Controlled trial: music vs. silence pump intensity (n=3, methodology attached)

🎧 TrialPumper_Ctrl Regular Member Clinical Trial Designer (Unlicensed) ★★★ Joined: 2022 Posts: 441 My apartment gym (it's a corner)

Post #1 — Posted Apr 30, 2024 Quote | Report | +Rep

I have conducted a controlled trial to determine whether music affects pump intensity. Before anyone asks: yes, it is controlled. I had a control group. The control group was Subject B pumping in silence. That is what control means.

METHODOLOGY

Subjects:

Subject A (myself): 4 years training experience, pumps 5x/week, highly pump-sensitive
Subject B (my roommate Derek): 1 year training experience, pumps "when he feels like it," agreed to participate in exchange for me doing the dishes for a month
Subject C (Derek's friend Tyler): 3 years training experience, agreed to participate because Derek asked, does not fully understand what a pump is

Protocol: Each subject performed 3 sets of 12 reps on bicep curls using the same weight (25 lb dumbbells), on two separate days. Day 1: with music (my playlist, 140–160 BPM). Day 2: in silence. PPI was self-reported after each set on a 1–10 scale.

Blinding: The trial was not blinded because the subjects could hear whether music was playing. I acknowledge this limitation.

Results:

Subject	Music PPI (avg)	Silence PPI (avg)	Difference
A (me)	8.7	6.2	+2.5
B (Derek)	5.0	5.0	0.0
C (Tyler)	7.3	4.8	+2.5

Analysis: Music increased PPI in 2 of 3 subjects (66.7%). Subject B (Derek) showed no difference, which I attribute to the fact that Derek does not care about pumping, does not care about this study, and was visibly on his phone during the silence condition. Tyler showed strong results, possibly because he was listening to music he liked (my playlist). I did not ask Tyler if he liked my playlist. In retrospect, this is a confound.

Conclusion: Music probably helps the pump. n=3 is small but it is three times larger than n=1, which is the standard in this forum. I welcome peer review.

— TrialPumper_Ctrl | n=3 | controlled (sort of) | Derek still owes me enthusiasm

🎵 AudioPumpAnalyst Regular Member Pump Acoustics Researcher ★★★ Joined: 2023 Posts: 204 The frequency lab (my headphones)

Post #2 — Posted May 1, 2024 Quote | Report | +Rep

I need to discuss this trial's methodology because it is giving me a headache, and not the good kind you get from a pump.

Problem 1: n=3. Three subjects. One of whom is the researcher. One of whom was bribed with dish duty. One of whom "does not fully understand what a pump is." This is not a clinical trial. This is three guys at a gym. I have seen more rigorous methodology at a pizza taste test.

Problem 2: The "control." A control condition is not "one of the same three guys doing the same thing without music." A control would be a separate group of subjects who never receive music, performing the same protocol over the same time period, with the same equipment, and ideally without knowing that a music condition exists. What you have is a within-subjects crossover design with no washout period, no counterbalancing, and no blinding. These are words I learned specifically to critique this paper.

Problem 3: Derek. Derek reported 5.0/10 for both conditions. Derek was on his phone. Derek did not care. Derek is not a data point. Derek is a hostage. If you remove Derek, your n drops to 2, which is the saddest sample size in the history of pump science, and pump science has produced some very sad sample sizes.

All that said: the +2.5 effect size in Subjects A and C is notable. Music almost certainly affects pump intensity. Everyone in this forum already knows this. But it's nice to see it "confirmed" by two guys and Derek.

— AudioPumpAnalyst | n=3 minus Derek equals n=2 | free Derek | he didn't sign up for this (he sort of did, for dishes)

📝 PeerReviewer_Doubt Veteran Member Self-Appointed Peer Reviewer ★★★★ Joined: 2017 Posts: 4,310 In the margins, writing comments

Post #3 — Posted May 2, 2024 Quote | Report | +Rep

PEER REVIEW — Reviewer #1

General Assessment: This is the first multi-subject study submitted to this forum. On that basis alone, it represents progress. The bar was on the floor. The author picked it up. With three people. One of whom was on his phone.

On the Question of n=3: I have thought deeply about whether n=3 constitutes a valid sample size. In clinical pharmacology, no. In psychology, no. In pump science, it is three times the standard. We must grade on a curve, and the curve is shaped like a bicep.

On Derek: Subject B must be excluded from analysis. A subject who reports identical PPI scores across both conditions while visibly disengaged is not providing data. They are providing a number. These are different things. With Derek excluded, the study is n=2, which is still larger than most work published in this forum. This is both a compliment and a condemnation of our field.

On the Music Selection: The author used his own playlist. Music preference is a known confound in auditory research. Subject A (the author) presumably liked his own playlist. Subject C's preference was never assessed. For all we know, Tyler hates drum and bass and his elevated PPI was a stress response, not a pump response. In future trials, I recommend a standardized stimulus. I suggest the song "Pump It" by the Black Eyed Peas, which is both universally known and thematically appropriate.

Recommendation: REJECT WITH ENCOURAGEMENT. The study cannot be published in its current form. But the author should be encouraged to try again with more subjects, better controls, and without Derek.

— PeerReviewer_Doubt | reject with encouragement | this is what I do | the curve is shaped like a bicep

🎧 TrialPumper_Ctrl Regular Member Clinical Trial Designer (Unlicensed) ★★★ Joined: 2022 Posts: 442 My apartment gym (it's a corner)

Post #4 — Posted May 3, 2024 Quote | Report | +Rep

PeerReviewer_Doubt wrote:

Subject B must be excluded from analysis. A subject who reports identical PPI scores across both conditions while visibly disengaged is not providing data. They are providing a number.

I have spoken to Derek about this. Derek says, and I quote: "I said 5 because 5 is the middle and I didn't want to think about it." I showed him the peer review. He said "cool" and went back to his room. I believe this confirms the recommendation to exclude him.

PeerReviewer_Doubt wrote:

I suggest the song "Pump It" by the Black Eyed Peas, which is both universally known and thematically appropriate.

This is an excellent suggestion and I will incorporate it into the revised protocol. I will also recruit more subjects. Tyler said he would ask his gym friends. Derek said he would "think about it," which historically means no.

I accept the rejection with encouragement. I am encouraged. The trial will be repeated. It will be bigger. It will be better. It will not include Derek unless he demonstrates a measurable commitment to pump science, which at this point seems unlikely.

For the record: my playlist is good. Tyler told me afterward he liked it. He said the drum and bass "hit different during curls." This is anecdotal but I am recording it for the revised paper because every data point matters when your n is this small.

— TrialPumper_Ctrl | Derek has been noted | the revised trial will not include Derek | my playlist is good and Tyler agrees

📚 JournalOfPumpMod Forum Moderator Editor-in-Chief, Journal of Pump Studies ★★★★★ Joined: 2014 Posts: 5,930 The editorial office (my kitchen)

Post #5 — Posted May 4, 2024 MOD POST Quote | Report | +Rep

As Editor-in-Chief, I want to acknowledge this study for what it is: the first multi-subject trial in the history of our journal. That it involved three people, one of whom was bribed and one of whom did not understand the dependent variable, does not diminish this milestone. It contextualizes it.

I am formally creating a new submission category: "Preliminary Investigations (n<5)." This category exists to accommodate the reality that most pump scientists do not have access to large subject pools, because most pump scientists' subject pools consist of themselves and whoever they can convince to come to the gym.

Under this category, the music vs. silence trial would be classified as a preliminary investigation rather than a controlled trial, which more accurately reflects both its ambitions and its limitations.

Derek is welcome to participate in future studies. Professor Whiskers has reviewed the data and showed mild interest in the silence condition, which I interpret as a preference for quiet research environments.

— JournalOfPumpMod | Editor-in-Chief | new category created for studies with n<5 | Derek's participation status: optional