.0)
by using code JULY425 here: https://sportgrips.com/products/revolution. This is the #1 Premium Grip and Forearm strengthening tool on the planet. Hands down. If you don't agree, return it within 30 days and get a full refund no questions asked.

Thank you for supporting my businesses!

- 2 Hours of BFR MASTERS WEBINAR+"Device Features - Selection of Blood Flow Restriction and Their Potential Impact on Practice" ($79 Value!) (2024 Update!)

04/23/2025

Thanks to for the trust in educating the future of our profession in . The trust is invaluable. It means being able to quite literally change clinical practice. It means getting more clinicians familiar with and the importance of muscle . It means making a difference beyond 1-1 patient interactions.

Can’t put a 💰 on influence. I don’t take that for granted and hope to continue to live through example.

04/21/2025

Aerobic exercise has been shown to induce muscle hypertrophy when combined with blood flow restriction (BFR).

That alone is surprising.

Even more perplexing?

Studies like Kim et al. (2015) show no significant differences in muscle activation (EMG) between aerobic BFR and non-BFR conditions whereas Kilgas et al. (2022) showed some pressure-dependent reduction (80% LOP > 60% LOP) in post-exercise maximal voluntary isometric contraction but no loss in high-intensity or low intensity exercise without BFR.

So what gives?

Shown above is a conceptual model of motor unit recruitment that may help explain this paradox.

Surface EMG reflects the total activity of motor units near the electrode—but it doesn’t tell us:

Which fibers are firing

How fatigued they are

Or whether higher-threshold motor units are being pulled in over time

When BFR is added, metabolic stress and local hypoxia rise. This accelerates fatigue in already-recruited fibers, which slows contraction speed and increases mechanical tension—two key hypertrophy signals.

Even if EMG readings appear unchanged, the internal environment is dramatically different.

🧾 A few studies showing hypertrophy with aerobic BFR:

Abe et al. (2006, 2010) – Walking/cycling protocols → +5–8% muscle CSA

Chen et al. (2022) – Running with BFR → +3.7% thigh mass

Clarkson et al. (2017) – Older adults gained size and strength with BFR walking

Low-intensity aerobic BFR likely recruits higher-threshold motor units earlier than standard cardio and to a much less degree than is likely with resistance exercise.

Understanding the force-velocity relationship, motor unit recruitment differences between low- and high-load exercise, as well as other adjunctive markers that may be associated with a heightened physiological environment that may accelerate fatigue accumulation may help inform the hypertrophic potential of aerobic exercise with BFR.

PS: These are part of a long-form article that will be released on my patreon.

04/20/2025

Happy Easter and a reminder we have $20 off plus free shipping on our revolution 2.0 through tonight using code EASTER…sportgrips.com. Now with this thought experiment.

Minimizing fatigue and optimizing motor unit recruitment is essential for maximizing muscle .

This chart shows a hypothetical model of muscle hypertrophy comparing low-load (~90% motor unit recruitment) and high-load (~100%) resistance training over a 2-year span.

Up to 26 weeks, gains appear nearly identical — the low-load group achieves ~95% of the growth seen in the high-load group. Statistically, there’s no significant difference at this point (p = 0.34, Cohen’s d = 0.21). For anyone training recreationally or in a rehab setting, this might seem like good news.

But as training continues, the compounding advantage of full motor unit recruitment with heavy loading starts to show. By week 52, the difference becomes significant (p = 0.005, d = 0.74), and by week 104, it’s even more pronounced (p < 0.001, d = 0.95). This reflects the accumulating benefits of maximizing tension and mechanical load over time.

Assumptions in this model include: – Equal training frequency and effort (sets to failure or near-failure in both groups)
– Trained male participants with no baseline group differences
– Growth potential in low-load group capped at ~90% due to partial motor unit recruitment
– Nonlinear hypertrophy trajectory over time
– Muscle growth measured via CSA or thickness at multiple intervals

Bottom line: while low-load training can work well in the short term, especially when taken close to failure, it’s unlikely to match high-load training over the long haul—especially when the goal is maximizing hypertrophy.

If you’re in this for years, not weeks, that last 10% matters and is something we probably don’t get real clarity on in 99% of the durations of the studies.

helped me out with the illustration.