Richard Simmons "Number one, like yourself. Number two, you have to eat healthy. And number three, you've got to squeeze your buns. That's my formula."
Really depends on who you’re talking to. The novice dudes that they deliberately target don’t need to hear none of that BS lol. They just need to eat, sleep, lift. Even Louie doesn’t recommend conjugate to the average gym bro.
@@laughingtothebanklikehahah3618I don’t think anyone recommends Conjugate for beginners. It’s designed for strength athletes that are advanced to the point a weight progression like beginners use will cause more fatigue than recoverable, or worse, injury.
@@zbronstein3901 beginners can benefit greatly from conjugate and it is actually a training system Alex Leonidas recommends for beginners however the caveat is you need a very experienced coach to guide you step by step
@@MalefiicusSTR I wouldn't all you right at all lol. It's very obviously a screen and your uncertainty of that clear fact makes you wrong. It'd be like saying you're strongly of the belief that evolution is a real thing. You're just an idiot for not knowing for sure that it is.
I started watching RP about 10 months ago and they taught me the basics. Hit the muscle twice a week for more growth Eat your protein Control the weight(2 second eccentric) Full range of motion Keeping fatigue in check Im 33 and I’m becoming the biggest I’ve ever been and have no injuries or joint pain. Improved flexibility etc I can understand the other smaller science channels making the “science” seem more important than it is but RP Strength is probably the best channel I’ve found and it’s changed my life for the better.
I think that’s what’s missing in this whole conversation and what I think Mike does very well that is taken for granted. He is great at explaining that a lot of his methods are for advanced (7-8+ years of training) people who really wanna squeeze out any bit of size/strength they can. He has parts of videos specifically explaining how a beginner might benefit and how an advanced lifter might not or vice versa, and for the most part his advice to anyone not advanced is to just get really good at the fundamentals. If you go and watch his beginner videos, most of the science-based lifting goes away and it’s just the basics. I think that’s the missed part here, that he’s conflating science based with ‘optimize everything over the basics’, like no dude at some point those advanced lifters are gonna get diminishing returns on the basics and need a little more scientific juice in the workouts. Thats what Mike is for
Agreed, Dr Mike's messaging for beginners is remarkably consistent with everything Alexander says. The Barbell basics and some accessories don't ego lift, to much.. but ego lift a little. Ride that till you can't anymore
Mike can't even distinguish between technique and range of motion. They're. Not. The. Same. Thing. Oh, and you DON'T need to hit a muscle twice or more per week. You only need to ACCUMULATE a certain amount of sets and that CAN be concentrated in ONE or MULTIPLE sessions.
I agree, while Dr Mike can definitely get granular and nerdy with some things, he usually makes it clear that if you're a beginner or intermediate lifter, they probably don't matter. The biggest takeaway I've gotten from RP is that most people overcomplicate the shit out of lifting. Learn the basics and put some effort into it and most people will see good results.
Bugenhagen is a great refresher amidst the science trend. Sometimes you just need a bro yelling at his TV with his daughter's toys in the background while he goes on a 20 minute tangent about his dog's V taper to remember that sometimes, you just gotta lift heavy things.
38 min Stick vid is just commentary on half the first exercise, and only makes it 1:48 in. I love when he blows his stack. Have you seen his live streams when "Momma's" phone keeps connecting to the BT speaker while he's trying to PR. It's so fucking funny.
Zach Telander just posted a video about how countries with elite weightlifters are selected from an early age on genetic factors and natural abilities in lifting. Your average gym goers try to replicate those lifters programs and %s that work for these elite athletes ie bulgarian, smolov, ect and while that doesnt make the programs bad, folks arent really understanding why they are good. Clarence0 just posted a video about his method about building his squat, and cj and snatch. The reality is he was getting under a bar for a back squat 3 times a week. If you get under a barbell a few times a week, you are going to get better.
Re: "The reality is he was getting under a bar for a back squat 3 times a week. If you get under a barbell a few times a week, you are going to get better..." Not to split hairs here but, No! -In context to your illustration, if the "average gym goer" got under the bar 3 times a week, he'd train his average a$$ into the ground in short order! Although Average Joe could eventually achieve the "Conditioning" needed to train squats, etc... 3 X week, he would generally never train brief enough, take in enough calories or rest enough to actually GROW! **unless he used the same gear (juice) as the Bulgarians, etc... -but, then he wouldn't be the average gym goer if he did gear would he?
In my opinion, Mike Israetel is on the money most of the time, however this new wave of Milo Wolf, Pac, etc. are hyperfocused on the small science things, and never really talk about the big things. Every single Milo Wolf video is exactly the same speech, only swapping "arms" for "quads". Let's say, If you were to hypothetically watch every single video from RP, especially the (Hypertrophy Simplified series) you would have a pretty good idea of what to do with your training and diet. On the other hand, if you were to watch every single Wolf Coaching video, all you'd know about is to cut the last third of the ROM for 5% more growth!
A lot of these guys get on a roll teaching good info.. And then it runs out. Things don't change much. There isn't usually a crazy discovery which will objectively change everyone's experience. It's almost always a personal journey. After a while they have to keep making new videos to stay relevant. I enjoy hearing both perspectives from educated and experienced people such as yourself and Dr. Mike. Always enjoy your videos 👍
Fitness social media content is a lot like financial social media content. The basics cover 80% of what you need to be doing, everything else is trial and error. Unfortunately, that means content creators have to start getting creative after covering the basics.
All the biggest guys or guys with best bodies, all say ‘what I’ve found works for me’ and then say something quite unique (but based on the basics and fundamentals we all know). Same with me tbh, the more I’ve gone back to the old tried and true, tailored to what works for me, gave me all my best gains, best diets, best bulks etc
Train close to failure, titrate volume and intensity, work each muscle 2-4x a week, auto regulate rep schemes as needed for stimulus / over use, swap out stale movements as needed, deload as needed… This is basically what Mike says in every foundational video.
What I'm hearing here is "science isn't good enough so why bother." The problem with this is that you're not seeing how without this stuff, sham influencers would be the only voice on RU-vid so it's better to hear what limited value some studies may have because at least there's some methodology there. Have you seen some of the exercise advice that Men's Health or other trash mags give? And most people who don't know better can and do take that stuff seriously and waste years or even risk injury for nothing. But let's rant about Israetel who basically sounds totally reasonable, does not jump to conclusions, and adds appropriate caveats to conclusions reached by the studies he presents. And I take this stuff personally because the information presented on channels like that has dropped my injury rate substantially and simultaneously improved response significantly..and I've been lifting almost 25 years.
He’s not saying why bother, he’s taking issue with how “science based” influencers package, market, and sell content under the guise of science and disingenuous way.
Some recent science are huge breakthroughs for all levels of lifters. E.g. seated hamstring curls getting 50% more gains compared to belly hamstring curls is profoundly compelling
This just simply isn’t true. If you’re using the story of Milo as you’re reasoning then you are showing your relative lack of knowledge of the subject matter. At most that’s the basis for progressive overload. The Greeks didn’t understand force outputs, they didn’t understand what the body goes thru in maximal velocity sprinting, they had no real idea about physiology compared to today’s knowledge of it. I could go on. That’s just a stupid statement
That's like saying "Just get good" in a video game. Everybody knows this shit, this is the most basic of basic information that really doesn't help anyone. How many times a week do I lift? What form? What do I lift? Do I have to care about form or does form not matter? How do I avoid injury? How many different lifts should I do? How many reps should I do? How close to failure should I go? How heavy should I lift? I got injured and can't lift, what do I do? What do I eat? How much do I eat? How much of everything do I eat? Is junk food okay? When do I eat? How many meals? How do I rest? Do I do cold baths or saunas, or neither? How many hours do I sleep, or does that not matter? How do I know if I need to improve my rest? Can I do cardio to rest? In fact, what counts as rest? How long do I rest after each session? Does this change session by session? Why the hell do I have to stop reading in order to lift, eat and rest? How the hell is reading not resting??? I can't say you even gave any remotely good advice at all, much less advice on how to optimize at the margins. This is an insanely braindead comment and I'm wondering if the 53 likes were botted.
I watch a lot of your stuff, and I generally think you’re one of the more thoughtful fitness folks on this platform, but I’ll be honest, I’m not sure I understand the thread of this video. Or the others in this vein. I feel like the crux of your point is, “the science is uncertain, I’m not anti science, but I think people who use the science based moniker are misleading people on how specific, actionable, or certain the research is.” And I’m just not sure that’s a premise that’s worth rallying around? I have no evidence for or against the idea that the science based content side of the lifting world is doing more harm than good, or doing harm at all. As someone who’s been watching content in the space for awhile, and seen the spectrum of “fitness” out there, the Jeff Nippards of the world seem unimaginably better than the folks who are equally, if not more confidently telling people complete fabrications. I don’t know why Jeff’s credentials were mentioned as he hasn’t positioned himself as knowing more than experts, frequently interviews experts, corroborates his findings with them, and I feel like you yourself have also done some bit of research interpretation. A degree is not a requirement to conduct one’s own analysis (but I acknowledge that doing good, sound analysis requires some degree of rigor) I’m neither here nor there on Dr. Mike’s humour or delivery, but him, Nippard, Pak all seem to speak pretty carefully when it comes to the fitness, and frequently don’t use terminology that says you MUST do anything. There’s no fearmongering. There’s very little dogma. “Here’s a paper, here’s what it could mean, here’s what I do, here’s what you could do.” In general, the science based people are so much less intense than everyone else. A lot of the reaction to this intense science-ranter super nerd feels like someone that I’ve never met and never seen on this platform. There seems to be a running thread that either the big channels in the science based space are making things harder for the average lifter OR are misrepresenting the certainty of studies and there just seems to be no real evidence for that either way except a handful of anecdotes or “vibes”. At worst, they’re not worse than dudes who talk about “pencil necks” and they’re way better than the average instagram post which is still horrifically filled with complete nonsense. I’m just really failing to see what these guys are doing so wrong that it prompts these responses. As the beginner/intermediate lifter looking to make gains and the prime consumer for all of this, I just have not experienced what you’re describing in terms of misdirection. These channels have been incredibly helpful, like yours, in reducing my time wasted in the gym. So maybe it’s anecdote for me too but I’m just a comment and not a RU-vid video. That’s my two cents.
Thanks for writing this up. 100% agree. Mike seems to be very careful about how he speaks about studies, and never speaks in absolutes like “must do”, “always”, and “never”. He always talks about how context is king. I feel like Brom said alot of vague stuff more about how he feels about science based lifters rather than giving examples of what he doesn’t agree with. What specific advice does Brom not agree with? Why does he disagree? After watching this video, I still don’t know. Brom seems to mention a lot that he doesn’t like when science based lifters say you MUST do exercises with xyz technique. But every science based dr Mike video I’ve seen goes into detail about the context and how one way could possibly be good for some people and bad for others.
Are you serious? Jeff Nippard is hyperfocused on form. He also discusses as many as 26 different exercises per muscle group. That def harms some guys. He inundates viewers with unnecessary info and hardly talks about intensity or mindset at all.
@@andrewmueller9986 as far as I know, Jeff has advocated for on average 10-20 sets per muscle group per week. If you’re referring to the 52 sets thing, he has never recommended you go that high. After your comment I went and watched his take and all he said is that you COULD try a specialization phase for stubborn body parts by lowering volume for everything else and raising volume for that muscle group by 50% (in his example). Then he says to try it and see how it goes. Because he knows the advice isn’t universal and there’s a lot of room for individualization and genetics here. Is that what you’re talking about?
@@andrewmueller9986 and he does tier lists where he shites on tried and true great exercises whilst promoting clown exercises. I'm so glad I started lifting before I saw my first Nipps video, otherwise I might be doing one knee elevated half bent over reach around rear delt reversed cable flyes for back gainz
@@andrewmueller9986 if you feel like that's your experience, I can't change that (and I'm not trying to) I do think Jeff talks a lot about form, along with the stretch position, because he feels like that's low hanging fruit for a lot of people to improve, along with just a ton of misinformation from years of varying statements from all over the lifting space. But his language is almost always "try this", or "the literature seems to support". He clearly believes in what he says, but it feels like his actual language is reasonable. "Here's a bunch of exercises and why I think they're good." Jeff has said often enough that "you should check if you're really putting in enough effort", "you should check mind muscle connection", "you should be progressively overloading and pushing yourself". Or at least, I've noticed those statements often. Maybe others don't. Will some people hyperfixate on form? For sure. But I'm just not sold on the idea that how many and how frequently those individuals do so is exacerbated by the tone and language of some of the content creators cited in this video. Especially as compared to Every Other Fitness Creator who focuses on intensity, or mindset. I have seen folks take "muscle confusion" way too intensely, overload on volume, overload on mass, overload on calories. Like, the personality type that takes this stuff too far is gonna take it too far and science-based has not shown to be unique in triggering that. I say that as someone who's had to ignore rando advice from dudes in the gym for YEARS who were obsessed with some specific thing they were sure worked for No Reason. Again, I'm not saying that someone cant confuse themselves over this science-based content, just that a lot of the time, TO ME, the science-based people are the ones Not speaking in absolutes, and willing to accept new input, update their stances, and speak to nuance. You may think they put too much emphasis on a specific aspect of lifting, but no one's convinced me that they're more Reckless. So I'm unsure Why the desire to critique this subset of the content creation community is so strong in some individuals, because I have yet to see any Actual evidence that they're doing any More harm than anyone else. A large majority of folks who regular consumes Mike's fitness stuff seem to agree that he does provide nuance and after explaining the literature attempts to distill to simple tips and best practices, and that's much better evidence to me than the opinion of a single creator. Making a video to say that Jeff, Mike and the others present the science as being total, absolute, and encouraging folks to needle over details feels reductionist at best, and a misrepresentation at worse. It's just kinda, not giving them the grace I give to lots of creators, Bromley included, for the sake of taking up a contrarian stance. Or should I pummel him for every video title he makes that says, "X thing will explode your back", "double your gains with old school", 40 minute deep dives on squat variations and the like. I just remain unconvinced on the need for this type of content specifically, and hopefully where I'm coming from makes a little sense.
Something Steve from massive iron said once really stuck with me, that it doesn't matter if your program is crap, as long as it has some of the big movements and you give it your all, you will have great results. Intensity is really all that matters, the number of reps/sets, variation of a movement and/or amplitude applied really doesn't matter that much as long as your intensity is high and you're progressing. People are really out there looking for the perfect program, perfect exercises to do, perfect rep/set schemes when 99% of us are just regular non-athletes just trying to be stronger/looking better than the average human who do absolutely nothing but eating crappy foods and sitting on the couch most of the time.
I think its where the bar is.....because no. The goal is not to look better than the average slob. The goal is to look as good as the jacked guys/fitness models et cetera. And for that you NEED optimization. Because frankly most people don't have the genetics to even get close to that without gear. No one cares if you just look not fat with a scrawny Bruce-Lee type physique. That's not enough. So if your t Standards are really low, then yeah you don't need to think about much at all. But if you need to get something out of it, you need to be smart about it unless you're just incredibly gifted.
@@taylorhillard4868 what Steve meant is that you have to give it your all, even if your program is crap. But he himself will also have better options for programs (though not based on science and based on years of coaching). For me personally I made my program myself ever since the lockdown ended, I've been getting pointers from the RU-vid fitness community here and there but my program is my program, it is not copied from anyone out there and it is very different from most programs. I've been in a way perfecting it to my needs for the past few years and it's still evolving, and I'm being honest when I say that my physique is better than 95% of the people in my gym, and the other 5% also do different programs than each other (and obviously some are on gear).
@@taylorhillard4868 the point he was making was that even if your program is "bad", you would still make progress, but sure, he himself has programs that would work better in his opinion given the numbers of years he's been coaching and seeing what works and what works "better". For me, I've made my program a few years ago, it went from a full body to a push/pull/legs kinda today, but my program is my program, it is different than other programs as I've been perfecting it to my needs. My physique is better than 95% of the people in my gym (though I have a hunch that I'm stronger than most, if not all) and the other 5% have different programs than each other, and some are also on gear. My point is that I do take pointers from the youtube fitness community, even Dr. Mike sometimes (I really liked the side delts exercises he did with the bar only, which I've kept for one of my shoulder days), but mostly I just do what seems to work for me and keep all that science stuff out, I keep the basics and try to progress overtime and it seems to be working great.
I really didn't think it was that complicated. I found Mike's channel and watched his hypertrophy/strength made simple guides and he lays out most of the basic shit. Hypertrophy = lift close to failure, reps between 5-30 for most sets, compound basics for efficiency Strength = more focus on technique on specific compound lifts, heavy sets (singles, doubles, triples), etc. Eat in calorie surplus with enough protein. You are there. I kind of just assumed most of the content was primarily for entertainment. I might try some of the stuff he reccomends and see if it works for me, but I never took him as saying these tiny details are super important. Idk, I guess I can see how if someone just comes in and starts watching random videos without any critical thought they might mistake lengthened partials as the most important thing you can do in the gym. Still, I feel like RP reiterates pretty often that the basics are what matters. I'd much rather the general population get their information from RP than from 90% of fitness channels.
Agreed but if you look through the comments of any “science based” channel, you’ll see legions of science based zealots who seem to miss this part. Guys who obsess over small details, approaching exercise as if it’s a sterile, theoretical and exact science rather than a crude, empirical and individual experience. The irony of it is, these people are chasing perfection when most, if not all, haven’t even achieved the mediocre. The sensationalist content, generated off the backbone of mediocre “science” is at fault for this, at least in part. Although you could argue, before lengthened partials and the obsession with “optimal” training, it was 6 minute abs and athelean x nonsense, so it will exist regardless because the appetite is always there and people always want the shortcut and the special secret ingredient. But I haven’t watched the video yet so i might be missing the point lol
Man I miss John Meadows. The guy genuinely cared about people and wanted to help. Combined science and experience. One of the few yt channels that was actually reasonable. Why can't people just appreciate studying the details while also being reasonable and practical. A lot of these science guys just come off as arrogant. "I have a phd therefore I know everything and this is best". I dont even know if it's financial incentive behind a lot of this. I think it might equally be just their ego. Having different opinions is great and absolutely necessary but we also just need more reasonable people in the industry rather than having to pick a side and that's the end of the conversation.
The same can be said from the bros as well. „so and so did this 20 years ago why would we need a study about that“. Proving why something works is important as well. Science is not the problem. The application and the abuse of it‘s name on YT is.
I agree, John Meadows wasn't trying to become rich off a new system of trainings or an app. He just loved the topic. He did make money off his videos but it was little and it didn't corrupt his take on things. Mike on the other hand is obsessed with perpetuating his RIR system a long with the app. But his system is hogwash, how can you even know how many reps you have I reserve ona given day without going to failure on the first set and reducing the reps by 3 on the next set per example to achieve a 2rir etc.. it's a system made to warrant his app that he pushes...
@@SamuelTitus-cz3fuif you can't approximate with a pretty solid certainty how many reps you could've gotten after stopping, then I'd completely question your lifting experience
@@SamuelTitus-cz3fu I can see your argument, and see that it relies on assuming that reps in tank is impossible to gauge on different days, which isn't true. So any conclusion relying on that premise may be wrong
Ouch. That was a pretty harsh video. I hear dr Mike and crew always refer to "heavy compound basics" all the times. Sometimes they overdue the stretch and/or full rom stuff. But in general they say train hard, eat right and lift with the basics. That's also what their training videos show.
It’s not harsh at all. Part of them needing to stay relevant is to over complicate things. Most beginners would be better off never watching a single video of theirs.
I think the biggest problem in research is there’s zero incentive for elite athletes to participate in these studies. Why would someone working towards their next meet disregard their time tested program to do partial rep curls for a possible couple percent larger bicep? So the only participants are beginners who’ll make big gains no matter what.
What I learned from RP was: Periodize my training (alternating strength phases, hypertrophy phases, and cutting phases(=) Program deload weeks every 4-8 weeks of my training Good form and controlled eccentrics Usually go just shy of failure (I love post-failure training though with myoreps and forced reps) Select exercises that work for me The psychological aspects of diet success That's really it and its served me very well. I'm very grateful to the guy and the lists of exercises for each body part on his site are great and even include form videos. Everything but his old lectures on his channel is pretty much just fitness entertainment content though.
@@gaelr.s7123 Im experimenting with that as well. Always fun to try something new. That's way more important than optimizing 10% hypertrophy of the penile erectors.
I’m a beginner, so I haven’t added any of the sciencey stuff to my routine other than upping my protein intake. I understand 90% of the stuff Mike talks about isn’t relevant to me, partially because he repeats that in every other video. I watch RP’s videos because Mike’s entertaining and I need something to keep my motivation up while I’m grinding on the basic barbell lifts. His channel is more than just 1 or 2 jacked guys showing how much they can lift. It is that sometimes, but it has enough variety that I can tune in and not feel like I’ve seen the same video 300 times already. But I get that fans are annoying. People find their new religion and call it science and in their eyes everyone else is wrong. Annoying fandoms happen in every industry that has some intersection with entertainment.
I like Mike's channel, but I find watching people lift to be incredibly boring so I find his best videos are him explaining singular concepts. He is a very good talker and explainer. I suspect that's part of why he jokes the way he does. Not saying he strays off topic for too long all the time, but the off topic jokes and references really to bolster the length of his videos.
Pushing yourself hard, focusing on good technique, getting adequate recovery while eating enough protein/calories is the main thing. The "science" part is just hobby talk. It can help, but you can also get lost in the BS.
2 месяца назад
What's the problem with nerdiness and having exercise as a hobby you want to learn more about? I watch a wide range of fitness RU-vidrs and find the science based community both engaging and inspiring. What is annoying is people that like to rag on them for views.
There is nothing wrong with it, but the science bros act like a cult. Their way or the highway. I see science based bodybuilders talking shit on channels dedicated to athleticism because some of the movements are not “optimal for hypertrophy”.
I don't believe I said there was anything wrong with it other than you can find yourself lost in all the theory crafting of it. The foundation of progress is what I laid out in the OP. Anything else is just extra. I've watched a wide variety of fitness videos over the last 10-15 and nerd out on this stuff as well.
I spoke with Eric Trexler recently and he was pushing back on the current state of research in this space (compared to other areas), and some of the poor data and findings on the meta analysis side of things.
I’ll post the podcast shortly (I have one with Bromley too) as I’m not qualified enough to speak in more detail. The main takeaway is that meta analysis sits at the top of the evidence hierarchy, but a lot of them are poorly done and shouldn’t just automatically get the credibility
Absolutely. Eric Trexler has levied some great critiques against the state of exercise science literature. The field seems to be plagued with an extensive set of issues. While I acknowledge the fact that a lot of the exercise science literature is pretty lacking/limited, it doesn’t seem like the natural assumption would be that people who pay attention to the evidence-informed fitness space are losing out on gains. The notion that people who pay attention to exercise science are losing gains because of that attention is just that, a notion. I would bet that the people who “lose gains” due to the exercise science stuff would have mediocre gains no matter what, cuz it seems like people either bring the necessary intensity naturally or they just don’t. Additionally, it is possible that the science based lifting crew has brought more nerds into the iron fold, which would inherently mean that they cause gains, cuz being in the gym is always better than being in the basement lol. At the end of the day, these are all guesses, but that’s the point cuz the assertion that people are missing out gains is also a guess. Obviously, I’m not a stand-in for everyone who pays attention to the exercise science content creators, but I would bet good money that I have left no extra gains on the table due to exercise science. I’ve been obsessed with the evidence-based lifting space since day 1 in the gym, but I just always had the desire to push myself hard, so the basics that get the lion’s share of gains were naturally in place. I have toyed around with all sorts of science-informed lifting choices, but if they are the small details that don’t matter much, that should apply in both the negative and positive direction. If the basics are in place, I have no clue why intense attention to the little details would lead to losing out on gains. I love paying attention to the details, but it’ll never interfere with going close to failure(in a hypertrophy context) and doing sufficient volume. I also find the concern trolling rather funny. We are largely talking about viewers who are in their late teens and older and we need to be concerned about them losing gains because they have such limited critical thinking? My brother in Christ, have a bit of faith in people and don’t treat them like wayward children. Even if you assume that some significant portion of the lifting population has the critical thinking of a young child, I don’t see why we need to be concerned with their hypothetical loss in gains, cuz in reality they are adults (or close to) and can choose their own path. The “deception” of thumbnails ain’t that deep and it doesn’t take a genius to understand the underlying message of the more quality folks in the evidence-based fitness space.
Look guys it's simple... do what works for you. Science isn't killing anything and anyone suggesting otherwise just wants headlines. Put in the effort and near any style of lifting will work. To that point, any diet you can consistently maintain will work. The vast majority of us aren't competitiors so figure out what goals you want and lift accordingly.
@@Sir_Ligma_2 did you and I watch the same videos? Mike advocates for like 5-7 sets per muscle and literally has videos telling you how to spend as little time in the gym as possible. If you can’t get in and get out with a good workout in 45 minutes, that’s a you problem. Mike also advocates for heavy compounds as a beginner/intermediate and is extremely open about his and other people’s use and tempers any expectations in most videos. He has sections in most videos specifically talking about what to expect when you’re natty or on gear. Mike also makes it clear that a lot of his methods are not for beginners/intermediates, only the advanced lifters trying to squeeze out every bit of size/strength they can. If you’ve been spending 6 hours a day in the gym with junk volume and bad isolations missing out on fun things in your life because of what Mike said, you just weren’t listening
Mike suffers deeply from cognitive dissonance! Holy s***! He makes it seem as if every little detail makes a tremendous difference but now basically criticises himself.
So funny to hear about Supertraining. I remember 15 yrs ago TRAWLING through that book, convinced I was going to understand the elixir of training. It had such a mystique about it. And utterly bamboozled me with its graphs and weird force curves and exercises. Solid solid video. Very refreshing take.
I've been lifting now for about 1.5 years. My first year i ate up everything RP and Dr. Mike said. And it helped. I found you and started worrying less about optimal and more about what seems to work. I still really enjoy RP, Jeff Nippard, and those guys; but I'm here more for interesting science tidbits, form videos, and motivation. I no longer take anyone in this sphere as seriously as I did, because i came to a very important conclusion; I'm not trying to be a competitive body builder or strongman. I'm just trying to be a little bit more for, a little more muscular, and a little bit leaner than i am. That's it. I don't need optional, i don't need to break myself, i don't need a perfect diet plan. I really like you, and i appreciate your perspectives and the way you break things down. Also love your non-lifting videos and life discussions. All in all, agree with a lot you say, but i still find value in the science bros. Just not as much as i once did.
It’s a fair critique, though I disagree that Dr Mike and others are misleading people, they assume a level of intelligence that might be above the average viewer but I don’t think they are wrong to assume such.
If you can acknowledge that the average viewer isn't able to correctly digest that kind of information, yet you still release it to the public without any disclaimers, you are misleading them, IMO.
No they definitely mislead people. Every time i see that dudes videos, he’s seems to always talk out his ass, and when he says he “goes to failure” it’s obvious he has at LEAST 3+ reps in the tank.
When Mike said he got to big to do the overhead press correctly, that is the exact moment my eyebrow permanently raised at him. I'd like to see him have that conversation with Eddie Hall, or Iron Bibby. He scienced himself into a very strange place, that I don't wanna go. It's like when Bane told Batman "victory has defeated you"...
@@espenstoroprops to biby but his form is shit. The ROM starts at his teeth and ends 2 inched before lockout. Can't blame the man, he's capital B big.
@@Dometooplz that's his competition lift. He does other overhead work in training because you have to. Even a standing incline press is better than no overhead press at all.
Thank you for this. Been watching Jeff Nippard for years and am just over it. I've been just your average gym goer for years, but came across your channel now that I'm building a home gym. I recently had a horrible dip in my health which means I genuinely need strength to get myself in and out of mobility aids. The pseudo science isn't gonna hack it anymore. Thank you so much for this.
Since the last time I posted on one of your videos, I am now also a professor of sports science with a PhD in biomechanics. Unlike Dr. Mike though, I also have a graduate degree in statistics and research methods and, like always, you are 100% correct on this topic. Exercise Science has not even scratched the surface of being able to prescriptively analyze exercise in any holistic way beyond the fundamentals. And it just gets worse and worse as the individuals it attempts to draw inferences about become more advanced. For very advanced trainees it does not even meet the burden of making educated guesses. The thing is, I think Dr. Mike and I would agree on nearly all of this, his problem is the frequency with which he covers topics. All his videos and debates are about the fringe issues that make very little difference, and I imagine that prompts many people to place too much weight on those things over the basics because they are constantly being presented those topics in their feeds. I worry this is causing many people to step over hundred dollar bills in their training to pick up pennies. But I suppose half-court shots are sexy and layups are boring.
Bromley, Dave Tate’s Elite FTS Table Talks, and Westside Barbell podcasts will give every strongman, powerlifter, bodybuilder, conventional and strength athlete all the information they could possibly need.
I feel like dr. Mike doesn't quite follow the same rules of training he talks about when actually training people. You can even see in his training videos that most of what he does is really simple stuff with a lot of tweaking room and basically no "this is bad because I said so, do this other thing that's just a hypothesis". Also when critiquing people's trainings many times he says that some things they do are fine, but he just wouldn't choose to do them, which is preference. Of all the people you mentioned, he's the best one in my opinion to follow
I do not have a problem with science based lifting, but I do have a problem with science based lifting fanboys. Over the past two or three months, I have noticed them going to strongman, powerlifting, Olympic lifting, and athletic training channels with their shit. They talk shit about all of the movements these channels showcase because “not optimal for hypertrophy”. All of those lifters are far more muscular than any science based fanboy will ever be because they pick heavy shit up and put it down repeatedly.
There are so many variables out there you’ll lose your damn mind sciencing the shit outta your workouts for gains. I thought most people tried a bunch of shit and slowly figured out what works best for them? Worrying about which exercise to use is wasting time unless you’re doing it in the gym and see what works. Diet is also a huge variable in gains.
the average knowledge on gym stuff is really low. there are people selling exact set and rep amounts in programs without even explaining reps in reserve, how many sets you recover from, how advanced you are and so on. of course people can figure it out on their own but with the ridiculous amount of misinformation out there, nippard is a great way to start and mike is a great way to nerd out and learn more every week. of course you have to be more critical the more specific the studies are but then the trying stuff out works
@@henrikbartnes8424 but that’s the point, you know nothing when you start out and you try stuff out. How many sets and reps isn’t very high on a priority list, neither is what exercises should be done. I’d go as far as to say for the general public form isn’t even that big a deal as long as they aren’t taking a train to snap city. Effort and consistency are what matter, and if that’s the case how much does the info really help. If anything the info distracts people from doing the basics and putting in the effort.
@@InquisitiveHombre i think exercise selection is overwhelming so just getting started somewhere is good, but any youtuber will do that. The concept of matching so if you recover too fast after a workout you can add a set is incredibly valuable information that i don’t see that often, and the concept of rir should be known to beginners, knowing you don’t have to go to failure but gradually get introduced to higher intensity is a really good method. How is this not good advice that skips weeks of testing and months of watching to how to get abs fast videos with 20 exercises on the floor in 20 minutes
@@henrikbartnes8424 I see what you’re saying, and I think you have a point in that people learning the basics is good. But I don’t think rir knowledge really helps beginners, I think someone with no knowledge would just dial training back naturally. But I could see how that info could save people time, even if I think they’re going to eventually end up experimenting in implementing what they learned. The problem I have is that once people learn stuff like rir and then they misapply it and try to use more stuff they learn and misapply that. If the knowledge ends up holding people back then it counteracts its benefit.
In my humble opinion (working out for 25 years, licensed fitness trainer, worked for a supplement company as a writer) the most important thing is that you can justify your training with valid arguments. That may not mean that there are no counter arguments but a well founded hypothesis is a good starting point. From there it's mostly experience and a matter of fun. In the end you just should enjoy what you do, since you are probably not a pro athlete who has to find the best method. (Funny thing btw: All doctors and physical therapists I met in my life have a way more defensive and conservative view on training compared to people within the fitness bubble. Talking to them once in a while helps to set your standards straight when they got blown out of proportion again by the internet.)
I could only make it halfway through Israetel's video when I saw it a few days ago- there are few things more irritating than a discussion wherein both commentators are positioned for and against the same ideas and are just basically parroting each other. It reminded me of political commentary shows where you'll have a "panel" of people having a "discussion" about a complex topic. It's all theatre. He ought to actually invite someone on your video/s that fundamentally disagrees rather than finding another yes-man
One time his entire narrative got blown up when he was interviewing someone about "going to failure" and the guy said "there are always tradeoffs" with any approach. Boom!
So, exercise science doesn't work for elite lifters. But, just like 99.9% of people, I am not an elite lifter. Then again, for us 99.9%, it doesn't really pay much dividends to follow the "most optimal" exercise advice.
the most important thing the exercise science community taught me was the importance of auto regulation and not mixing and matching different forms on training
I mean is it any worse than a video that's just pointing at things you don't understand and saying "haha pencil necks not big like me cuz they small" over and over?
Milo is honestly the worst of the lot. I thought he was alright until I saw that video on antagonist supersets where he just randomly drops the fact that the study he’s referring to used only novice lifters who hadn’t exercised before, and then moved on like that wasn’t an absolutely massive methodological flaw. Like you say now it’s just reaction videos where he never once gives any kind of strong opinions either way. Just milquetoast critiques so he can maintain plausible deniability to avoid being called out.
Bromley is spot on about the so called 'statistical inference' that once can obtain from these experimental designs. The biggest issue is a small, relatively homogenous, and non randomly treated sample in terms of the participants' characteristics, eg. age, training history, etc. Without a bunch of heterogeneity (variance) in the chosen sample, it is very hard to be precise about whatever effect size is obtained, i.e, it could be this number, or it could be many percentage points above and below, we're pretty damn uncertain about it. This problem is further exacerbated by the fact that the sample size is small (underpowered, unreliable study) as well as due to non-randomization study designs (possible endogenity: the causal effect that you perceive to be due to exercise is in fact driven by some other factor). All this means that you absolutely cannot extend the study results to a larger population (not externally valid), which defeats the purpose of the research in the first place.
Alexander, My Brother. Please tread carefully when commenting on Dr. Mike. He has admitted to juicing as well as harboring homicidal urges. I just worry about your safety, Brother.
When I started lifting, the guy with the biggest arms I saw in the gym was Barbell Curling 135lbs for reps and Overhead Tricep pressing 135lbs for reps. That day I made it my goal to rep out 135lbs in the Barbell Curl and Tricep Overhead Press 135lbs for reps. Fast forward today I can now Barbell Curl 135lbs for 10reps and Overhead Tricep Press 135lbs for 12reps, and my arm measurement is 18.5inch cold. I used Double Progression, Dynamic Double Progression, and Linear Periodization. Nothing fancy. Sometimes, we just need the most basic program with the most basic progression tactic and attack it with intensity
The problem I have with those that are always claiming they are "all about the science" is that they tend to have very rigid thinking, and seldom change their minds on things unless holding their original position begins to affect their personal brand. Which is what this is all about. Social media branding and money. Some are horrified of the idea of negatively affecting their brand by admitting they were wrong. Intellectual narcissism definitely contributes.
At the end of the day I think that "pick a simple program and consistently work hard at it for a long time." just doesn't drive ad revenue. That's why you have to make videos like this (no offense, I'm here watching it after all lol)
As someone who works in research in the natural sciences, the standard of research in exercise science is extremely low. Do you think a study with a sample size of 50 is taken seriously in any other field? People like Jeff Nippard never go into the details of the studies he cites because that would make it seem insignificant. I also don't understand the entire premise of these studies. Jeff once said that a study found that incline bench press increases upper chest more than the flat bench and it increases the other parts of the chest just as much the flat bench. This is a perfect example of the problem with these studies. If you adjust for weight, of course incline comes out on top. Doing the same weight on incline is a more impressive fest of strength. It's more difficulty. The real question that people have is what is the most effective way to train given a certain amount of difficulty but pain is subjective and we'll never be able to measure this. Anecdotally we know that whether it's increasing volume, keeping the intensity the same or increasing intensity keeping volume the same, the common aspect of increasing gains is increasing difficulty. So even if we manage to somehow do studies like this, the conclusion would be dissapointing for many of these people who want to try and optimize so as to avoid the hard work. On top of that the biggest issue with yt science based lifters is that they ask you to make real life decisions based on new studies. You should try not to do this even when it comes to extremely promising studies, let alone studies with low sample sizes in exercise which ignore the fact that people have vastly different genetics and goals. When a new study that challenges the current scientific paradigm (common knowledge) comes along, you wait for a while to see if more studies which look at the problem in different ways corroborate those findings and then update the paradigm respectively. What I would like to see is more studies on injuries; causes, prevention, treatment. When I had a shoulder injury there was too little literature and too much debate on these things. When it comes to training protocols I'd rather listen to someone like Alexander Bromley for classic wisdom that was derived from first principles which is much more scientific because it was built on top of a knowledge of things like biomechanics which is just classical physics and therefore well established. And of course I'd listen to the buges for the psychology of horsecockery.
People constantly changing up their workouts, doing this then doing that, because they're confused by the constant bombardment from influencers and not having a consistent program is killing your gains.
Classic motte and bailey tactics from Mike. When called on it, "oh, it's uncertain and fringe" and yet he's happy to confidently declare that Ronnie Coleman would have been bigger if he squat differently because science. Edit: this video was definitely useful and informative, keep preaching the good word, brother!
I feel like you can literally just try some of the different techniques that were used in the research yourself. You can still run your program and just try out some concepts on individual lifts for some set period and see if it feels good or makes you progress faster. If you've given it an honest shot and you don't like it then just go back to what worked before, no biggie. The most important thing is to enjoy what you're doing and keeping you motivated to continue. Most of the conflict and drama in this space is just driven by the RU-vid algorithms and incentives. In order to keep getting views and to get paid, you need to play the game of clickbait titles, bold claims and misleading thumbnails. It also doesn't matter if the response is negative as long as there is engagement and activity. Which is a real shame because a majority of the content creators give really good advice with solid reasoning but are incentivized to stir controversy for income.
It is impossible to exclude variables in these studies. Do the same study with the same people in a summer with sunny weather vs a summer with lots of rain and the results are going to differ dramatically. Exercise science is merely a science of correlation and not a science of causation
9:20 i find this very hypocrite from milo , mike and pac , they claim they are only changing the "external factors" and not touching the "basics" thats completely false , milo advocates and swears by only lengthened partial workouts, that's chanching your training structure completely , taking away all the exercises trained in a different strength curve ( short bias lifts are good has well and you need variety in your program ) , thats a one way ticket to plateau and from mike when he shows gimmicky shit and praises over basic lifts he is in fact meddling with whats basic ( his shity bicep version of dumbell flyes compared to actually proper incline curls ). This people are here to make money , milo with his click bait , name dropping non stop and circlejerking his own social science level degree which no one gives a shit
All I know is, when I was a newbie I would see what had been uploaded to add to my bro split routine. The intensity was played out in my head rather than the exercises. Telling myself that this is what is proper training is. Now a bit older and wiser, I've made more progress by simply picking up and putting down big heavy things, and I just let the body get to the end point the way it wants to.
Good video. Although i am a fan of Jeff Nippard . I feel he tries to convey good information, and a lot is dietary too. I don’t like his exercise choices, so i rarely have used his advice
I like these types of analyses of the fitness sphere as a whole, and not a specific piece of information. I spend a considerable amount of time listening to the different voices in RU-vid Fitness and feel like your target demographic
The great value of training is prolonged lifespan and abbreviated death span. Whatever it takes to get you to train and keep you training consistently is what you need. I appreciate rp’s approach because in general I feel the techniques are injury preventative while still providing a vehicle for progression. I love bromley’s passion! I need both to stay motivated and consistent
I take all fitness advice with a grain of salt, I take what applies to me and would work for me. If something doesn't work I'll research again, find a different way. There's optimal ways for everything, but for me personally some less optimal things may be more fun, I like to keep it fun and fresh and try out everything to see what I like (my preferences shift, so I will go with that flow). I don't like how it's often made so black and white, while it's all but that. That's why I don't watch Dr. Mike anymore, there's not much I can learn from him since his philosophy is very different from mine.
Paralysis by analysis. It's funny, I see a lot of things circling back to thing likes "Heavy Duty" or "DoggCrapp" training, or even Arnold high volume, at least for bodybuilding.
Wonderful video! I have had this on my mind these past few months since I’ve had to switch up my training a bit due to now being a garage gym owner without all the fancy machines I was used to using. I kept having this re-occurring fear of missing out on gainz because I don’t have access to that type of equipment besides a barbell, bench, dumbbells, some cardio machine, etc.
There's been some great stuff come out of exercise science in recent years that apply to everyone. Protein requirements, protein absorption, rep ranges, volumes... there's loads. If not for exercise science we'd all still be eating 2g of protein per lb and training only at 8 reps. Some things are more nuanced, yes but even more recent stuff the importance of the stretched position seem like thy will add another layer to 'the basics' What we consider basic has to have foundations in science.
Generally speaking, we don't generalise to a population in social science research, although it is possible. For exercise science to be taken seriously it first needs to decide whether it's a "hard" science looking to generalise its findings to the broader population, or whether it's a "soft" science looking to explore individuals and/or small groups within a wider context. Both can be done however they change the messaging that comes from the field. If the field wants to go the hard science route then they will need to contend with full blown medical ethics approvals (which are a nightmare) and then engage in a large group of varied individuals doing a blind test with 1 or at most 2 variables difference to measure across the group. Then do a follow-up study to confirm the results in a different group. Doing that would require a specific exercise lab with many trained coaches to run everyone through the same routine for months (not weeks) and then repeating the process with enough people to confirm any findings actually work. Current exercise science doesn't do this because A) It's hard to convince enough people to come into a lab consistently and do a routine that's closely monitored for months on end and B) The scientists don't have the patience to follow an experiment for years to test if there are results of significance. It's more career advantageous to do a qualitative study masquerading as a quantitative study and publish the results quickly. As that way you can only look at 5 people and claim the results as meaningful while using the social media discussions as valuable metrics of research penetration into the community (aka non-traditional research outputs). The field (researchers and influencers) need to have a reckoning with the word "optomise" because it doesn't mean, to the rest of science (qualitative or quantitative), what ya'll think it means.
When the lengthened partials research came out with Wolf coach he blew it all out of proportion and said he was doing it exclusively, a year later Brad brought him back down to earth. Thats one example of how people talk beyond the actual science and spread bs.
What exactly has Jeff Nippard said that's wrong? You come at him pretty hard for being some dildo on the internet with no special training, but he seems well spoken, well read, pretty honest... I've only watched a couple of his videos but I don't understand where he's wrong
It's deeper than "Jeff recommended lifting this way and I think you should do it that way". It's the way he leans on research for his content to inform training decisions..... i's A.) a misapplication of science and B.) makes things more confusing. Jeff is a smart guy and probably does give pretty good advice...but that advice would be mostly the same if he never read a research paper.
@@AlexanderBromley I know you're a busy guy and you probably explained it in the video but even reading what you said I 100% do not understand why I should care. If he's giving accurate advise, then it's not a misapplication of science, and while it probably is confusing for some people, they don't have to watch his videos. Maybe I'm confused why it's bad. I'll rewatch your vid. Anyway, loving 70s powerlifter so far, thanks for your reply. - Okay, I rewatched the video, are you accusing Jeff Nippard of being a huckster who is scamming people out of their money? You draw the comparison between Jeff selling programs and people buying BCAAs, which is little more than a scam. I think if that's the case, you need to outright say it. Your language ought to be much stronger if you feel Nippard and people like him are swindling their viewers
You've critiqued the "science based" lifting community. To better protect your own camp, i think it would be a good idea to review more responses from other "anti science based lifters" on youtube and critique their critiques.
When ever I see an Exercice science video, I try out what I see and if it feels better I implement it in my routine, but if I don't I will just ignore it. For example I switched push downs for overhead triceps extensions or i start leaning more forward when doing leg curls, because Í also feel it more
