My personal gripe with Science based lifting is that they value effectiveness over fun. I don't care that I'll get the most lat growth from an iliac pull down, I'd rather just horse cock some heavy rows and call it a day. In the end, if it's not enjoyable then it becomes an obligation.
Yes that is a compelling thing too. I didn’t want to make a full hour vjdeo but that’s one of the thing I thought of talking about before just having one le two sentence talking about fun and it’s importance in regular training
If I trained the way RP wants us all to train I'd have quit out of boredom a long time ago, especially as I'm not trying to compete in the first place and am doing it mostly to improve my own (mental and physical) health.
I think basement bodybuilding sayed it in a good way in his video he realised today: bodybuilding is a combination of art and sience, like with most things in life its best to have a balance.
Practice and theory are two different things in training Scientific knowledge is needed, but using it in practice beyond a scientific article from the Internet is the basis for obtaining real muscle gains
I’ve been watching your videos for sometime now back when NH recommended you. Gotta say, you’re absolute goals man. Not just in your physique but your mentality too.
I realised that i make the most gains if i just train hard with proper technique (not optimal but proper) and adjust volume/intensity based on fatigue. Optimal exercises are usually boring too
What I like about having switched away from powerlifting to bodybuilding is that like Alan Thrall said "I no longer have bad days." When you're not chasing numbers but are still seeing you desired progress in the mirror you don't get bothered if on some days you're not as strong as a previous session or tiring out faster than normal because you slept poorly last night, just just take some weight off and keep going.
Nevermind the fact that some excerises just plain dont work with some people. I have to add as much unilateral movements as i can because of my scoliosis. As a result my whole body is sort of twisted and uneven. The science based thing just takes out the problem solving of everything
Took me a good while to figure out how to squat to depth as turned out one side of my hip has more retroversion than the other so the textbook stance was just causing me discomfort and frustration. So few out there went into these nuances at all.
@@zerrodefex Some exercises aren't just made for us if we really go heavy on them. I never felt OK under heavy load on barbell flat bench press and back squat despite really taking the time to get the technique right, incline and front squat always felt better. Now I am enjoying a lot smith squat and prefer to focus split squatting too. Everything works, until it doesn't
Even in the most comprehensive studies with near perfect test conditions and subjects etc etc if it says exercise 'A' produced the best growth for 70% of subjects proving its the best exercise (on paper) In that scenario everyone just presumed THEY would also be in that 70%, they never stop to think they might be in that other 30% where that one exercise might be bad for them and exercise 'B' might produce far superior results for them. Too many people I've noticed train too 'smart' and seem scared almost to venture out from 'what the studies say'
I thought this was going to be another video dogging on using exercise science and preaching the "just do what the pros do, bro" meme but I've been pleasantly surprised by how well thought through and nuanced the video is, well made man o7
@@Hersovyac I quite often see a reactionary kind of response to the growing science/evidence based lifting community that's based more on emotion than rational thought. I'm glad you approached it from a more methodical, reasonable lense and gave people some ideas to think about and a nuanced perspective instead of just pigeonholing your audience into either camp. I suppose that's what sets apart the enthusiastic and intelligent content creators from the sellouts. Much love from Türkiye
@@mustafayigitkartal4257🇹🇷🇹🇷 MENTIONED. Noble nattyleri izleyen arkadaşım yok salonda, Türk youtube fitness ne durumda bilmiyorum ama bu adamlardan öğrendiklerimi anlattığım benden gelişmiş arkadaşlarım bile yeni şeyler öğrenip fiziklerini geliştiriyorsa çok iyi durumda olamaz. Türk hipertrofi enjoyerları arasında yavaş yavaş popülerlik kazandıklarını görünce mutlu oluyorum.
The art form that is bodybuilding is simply lost by an excessive fixation on science. Yes, use it to your advantage but don’t create a dogma out of it. Individual differences and the journey of finding what works specifically for you without external influences being forced on you is in 99% of cases going to be what will make you succeed and find the fun in the sport
The moment science based fitness actually delivers on a flowchart of optimal lifts, practices, risk to rewards, stimulus to fatigue and other analyses is the moment people will fall out of love with casual, amateur and professional bodybuilding. Imagine if a complex and inscrutable algorithm could just tell you a proper lifetime program that would maximize your muscle growth. Imagine if that algorithm could also compensate for when you get sick and you can even plan for vacations and getting by with bands and bodyweight. How mindnumbingly boring would that be for the average person?
I agree 100% with the message of this video. I feel the science based stuff is kinda like a refinement- useful but only if you've been training more than 5-6 years, and everything else dialed in like diet rest programming. Honestly for the first 5-6 years, MOST training methods work. As long as you are healthy and injury free and train hard enough, you WILL make progress. Add in good diet and diet and you will make better progress. Only once you start hitting plateau is that you need to start focus on all the fine tuning and stats that come with science.
And because of that you might as well experiment around and find out what you like best and what works for you best while the gains are easy rather than trying to be dogmatic right from the start.
Bravo. 👏 There are so many who are suffering from paralysis from analysis. Like you said, this is a journey and get out there, lift the basics, and enjoy the ride. Thank you for the video, my brother.
After starting as a beginner early this year, I went for the science based approach as I consider myself a man of science as well. Then I realized that science means nothing to bodybuilding, your body is your own and you have to cater your workout to your own body, injuries and even psychology. Your chanel has been a treasure keep preaching this way of training.
It's frustrating when scientifically-oriented individuals criticize the training advice of successful lifters by dismissing their education. Take Milowolf, for instance. While I don't dislike them, there's a sense that they believe they're superior because they rely on scientific data and have degrees. It seems like a way for them to compete with more experienced individuals. I respect their knowledge but sometimes it feels like they overlook practical results in favor of scientific theory.
I get the same feeling as you, his videos popped in my recommandations and although the quality is there, it seems the « I got a PhD » card is flashed a lot amongst these men. I personally have two « basics » degrees in sport science, but also endless hours of personal research, coaching work in person and online let alone my 7000+ hours in the gym. If we check the numbers of hours one does in usual school to get a PhD I think it’s around the same, so I technically got a PhD in training by this logic, yet I ain’t pressuring people with it as an argument. Aimless and purposeful training aren’t the same
@@Hersovyac I feel you on this, while grasping the science is essential for optimizing the body's response, we shouldn't become overly fixated on it at the expense of embracing the raw, instinctual components of training. This seems to be lacking in those who prioritize science. They seem to struggle with tapping into raw intensity. Personally, I prefer advice from someone who embodies ferocity over that of an overly analytical individual any day. It’s an art form to me at the end of the day i don’t want to watch some science based guy stopping 3 reps shy of failure on a lat iliac pull.
Milo rubs me the wrong way because of that attitude and I've known many such men from my own education and work experience. They tend to not take it very well when they turn out to be wrong about something and will usually try to lord their credentials over you in an attempt to bully you into shutting up. The truly humble ones don't go around flaunting it demanding that everyone call them doctor all of the time. Those flashing their PhD card all over the place are likely marketing to those who easily believe things just because someone named "Doctor" said it.
Luckily I started training before the internet. I like watching some of the science-based videos, such as Renaissance Periodization, but when you read the comments you see people saying: 'oh no! I'll change my leg workout now...'. This is a mistake, Chopping and changing according to every new video. Also I get sick of the 'this doesn't build chest/arms/legs/back....do this instead.' When everyone knows the exercises do work. So I make small improvements based upon knowledge, but I'm not throwing everything out just because of some studies. Like the Milo Wolf lengthened partials thing. I think it's good and useful, but I was astonished how Dr Mike jumped on it as though FOM is now obsolete! Crazy.
That is exactly my point. People will just copy and rethink everything , never taking their own experience and guts feeling in account. I really hope I don’t make the same impression with my own work as my goal is to leave you with a « nice idea I will pick that thing and stuff he does on those exercises and try » and not a « I will do like him to be like him »
Great vid again. Wanted to ask, what is your opinion on lenghtened partials? In my opinion, they make sense as both in my experience and the information I gathered from noble natties lime yourself put emphasis on the stretch mediated hypertrophy and have started to incorporate them on some of my lifts. I never did base my training on science but since I started watching Milo Wolf I found it intriguing that his advice correlates a lot with the enlightened bros of the noble natty community.
They are just a fancy word for « bottom partials » or « pulse » or « half rep under load » that bodybuilders do since ages to either squeeze a few rep at the end of a normal set, or as a stand alone method to make sure no agonist muscle take over (for example doing bottom half rep on bench to avoid triceps to steal the work in a weak chest strong triceps scenario)
Wholeheartedly agree on this one ! Also the editing feels really nice, i think this particular video will make a lot of views and attrract new subscribers. Nice one !
In the end bodybuilding is so much about intuitive expertise and gaining that very specific intuitive knowledge when it comes to your own personal body and its strengths and weaknesses, knowing when to push hard and knowing when to take it a bit easy with training, learning to avoid injuries when becoming more advanced etc.. And taking some kind of empirical conscious academic approach to this might hinder progress After a certain point in your training age. On the other hand, for beginners and early intermediates it might be helpful to get past that rookie stage little bit quicker if they strictly follow this type of "scientific" advice. I work as a chef, and there are so many overlapping similarities, for example: at the beginning its good to follow recipes more strictly because that gives you some point of reference, so it allows for faster improvement in the beginning, but when you get better at cooking in such high volumes, and the ingredients have variable marginal differences on day to day basis, you start using your hearing, feeling and eyesight more, because you can't always add x amount of salt to a product because there will always be subtle differences that can't be measured by a scale.
Just a content farm these science guys, the truth is almost everything works, low reps high reps high volume low volume - the main difference maker is genetics, always has been always will be.
Yes indeed the sad truth is that bodybuilding has been the same for 30 years now, nothing is new, but a few internet marketers just milk stuff, change a few names, invent a few very specific and odd terms and then claim to have some secret. Secret is that you bust your ass for years and if you got the genetic and life context for it you will go to the top, if not, you will look great but just not a champion caliber. Or you will make excuses and a be a life time intermediate. Time to switch it
@@Hersovyac Yes brother get your ass in the gym and work hard for many years its the only way, if you are meant to be elite you will become so, "science" will only get you so far.
@@supertrollfaxnoprinter3329 There are many people who put a lot of thought into training and get nothing out of it and theres people who just look at a weight and grow muscle, to deny genetics being the biggest difference maker is exactly the kinda take i expect to hear from the "science based" lifters.
@@supertrollfaxnoprinter3329 No it's not about being a genetic outlier its about our individual genetics being so massively varied that to try to apply science so bluntly to training makes 0 sense, its a personal journey based upon your own genetics, your effort, your lifestyle and more that results will be totally all over the place as a result, there is not 1 BEST exercise its what works BEST for you, but the science based guys will try to sell you that BS.
Good video ! A big problem in this discussion is science literacy. A study may find that exercice X produces Y more hypertrophy than other exercices in a given population. Never are this question discussed :who is studied ? Pro bodybuilders ? Natty experienced ? Total beginners ? Not just a couple of sentences are needed but an in depth explanation of everyone, limb length, heights, ratios etc... I would probably make the articles horrible to read but would bring more value. I think a general good approach to strength and bodybuilding is do the basics, maybe try to emulate the program of somebody who has a similar body type (as in limb length etc) than you when you hit a plateau, and last but not least, listen to your body and how it feels, which you discuss in this video.
I intend to make another video about tj subject delving specifically on those aspects but that is a great point. Really most studies are made on sedentaries and beginners, it’s quite uncommon to have them done on seasoned lifters or very advanced athletes let alone real bodybuilders
Very good video! Many years ago I realized I have to become scientist of my own body in order to build muscle because following someone else didn't really work.
Jeff Nippard has been the same size since 2020, yet he is the biggest hardliner of nerding out so spastically over “science” that he constantly reproduces the same videos over and over again. yet he’s still 5’4 and the same size for 5 years, he’s stuck
That’s one thing that bugs me, but when you think it through you just realise that it means that training knowledge isn’t in the top 10 requirements for a great body. And this thing would put half the fitness infustry in unemployment if enough understands it
@@nemil238he put deadlifts as C tier in terms of best muscle building exercises for the back while putting half kneeling cable lat pulldowns S tier. Dr. Mike Isratel, his buddy, himself that deadlifts offer extremely huge benefits for a thicker back. The man can't get out of his own agenda
I will also say I've been training for 25+ years, and a lot of that time was not stimulative for muscle growth. When I was in college, about the only resources were enhanced bodybuilder workouts (like Jay Cutler's routine) with a lot of junk volume, Westside influenced strength training (like 2x5 for bench one day and speed work the other), and black pill Men's Health crap. The industry has transformed for the better. The only bodybuilders I knew back then were enhanced and trained like equipped powerlifters. Natural physique athletes were only concerned with having a six pack and didn't believe you could get big without drugs. I didn't get into natural bodybuilding until my 30s, and so many of my productive training years have been heavily influenced by science based people and those in the natty fitness community. Even then, at first it was heavily powerbuilder biased from guys like Omar Isuf. I've seen my physique transform by combining approaches from many sources. For reference, I went from 6'2", 205 lb to 235 lb currently. 15% to 19% bodyfat, roughly. +2" on my upper arms, +2" on my thighs, +5" on my chest, +1" on my neck. I never used to look like I lifted, but now I'm one of the bigger natty guys at my gym. Training effort close to failure with sufficient volume and mostly full ROM has been the mainstay of my training for the past 6-7 years, but I'm incorporating a lot more lengthened partials and deep stretches into my training recently with great results. Lengthened biased training got my lagging chest and biceps growing again and also improved my flexibility and joint/tendon health.
Thank you for your share and story sir, but you see, this was a different problem. The problem that you describe in your younger years was that the access to good content and informations was extra hard, but still, it was there. The Encyclopedia of bodybuilding was already out. The many books of silver/golden era legends as well. The main issue was that your go to source was the mag, just like today the main go to source are social media like Instagram and tik tok. You had a lack of approchable and available data, we now have the total reverse. We are drowning in studies. Sure you progressed and got results and now that you more grasp on training and also have access to overall better information you keep progressing. But that’s usually what an evolution look like. You grow until you don’t anymore, assess, adjust, adapt, and go at it again, until you do. That’s what science is supposed to deliver. Not chain you in a rigid manner regarding your whole training
science based gurus makes easy training and turn it into a overcomplicated one the time I stopped doing that and copying other "experts" and started listening to my body and focusing on simple basic exercises that I also enjoy doing and basic progression that's when I started seeing the biggest gains. like you said everyone is different therefore we cant just copy someone on the internet and expect same results btw great video as always !
Perfect bro this is the way. Then you can watch videos, take a few ideas or thing that resonate with you, try them out and that’s that. No need to always start over from scratch each time someone upload !
Damn, thats a nice video man, really really well put! One question Id love to hear your take on is, we all been taught beginner usually should train full body compound movements usually 3 days a week Would you say this is also true when somebody is solely interested in aesthetics and not at all in specific lifts and strength gain? (just some examples to my point: why back squat if I dont want axial loading? Why standing OHP if I dont want the fatigue and so on) Or could one for example even be better off doing modified full body or upper/lower hybrid splits with an immediate focus on lets say shoulders, arms and such? Ive been thinking about that cause we often just day "your whole body is a weak point", train hard and everything, but after a couple years in the industry, im not really that sure if its actually true and the right or only way
@@Hersovyac thanks for the quick reply brother I totally get how you mean this but I’m recently really questioning this Lets say one focuses on your or for example alpha destiniys novice routine , I’d still assume one would get more „aesthetic“ results if the frequent and volume on arms and shoulders would be higher than the one on legs and or other muscle groups This is not me saying that’s a fact but rather questioning it 😅 Definitely got a new sub on me and keep the good stuff coming 👊🏻
@@ShotgunGuenni How would frequency make some muscle pop more than some others ? With my beginner routine everything is hit 2-3x weekly, do not forget about intensity and volume for the sake of frequency
@@Hersovyac yes you are abslutelyt right in terms of that my man What I’m thinking is, one who is mainly interested in arms, shoulders and upper back, squats front and back squats every other day alltho we could simply say do leg press and curls/extensions and save the fatigue as you simply just care about upper body gains ? Let me know if you think im wrong and in general I’d like to contact you for coaching but I just need to make sure we are on the same page ;)
I think you are wrong, squat and dead goes a long way with strong back hip and legs along with the mobility stability and injury proof effect on these areas and that’s without talking about full body and lower body overall strengtj and the athleticism and longevity aspect. Hence why aesthetic isn’t for beginner
I like your approach. I have been thinking about this a lot and it applies to almost everything else in life. Individuality is the life blood of creativity. And true science can only be done when everything is repetitive and unchanging.
40kg alternating curls (even with a bit of a cheat) is definitely gonna mog some folks :) When I grab the 65s (pounds lol) to do 'strict'-ish DB alternating hammer curls I get some stares. Especially from those doing some fluff curls with the 30s. I've more or less stopped worrying about it. I enjoy those curls and that really helps me push them hard 🙃
I just wanted to say that you are mostly right. You also are what most men 'should' be doing. Which is, being natural, growing hair out, not caring as much, develop a bit of physique and style, and maybe you are excelling at 'certain things', but many people fall into average categories; for example, I found I am above-average at running, and can meet more fitness test standards than I thought, but it doesn't mean I will be an olympian. If only more people realized it. Instead they are coping and constantly hooked on artificial/fake possessions, including the things they do daily which if traveling or in the wild, they would not have or be able to maintain; shampoos, heavy weights, daily trims, etc.. fear of being natural. However did humanity ever work before that, I wonder?? they must ask themselves.
Your physique is crazy man. I only found your channel recently and I know you’ve said you used to train full body but would you really recommend that style today? And starting points?
CdWent from Calistenics when i was 16, at 18 yo sport science and was 80 kilos most of time and coulndt not progress more ,but pandemia Made me go broscinece combined with wresling and now i am a 5'7 90 kilo beast
I use a science based approach to lifting as my basis. I'm still a relative newbie with only 2 years lifting. When i find something that works for me, i stick with it. The science helps me understand why I'm doing what I'm doing, and how my body works. The numbers and optimization thing though is less important to me, as I'm not trying to compete, I'm just trying to look, feel and move better.
There can be good found in science, as there can be good found in 'bro science' but ultimately using individual trial and error is where you will build the best base to work from allowing you to then see what is/can be good for YOU and what can be ignored from the both
Competitive bodybuilding? Yes (Like every recent sport/E-SPORT, example boxing), Casual gym enjoyer? Nah. I run a simple x3 FB rutine, I eat my macros, get my sleep and I'm getting bigger, more aesthetic and stronger each week. Just be consistent and patient, it's just that people are dumb sorry guys.
Completely agree with you on the state of youtube fitness. The science based fad is here to stay it seems. Though I'll say with Nippard, I think he's doing it on purpose. He knows it upsets some youtube OGs so he spams science based content, he's a bit of a troll/shit Lord in that regard. That's my impression anyways. Great video
Thank you Herso for giving us such a beatiful video and message, I found the video very esthetic and I think I'm not the only one, love when you are like a teacher! You are a chance for us. Vive la France Herso heureusement que tu est la pour nous rpz
Pure Science based lifters tend to forget not everyone’s got the equipment and more importantly time to apply it. Bro I’ve got an hour in the gym I’m not lugging a frickin bench halfway across my busy gym and then spend more time setting it up etc. awesome video, subscribed.
@@HersovyacI love him to pieces, my only gripe is that he was already huge when he came onto the scene, while I love his training it is hard to understand how much that works unless you take it for long enough time.
I see every "perfect workout" video from Jeff as an option, just as an example of what a decent workout looks like, but often he fails to claim that. He only presents ideas, but it is seen as an absolute, that you shouldn't train differently
Yes indeed, he also does something with the titles that I ain’t a fan of, which is to always put (with science) or (according to science). It’s like not taking ownership or resold ability for you say. As if you succeeding or injuring yourself isn’t his fault but « science ». Science isn’t someone or an argument you pull out to justify anything
@@Hersovyac Jeremy Ethier is also notorious for such titles. While I did get some nice info from him starting out I couldn't help but notice as the algo started sending me older and older videos of his that "how has this guy not shown any noticeable progress in over three years?"
It seems to me that "science based" is on the uprise because influncer etc. are looking for content and just grab every study they can find and make content about it. Before this phenomenon no one has read these studies or at least spoke about them in public. But now these studies find a greater audience. If content creators would just talk about old school based stuff they would have no content left after an hour long explanation video of basic training.
Indeed, there is a trend, and an opportunity to market. And as you said nothing changed in bodybuilding in the last 30 years. The issue isn’t that though, it’s ok that we already circle around the same thing. The issue is that most viewers are beginners, uneducated and thus, easy prey for marketing and bs. We would still have plenty to talk and discuss and re talk about in new formats and with a bit more context and details via science and experience across the years.
Thats the blue one you see me wearing in all the clips I am shredded. That’s from a discontinued brand that sponsored me for a solid year before closing due to the creator moving in another country.
I can’t remember who said this, it might of been Faz, but there is nothing wrong with sciencein bodybuilding IF you use it as a tool like you said, and not do what all the influencers do and push it as gospel
Not to mention that most of the science based lifters aren’t even at the mid intermediate level (Jeremy ether or whatever his name is). Jeff Nippard’s rig has barely changed at since he started preaching and programming the “scientifically optimal lifts”.
The problem here isn't with science-based bodybuilding, it's with capitalism: monetization and social media demand a constand flux of videos and content. Bodybuilding and fitness are long term goals and processes, they're incompatible with clicking on 10 videos a day.
There is absolutely nothing wrong with being paid for your work, but when it comes to bodybuilding, instead of digging deeper in specific subject that we could go around quite fast, they reinvent the wheel (or so they say) only for marketing purposes not for education. New terms, new studies, new « discoveries » to promote whatever they have to sell. This is the issue here. Science isn’t serving anytbing hut monetary gains and audience growth not the viewer himself
Remember science based content creators don’t really care about the science. They care that they can make a 20 minute video about some small borderline meaningless 10 person study that just came out.
At the end of the day, everything works if you train hard and are consistent. For me, all this science vs bro science, or one method vs the other is just for content creation and maybe finding different ways to train
Eric Helms makes a good distinction between science based and evidence based. Science based relies only on the research and can be fickle, whereas evidence based uses the research to inform training habits but doesn't discount personal preference, compelling anecdotal evidence, and training philosophies that have been around for a long time and just haven't been traditionally studied. The problem with discounting the research is that some bro science now is just science based stuff from 20-25 years ago. There are also training practices that great bodybuilders of the past used that have been "confirmed" by science, namely training volume, proximity to failure, and stretch biased training. My main concern with discounting evidence based approaches is that it encourages a lot of fallacious and biased training. I think that type of thinking is on the rise throughout the world. The bottom line is that even self-proclaimed bro scientists are informing their decisions based on experimentation and practice, but also based on certain "truths" like progressive overload (a science based principle). There's a false dichotomy going on, nobody is 100% science based and nobody is 100% experience based. I'm growing tired of this worn out argument in the industry. We need to be more positive and less divisive in the natural lifting realm, less judgmental and more open. Science, at its core, is about experimentation and pushing knowledge forward. I don't see how that is any different from the goal of training in the first place. I also have an issue with every anti-science based person saying that "everyone is different." On the whole, human variation in the realm of muscle building is fairly limited. We know genetic potential differs, but the point of investigating training is to come to certain principles. I see that statement as being a cop-out. The chances are that you're not a special unique snowflake, you just may have stumbled upon a method that works (and is therefore evidence based) but might not be 1) most appropriate for you at that point in time or 2) most sustainable. If you boil it down, nobody gets jacked without effort and time, even the genetically elite. Again, people just aren't that different from one another to justify some of the dumb shenanigans I see online and in person.
You are totally right and agree with you. See the thing is that this isn’t what most science based training content goes on. They go with « one study said that » « in this study they concluded » and use that as an argument of authority. Eric Helms is a role model and I definitely don’t put him in that category. Science itself as you said is about learning and experimenting starting from a specific point who may or may not already hold knowledge. As a pyramid we are supposed to be building up and up and up with more and more specificities and details about general « truths » but this isn’t what is happening. What’s happening is that one month 30 is ideal max recoverable efficient volume then next month it’s 45 but we are accounting fluids then 52 then what ? One month front squat is useless the next month it beat back squat on VL mean activation and force neural drive output growth in lateral femoral nerve path. Those are supposed to be « hard » truth and they are still debating on it while dismissing all the application we already have. And that is a no for me as it’s like deleting all the history browser every couple weeks
@Hersovyac I do get where you're coming from, but that's just poor science communication, which is a problem in every field. That's not an issue with the data. Your example of training volume is a good one, because I see that as "you can grow and adapt from just about any volume." Dr. Pak has done research on the opposite end, how little volume do you need to grow? And that's a very low number, maybe 4 hard sets a week with only a couple sets to maintain. I think research like this is freeing and not restrictive, and it's certainly not prescriptive. I think you're criticizing certain science communicators but letting that turn into a critique of the evidence as a whole. I'm sure if you read the full articles, they would discuss the shortcomings of the research and applicability. The problem with Jeff Nippard is that he isn't a research scientist, and he isn't trained on interpreting research, study design, statistics, etc. He has a research assistant that helps him with this, but he's not in the same class as the PhD's out there like Drs. Pak, Helms, Wolf, and Israetel who do a much better job of incorporating the literature into their practice.
You definitely misunderstood or I didn't explain myself good enough, I do not reject science or evidence as a whole, I reject marketers, experts and science content who isn't grasped or put in application, or without said proof of application. As for your last paragraph, I agree and this is what I have a problem with, not the research itself
@Hersovyac Ok thanks for clarification, I thought on first watch there was some anti-science stance in your video but it may have just been my knee jerk reaction. I think we have a lot of similar thoughts on training, which is why I enjoy your content!
I like watching the science, but at the end of the day the body doesn't matter what's optimal, if a muscle is put under tension enough, it will grow. You can go to failure on every set, go short of failure and do more sets to make up for it, or even go do cardio stuff like sprinting to build your legs, whatever uses a muscle will build a muscle if nutrition is available and recovery outpaces breakdown. So maybe don't do ultramarathons for building legs, but whatever else helps. I like the Bioneer because he doesn't chase optimal, he just chases being capable and cover all your movements and being healthy. Anyone saying functional training can't make you strong ought to take a look at the guy first.
The Bionner is a great content creator I watch since 2019 and I totally agree with you. You don’t need to be optimal with everything just have fun and take an overall approach while having fun and keeping the goal the goal
@@Hersovyac The routine that'll get you strongest is the one you can stick to! I personally love full body, even if I can only do a set or two of each a day, it adds up over the weeks and I never miss out on parts and can do more on the days I have extra energy. Keep up the good work!
I grow apart from science based chanels. What I believe to be the best option is to apply a scientific method to your own experience being yourself a test subject of your hypothesis.
1 thing i dont understand is the volume in this studies 10-20 sets no dif between 0-3 RIR. shit makes no sense. what has worked for me is low volume high intensity dorian yates style
It make sense and work with the context and people they work with in study. There will always be outliner or people that don’t respond to this specific thing. Also easier to go into HIT realm as an advanced than a beginner
I got dat der tree fiddy on da skat atg no shoes no belt no sleeves no money no bitches no friends no sleep no house no family no problem no worries no matta
Facts, I tend to see people who will believe everything their favourite influencer are just as bad and skinny as people who take science too seriously.
Well there is certainly a case for « who are you and what authority do you have to speak » with your physique there is also the statement in itself. That’s easily how you spit someone who is just blessed genetically or juicing, and also a science based guy who just repeat what he saw on a reel
Very thought provoking. Do you mind me asking about your rationale for such fast tempo on your negatives? Was that from experimentation or do you have a theory you're implementing?
Yeah my rational is that I grow better from it and that prior to many lab at studies saying you should slow down we actually had way more compelling ones about how the faster an eccentric is the better the concentric can be and thus make your set better for an anabolic response. Also check any champ, not one goes slow.
RP is the channel that finally helped me grow. It's got nothing to do with science or not. They are the ones who explained how to make a proper routine, how to progress, and how to deload. Most people lack knowledge of basic principles and focus on too many tricks
So you are 80% of the fitness audience, ie a beginner. So of course everything you did do worked. Does that mean you need to be consistently striving for minutia and analysis or simply doing and repetitive years and years of training to achieve results instead of always striving for « optimal » ? Do not make me say what I didn’t said.
man, all these comments.... broheads will be broheads afterall, unfortunately. ive noticed only one comment that mentioned the fact that NOONE does this "you MUST do it or you're FUCKED" type of science based videos, then i see athlean and like ok, what this dude have to do with science? or lifting at this point? isn't he is a lifting blogger for people who dont lift (at least that was my experience, i watched him when i was planning to start lifting)? then all these comments "i dont want to be forced to do bOrInG stuff, i wanna do fUnNnN stuff" they dont force you, they merely present you studies and interpretation of results. and if you actually tried to critique them you would quickly find out that most of these studies are like "A exercise produces 5% more growth than exercise B" okay, i'll stick to the most fun then anyway. another comment is "i just wanna move some weights, not to do boring but optimal things" yeah, you not into bodybuilding then, you just dont know what you ACTUALLY want. this shit really reminds me of my girlfriend, i'll tell her "hey, you know you can do it this way" and she'll just blow up like an h-bomb, same thing (at least she is a woman). maybe im just too rational to understand all these emotion based critique, in the end science is pure "ratio", as opposed to bros pure "emotio". man what a long ass nothingburger rant
