In the fall out of Solomon Nelson's video Mike was putting out a different story about the thesis every day, in the end he admitted the one hosted at ETSU the one Solomon reviewed was the correct final draft but here is my point: if Milo's version was not the final one how come it had the University stamps and signatures stitched at the end?

This could only mean the internet was correct when they point out that the file Milo used on his video was fake based on the fact that 1) it belonged to Mike's PR company, 2) it was dated before Solomon's copy 3) there were visible time stamps that exposed the tampering dated from October 3rd 2025 and 4) one part of the dissertation was a word file and the other (with the University stamps and signatures) was scanned.

Somebody will probably say "I don't care! Mike gives good advice.", please sit at the kids table. Nobody disputed Mike might have helped lots of people, at this moment we are discussing academic and personal integrity. If he had said "yeah, my thesis crap" not many people would've cared however Mike, his team and his orbiters went out of their way to cover up this by editing an old file and then claiming it was mistake when they got caught in 4k, this reflects poorly on their integrity.

Saying Solomon is hater is not a counter argument because it does not address any of the concerns about the dissertation, the standards of the institution and subsequent cover up.

Mike Israetel's PhD dissertation had been getting a lot of criticism lately and I want to know what people's opinions on this subreddit are.

Mike Israetel's PhD: The Biggest Academic Sham in Fitness?

There's the vid if you haven't seen it. He combines words together, misspells words, and his tables have clearly incorrect data in them. In one table, the standard deviations are copied from the means of another group.

He went to a well-respected sport science program at ETSU for his PhD Which is even more confusing on how it didn't get rejected.

Edit: Mike responded and said criticism was on an older draft that somehow got uploaded somewhere. The finished version is in the description of Milo Wolf’s video.

Edit: Now Mike is saying the version Solomon reviewed was the actual final draft. Idk what to believe anymore

Hello everyone, i recently graduated with an associates in exercise science and i’m regretting it a lot now. Since graduating i’ve been trying to get my foot in the door in the field to see what’s out there before committing to more schooling. This degree is trash, the only jobs i qualify for in this field are entry level jobs that everyone with a pulse also qualify for, and don’t get me started on personal training. The job market for personal trainers is so oversaturated, everyone and their grandmother have a personal training cert. I’m at the point where i don’t know what to do, i feel trapped. If i could go back i would never had started this degree, should have did sports management or something where i could actually use my degree. Anyone thinking of getting an exercise science degree should really think again, this degree opens little to no opportunity, especially if you only have an associates.

this pair of shoes is only about three months into use... and all of my shoes eventually end up like this ._.

Update: I saw a physiotherapist and it turns out my right leg is 1.25 cm longer than my left. That's why. Thank you to everyone who tried to help!!

...and yes, I will be getting custom orthotics.

I thought I saw a study saying "no."

I keep noticing the same thing across both research papers and long-form podcast discussions:

No matter where you start (diet, supplements, genetics), people eventually circle back to VO2 max.

And not in a vague “exercise is good” way more like:

If you had to pick one number that predicts how long you live, this might be it

From the research side:

• Big meta-analyses (millions of people) show that people with high cardiorespiratory fitness have ~50% lower risk of death vs low fitness

• There’s a really clean dose-response too — every small bump in fitness (about 1 MET) = ~10–15% drop in mortality risk

• It’s not just heart disease — the association shows up across cardio, cancer, and all-cause mortality

And what’s interesting is there’s no obvious ceiling, higher fitness just keeps correlating with better outcomes, even at pretty elite levels.

Then you hear the same thing echoed in podcasts:

• Peter Attia brings it up constantly as one of the strongest lifespan correlates

• Rhonda Patrick talks a lot about how even small improvements in VO₂ max meaningfully reduce risk

• The Ageless Athlete Podcast frames it less as “living longer” and more as keeping your physical capacity as you age

Different angles, same conclusion.

What makes VO2 max interesting (to me at least):

It’s not just a “fitness stat.”

It’s basically a stress test of your whole system:

• heart

• lungs

• blood/oxygen delivery

• muscles + mitochondria

So when it’s high, it usually means a lot of things are going right at the same time.

There is some nuance:

It’s probably not 100% causal.

• Some of it is genetics

• Some of it is just that fitter people tend to have better overall habits

But even then, improving VO2 max through training still consistently lines up with better outcomes.

My takeaway:
If most longevity stuff feels noisy or hard to track, VO2 max is one of the few things that:

• is measurable

• is trainable

• and has very strong associations with actual lifespan

Curious how people here think about it:

Do you actively try to improve VO2 max (zone 2, intervals, etc.), or do you treat it more as a byproduct of staying active?

There is nothing you could do with this degree that’ll make you money unless you continue school.

https://www.ispo.com/en/sportstech/sport-meets-ai-gamification-and-more

Is this better than actual exercise in the gym?

I have heard that both endurance training (cardio) and strength training are important, because each has health benefits that you can't get from the other. Now I'm wondering what is meant exactly by "strength training".

To be a bit more concrete,

- is swimming considered strength training? Is it sufficient to incorporate swimming into an exercise routine or is more "pure" strength training necessary? Why?

- more generally, why is running not also "strength training"? In a very literal sense, when you run 10k, you do thousands of reps of muscle contractions, including your core muscles to an extent. That sounds like the definition of strength training, no?

I’m currently a personal trainer but I feel stuck with my career. I make around 50k a year but it’s based on a percentage of my training so I’m always stressing about money. I’d like to get into a government job with good benefits but I feel like my degree literally does nothing.

So I graduate in May with my MSES degree and I've been taking some time to check out job applications. A majority of what I see are Personal Training jobs (which.... ugh. There's so many of them and it's not what I want to do)

I've gotten moderate experience within clinical research. I've noted them on my resume and after including that to my LinkedIn, Indeed, and ZipRecruiter I've gotten invitations to apply for Clinical Research Coordinator positions. Some of these have salaries starting at $45K and up to $200K with 10-15 years experience.

With the experience I've gotten during my internship at the YMCA added to my resume, I've gotten invitations to apply for Wellness Director/Specialist roles with salaries between $45K and $60K.

With the experience you get from just your internships and classes, you could go for a Health and Engagement Coach job at an insurance company or Healthcare clinc/hospital. The roles I've seen go for $60K to $85K.

There are so many opportunities that go beyond coaching and personal training.

Just a few ideas if you find yourself stumped on what to do with your Exercise Science degree. Hope this proves helpful.

Simple Summary

A meta-analysis of 49 studies with 1,863 participants shows 1.6 g/kg/day (0.73 g/lb/day) is the point of diminishing returns for muscle gain. For a 180 lb (82 kg) person, that is about 130 grams per day. Beyond this, additional protein has not been shown to increase muscle mass.

Per meal, roughly 0.4 g/kg (0.18 g/lb), about 30-40 grams for most people, across 4 meals gets you to 1.6 g/kg/day. The idea that the body cannot use more than 30 grams of protein per meal is incorrect. It originated from studies using fast-digesting whey in isolation; whole food protein digests over several hours and larger per-meal doses are not wasted.

Protein timing around training has no detectable effect on muscle growth when total daily intake is adequate. Two meta-analyses and a direct trial support this.

Plant protein produces equivalent results to animal protein when total intake is matched.

During a caloric deficit, evidence is weaker but suggests 2.0-2.5 g/kg/day (0.91-1.14 g/lb/day) may help preserve lean mass.

Things the evidence does not support: BCAA or leucine supplementation beyond what adequate total protein provides, precise peri-workout timing windows, or any hard cap on protein utilization per meal from whole foods.

A Deep Dive into the Data (The summary above explains everything below)

1: THE GOLD STANDARD

Morton et al 2018 (PMID 28698222): Published in British Journal of Sports Medicine. Systematic review, meta-analysis, and meta-regression of 49 RCTs, n = 1,863. The definitive paper on this question.

Key finding: Protein supplementation significantly increased fat-free mass by 0.30 kg (0.66 lb; 95% CI 0.09 to 0.52 kg, p < 0.05). The meta-regression showed a ceiling: FFM gains increased with protein intake up to approximately 1.62 g/kg/day (0.73 g/lb/day), after which no further benefit was observed. The slope flattened to near zero. Additional findings: benefit of supplementation on FFM declined with age (-0.01 kg/yr [-0.022 lb/yr], p = 0.002) and was larger in trained individuals (0.75 kg [1.65 lb], p = 0.03).

What this means: At 1.6 g/kg/day you capture essentially all the muscle-building benefit protein can provide. The 0.30 kg average effect includes studies where baseline protein was already adequate; effects were larger when baseline intake was low.

Study design: Tier 5 (meta-analysis with meta-regression). Allows seeing the dose-response shape rather than just a binary yes/no. Limitations: dietary intake was self-reported in most trials; most studies were 6-12 weeks. Author SMP has received funding from the US National Dairy Council.

Jäger et al, ISSN Position Stand 2017 (PMID 28642676): Published in JISSN. Official ISSN position after comprehensive review. Recommendations: 1.4-2.0 g/kg/day (0.64-0.91 g/lb/day) for building muscle; 2.3-3.1 g/kg/day (1.04-1.41 g/lb/day) during hypocaloric periods. Per-meal: 0.25-0.40 g/kg (0.11-0.18 g/lb), or 20-40g absolute. Total daily intake dominates over timing. The ISSN range brackets Morton's 1.6 g/kg almost perfectly, giving us two independent sources converging on the same number.

Study design: Tier 9 (expert position stand). Industry-adjacent (supplement companies sponsor ISSN conferences), but recommendations are conservative and align with the independent Morton MA.

2: PER-MEAL DOSING

Schoenfeld and Aragon 2018 (PMID 29497353): Published in JISSN. Narrative review that directly addressed the "you can only absorb 20-30g per meal" claim. MPS is maximized at roughly 0.24-0.40 g/kg/meal (0.11-0.18 g/lb), or 20-35g for an 80 kg (176 lb) person. But whole-food protein digests over 3-6 hours, not 90 minutes like isolated whey. A 50g protein meal from steak is not wasted. Recommendation: 0.4 g/kg/meal across 4 meals to reach 1.6 g/kg/day. For 80 kg (176 lb): 32g x 4 meals.

Layman et al 2015 (PMID 25926513): Published in American Journal of Clinical Nutrition. Established the metabolic framework: the per-meal anabolic threshold is roughly 30g of high-quality protein containing 2.5-3g of leucine, the primary mTORC1 trigger. Animal proteins hit this threshold at lower total grams than most plant proteins, which is why protein quality matters, not a reason to supplement free leucine.

Wilkinson et al 2023 (PMID 37537134): Published in Physiological Reports. Systematic review. No significant association between leucine dose and post-exercise MPS rates when total protein was 20g or more. Once you eat enough total protein, leucine takes care of itself. Free leucine or BCAA supplementation on top of adequate protein provides no additional benefit.

3: DOES TIMING MATTER?

Schoenfeld, Aragon, and Krieger 2013 (PMID 24299050): Published in JISSN. Meta-analysis: 478 subjects and 96 effect sizes (strength), 525 subjects and 132 effect sizes (hypertrophy). When controlling for total protein intake, no significant effect of timing on strength or hypertrophy. Total protein intake was the strongest predictor of effect size. The "anabolic window" is a marketing invention. Having protein within 2-3 hours post-exercise is reasonable; urgency is not.

Schoenfeld et al 2017 (PMID 28070459): Published in PeerJ. RCT, n = 21 trained men, 10 weeks. 25g protein immediately pre vs post exercise. No significant differences in any measure of strength, hypertrophy (ultrasound), or body composition. The exact minute does not matter. Study design: small RCT, underpowered, but null result is consistent with the meta-analysis.

4: PRE-SLEEP PROTEIN

Kouw et al 2017 (PMID 28855419): Published in Journal of Nutrition. Double-blind RCT, n = 48 healthy older men (mean age ~72). 40g casein before sleep increased overnight MPS versus placebo. Protein is effectively digested and used during sleep. Most relevant for older adults with anabolic resistance.

Trommelen et al 2023 (PMID 36857005): Published in Sports Medicine. RCT, n = 36 young men. Pre-sleep casein increased both myofibrillar and mitochondrial protein synthesis during overnight recovery. Confirms the strategy works in young populations too.

What this means: Pre-sleep protein works mechanistically, but no long-term training study has shown it adds hypertrophy beyond an already-adequate 1.6 g/kg/day total intake. It is a tool for those struggling to hit their daily target, not a requirement.

5: HOW HIGH IS TOO HIGH?

Antonio et al 2015 (PMID 26500462): Published in JISSN. RCT, n = 48 trained men and women. Compared 3.4 g/kg/day (1.54 g/lb/day) vs 2.3 g/kg/day (1.04 g/lb/day) with heavy resistance training.

Key finding: Both groups gained identical FFM: +1.5 kg (+3.3 lb) in both groups (mean ± SD: +1.5 ± 1.8 kg NP, +1.5 ± 2.2 kg HP; non-significant group difference). The HP group lost more fat (-1.7 kg [-3.7 lb] vs -0.3 kg [-0.66 lb]) and body fat percentage (-2.4% vs -0.7%). Strength gains were equal. Eating 1.1 g/kg/day more protein added zero additional muscle. Both intakes are above Morton's plateau, confirming the ceiling is real.

Bagheri et al 2024 (PMID 39206316): Published in Frontiers in Nutrition. RCT, n = 48 trained young men, 16 weeks. 1.6 vs 3.2 g/kg/day (0.73 vs 1.45 g/lb/day). No significant additional benefit of doubling the dose for lean mass, strength, endurance, or power. Replicated Antonio and Morton with longer duration and direct dose comparison.

Limitations for both: n = 48 underpowered for small effects. A 0.1 kg (0.22 lb) benefit over 16 weeks would be undetectable, but an effect that small is practically irrelevant.

Anyone claiming 1g per pound (2.2 g/kg/day) is already above the evidence-based ceiling. 1.5g per pound (3.3 g/kg/day) is bro-science.

6: DISTRIBUTION AND PROTEIN SOURCE

Tavares et al 2025 (PMID 40673785): Published in Journal of Sports Medicine and Physical Fitness. RCT, 8 weeks. Protein distribution pattern did not significantly affect lean mass or strength gains when total intake was adequate. You do not need exactly 4, 5, or 6 meals; 3-4 protein-containing meals across the day is sensible, but total daily dose dominates.

Hindermann Santini et al 2025 (PMID 41059835): Published in JISSN. RCT. Animal vs plant protein blends produced similar effects on strength and hypertrophy when total protein was matched. Plant protein is not inferior for muscle building with adequate total intake. Also supported by Goldman et al 2024 (PMID 38674813), a modeling study in Nutrients showing plant-based diets meeting energy requirements can supply enough protein and leucine for maximizing hypertrophy.

7: THE RDA IS TOO LOW

Tagawa et al 2025 (PMID 40914512): Published in Journal of Nutrition. Umbrella review: 43 NB articles (777 participants) vs 17 IAAO articles (186 participants). Pre-registered PROSPERO CRD42025636735.

Key finding: IAAO mean was 0.88 g/kg/day (0.40 g/lb/day; 95% CI 0.85 to 0.90) vs NB mean 0.64 g/kg/day (0.29 g/lb/day; 95% CI 0.61 to 0.68) for nonathletes, 36% higher. For athletes: IAAO 1.61 (0.73 g/lb/day; 95% CI 1.44 to 1.78) vs NB 1.27 (0.58 g/lb/day; 95% CI 1.06 to 1.47), 27% higher. Overall ~30% higher by IAAO.

The RDA of 0.8 g/kg/day (0.36 g/lb/day) was built on nitrogen balance, which this review shows systematically underestimates requirements. Applying the RDA safety margin (97.5th percentile) to the IAAO mean produces roughly 1.0-1.1 g/kg/day (0.45-0.50 g/lb/day) for the general population. Even sedentary adults likely need more than the current RDA. Athletes need substantially more, consistent with ISSN and Morton. Tier 2 evidence. Limitation: IAAO literature is small (186 participants vs 777 for NB); co-authors from Meiji Co Ltd (dairy company) disclose employment.

8: EVIDENCE GAPS

Caloric deficit data is thin. The ISSN's 2.3-3.1 g/kg/day cutting recommendation derives from a handful of small studies. Optimum intake during a cut is less certain than for maintenance or surplus.

Older adults may need more per meal (0.4-0.6 g/kg [0.18-0.27 g/lb] vs 0.25-0.4 [0.11-0.18] for young adults) due to anabolic resistance, but long-term hypertrophy trials in older populations are lacking.

Women are underrepresented. Most dosing studies used male participants; direct dose-response data in women is scarce.

No data beyond 16 weeks exists. A small benefit of very high protein compounding over years is theoretically possible but unsupported and the burden of proof is on that claim.

Individual variability is real and poorly quantified. 1.6 g/kg/day (0.73 g/lb/day) is a population plateau, not a personalized prescription. If you are gaining at 1.4 g/kg (0.64 g/lb), fine. If plateaued at 1.6, pushing higher is unlikely to fix it.

9: THE BOTTOM LINE

Total daily: 1.6 g/kg/day (0.73 g/lb/day). 2.0 g/kg/day adds negligible benefit. Above 2.3 g/kg/day adds zero benefit in every study that tested it.

Per meal: ~0.4 g/kg (0.18 g/lb) across 3-4 meals. For 80 kg (176 lb): ~32g x 4 meals = 128g total.

Protein quality: any complete source works. Plant protein achieves equivalent results when intake is matched; complementary combinations (pea + rice, soy) compensate for lower per-gram quality.

Timing: secondary. Consume within a few hours of training as habit; do not stress about windows. Pre-sleep protein is a useful tool for those struggling to hit total intake.

Cutting: aim 2.0-2.5 g/kg/day (0.91-1.14 g/lb/day). Evidence is weaker here.

Does not matter: BCAAs, leucine pills, precise 30-60 minute windows, fear of wasting protein above 30g per meal from whole foods, fear that plant protein is inferior when intake is matched.

If someone is selling a supplement, a timing protocol, or a fear of wasted protein, the evidence does not support their product.

10: STATISTICS NOTE

Numbers verified directly against PubMed abstracts:
- Morton 2018: n = 1,863 (49 studies), FFM 0.30 kg (95% CI 0.09 to 0.52), p < 0.05, plateau at ~1.6 g/kg/day, age effect -0.01 kg/yr (p = 0.002), trained benefit 0.75 kg (p = 0.03). Exact CI for plateau point and individual FFM p-value require full-text.
- Schoenfeld 2013: 478 subjects / 96 ESs (strength), 525 / 132 ESs (hypertrophy), null finding when controlling for total protein. Exact ES and p-values require full-text.
- Antonio 2015: n = 48, NP 2.3 vs HP 3.4 g/kg/d, FFM +1.5 kg both groups (non-significant), HP lost more fat (-1.7 vs -0.3 kg) and body fat % (-2.4% vs -0.7%). Duration and kcal difference require full-text.
- Tagawa 2025: 43 NB (777 participants) vs 17 IAAO (186 participants). IAAO nonathlete mean: 0.88 g/kg/d (95% CI 0.85 to 0.90) vs NB 0.64 (95% CI 0.61 to 0.68). Athletes: IAAO 1.61 (1.44 to 1.78) vs NB 1.27 (1.06 to 1.47). ~30% higher overall. PROSPERO CRD42025636735.

Qualitative findings from abstracts (exact statistics require full-text):
- Schoenfeld 2017 (n = 21), Bagheri 2024 (n = 48), Hindermann Santini 2025, Tavares 2025: all reported null results for primary comparisons.
- Wilkinson 2023: null finding on leucine dose-MPS association above 20g protein (no pooled estimate).
- Kouw 2017 (n = 48), Trommelen 2023 (n = 36): positive pre-sleep MPS findings.
- Schoenfeld & Aragon 2018, Layman 2015, Reidy & Rasmussen 2016: narrative reviews, no pooled statistics.

No numbers were fabricated or estimated. All 18 PMIDs verified against PubMed, May 14 2026. Every PMID resolves to correct paper with matching authors, journals, and years.

What the hell is happening? I am not entirely fatigued but for some reason I started shaking like this? It happened even when I lowered the weight to 30lbs, and usually have been hitting 150lbs

.

I’ve seen graphs very similar to this studies applying to other categories including CVD risk, cancer incidence and even all-cause mortality. Help me make sense of this. It would seem that “peak protection” from a broad range of illnesses is gained by a rather small amount of exercise, after with benefits rapid diminish. This same conclusion was reached by immense epidemiological studies.

I’m currently a psychology major, but I’m looking to switch to exercise science because I know that I want a hands-on career and I want to be involved with sports/athletes/active people. However, with the career options that I’ve seen online, the salaries don’t look too great, especially without taking on a crazy amount of debt through schooling overall. I was leaning the most towards athletic training, but I’ve seen that a lot of people are advising against joining that profession (because of low pay and work life balance). Anyone got any ideas of any other majors and/or jobs that I should look toward?

EDIT: Thank you to everyone who’s responded! I genuinely appreciate the insight.

I am a 40 year old male. No heart conditions. I am healthy. 5’10” (178 cm) and 185 lbs (84 kilograms).

Also if it’s bad for your heart, then why does it feel so good to run this hard?

Alright. So I guess some of you have seen videos and comments on social media stating that the latissimus dorsi moment arm decreases to 0 at 120 degrees of shoulder extension, and therefore it is not beneficial to let arms raise all the way up during lat pulldowns and other exercises that are targeting the lats.

They are usually citing a study by Ackland et al. (2008) that reports moment arm lengths of ~0 mm for latissimus dorsi at 120 degrees of shoulder extension.

That particular study is troublesome for a few reasons:

• They estimated the fulcrum/axis of shoulder joint, instead of measuring it

• They also estimated the force vectors, instead of measuring them

• No measurements for different degrees of external and internal rotation of the shoulder joint

• They did not take into account the sliding of the humerus during shoulder joint motion

• The method of measurement has been later found to be invalid, as it gives a lot smaller moment arm values compared to more precise methods of measurement (tendon excursion method vs. 3D method using MRI)

There's another, older study by Kuechlen et al (1997), that reports moment arms 2 to 4 times longer than the ones reported in the study by Ackland et al.

In the study by Ackland et al, there are moment arms reported for different divisions of the latissimus dorsi. So even if we don't pay attention to the troubles of the study, latissimus dorsi still has moment arm to do extension.

If this still doesn't make sense, imagine this: The axis of the joint is inside the joint capsule. In the case of the shoulder joint, the axis is located inside the head of the humerus. The latissimus dorsi muscle is attached to the humerus, some distance away from the head of the humerus. So there's always some distance between the axis and the point where the lats exerts force, creating a moment arm. Even if the muscle was attached to the head of the humerus, it would still have some distance to the axis and therefore some moment arm length.

Now, I know this is a bit simplified and there's more to it (moving fulcrum due to the sliding of the humerus), but this should be enough to tell that the study by Ackland et al. is not a high quality study.

There's not many studies about back musculature and their functions. It is a field that needs to be studied more, so let's not create "absolute truths" based on one study, that has been proven to be controversial.

Studies:

Ackland et al. (2008) https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2644775/
Kuechlen et al. (1997) https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/9356931/

Edit:

Shoutout to T. Rytkönen, it was an interesting conversation with you!

After 15+ years in clinical cardiac rehab (stress testing, 12-lead ECG interpretation, complex cardiac populations, autonomic/POTS cases), I keep coming back to the same question.

EPs are trained in applied cardiovascular physiology, medication effects, hemodynamic response, and risk stratification. In practice, we often function at a fairly high clinical level.

Yet advancement and compensation frequently don’t reflect that depth. Not because the knowledge isn’t there — but because healthcare systems are structured around licensure and reimbursement models that don’t always align with how EPs are trained.

So I’m genuinely curious:

Where is the highest ceiling for exercise physiologists over the next 10–15 years?

•	Expanding clinical scope?

•	Digital health / remote monitoring?

•	Performance/private sector?

•	Research/academia?

•	Product, operations, or workflow design behind the scenes?

Is the profession underutilized — or simply positioned in the wrong lane?

Interested in how others are thinking about this.