The Most Ridiculous Attack On Science-Based Lifters 

1. slow eccentric, 2. controlled reps, 3. two rep in reserve Literally the 3 things they keep recycling in all videos, not much more to it

@@lankymario7189 Those are clearly not the only things they talk about, the most mentioned, but there are many other topics they discuss too, just so happens that these three are very thoroughly studied and they do work. And after all, people still don't get it and continue doing random shit

​@@lankymario7189the fact that most people still do completely opposite of the things you've mentioned

The hardest part is not helping people at the gym. I've always been receptive to people's advice but I realize that not everyone is like that so I don't say anything anymore no matter how bad they are and mind my own business.

If you like to overcomplicate things, yes, these two are fantastic for your goals

Right if you dont train hard you are not a since based lifter. training hard is like the number 1 conclusion that scince has about lifting. Yes there are nounces like going rir 2 instead of failure training every set, but the general direction is clear.

But it's still so stupid, because that assumption comes from the bro community making fun of science lifters for 'not training hard enough' which is their way of coping with garbage training, even though by definition science based means hard training

@@fox20rps94most people don’t lift hard enough bro or science based it’s not about some cult it’s about shutting up and training for results. Social media has turned bodybuilding into a circlejerk.

How dare you try to tell ego lifters to lower the weight and stop cheating

@@Brometheus420 lol I think it’s wild how people will laugh at crossfitters for kipping then go and ego lift cheat reps for half their workout 💀 like bro you are doing the exact same thing

​@@SSR_ARENA Squad of 💉 & deception

@@lukeautomata4396 You look exactly like the type that would leave shitty comments like this

@@lukeautomata4396nah hes natural

​@@videoshort0806Awwww

@@lukeautomata4396bro what💀

Oh. Definitely saw one. I think in one of Jesse James West's shorts with Jeff. Clearly had no idea who Jeff is. You see, it's always those who know little who speak more.

​@@starkk19yeah same. How blind did he need to be tho

He's 5ft 2 he should look like that

He’s also fairly small in stature and even gym goers(esp gym goers) still unfortunately fall into a unfortunately predictable rut of not being able to register how impressive his physique is considering his natural, science based methodology. Seeing an enhanced gym bro on a larger frame with a preposterous physique is easier to be impressed and therefore deferential to, on an emotional unconscious level. To most people.

You talking height🤔😅

And vaccines lol

I have a friend like that... I just don't get them. If there is a way of getting bigger, why not do that?? Instead of staying in the "eat big", "lift big" caveman mentality

When i started looking into thw scientific principles of bodybuilding, it was like... oh, so you mean there is more efficient and safe way to achieve the same results than the average non-enhanced meat-head gymbro? Sign me the f... up. Haven't regretted a minute, best thing ever.

@@BotDetector-44Okay, bot.

@@Sun-diver Ok, acoustic kid

I think its because both sides started to scam people using their method. Then people start to blame the whole group.

@@zulazhar1259it’s group punishment because anyone can say they are following the science-based side or only doing the exercises they like side. When both sides started scamming by selling “programs that help you get the most mass/muscle” that’s when people lost trust in general

There is no dichotomy. Calling something science based is stupid.

Hypertrophy, anatomy, nutrition, biochemistry, etc. are all science so non-science based lifters are just denying something they don't understand. Saying "don't need science just lift bro" is like saying, "don't need math just do addition bro" it's ridiculous, there is no separation between training and science ever period.

It's when some people decided that "science" was on their side and evoke "science" as some sort of shield against critique. Essentially using it as an appeal to authority instead of simply an evidence base to draw from.

Same same

Same here bro

same

Same, and I am 60. 😅😅 Even my free T levels are up in the top 20 percentile. Increased as I lost fat.

same bruh, suprisingly i could gain muscles faster than my friends in high school😅

He is like 5.2 foot

​@@gasres2778 post your physique

Average physique

for a natty you rat ​@@pizzagateisreal

@@pizzagateisreal imagine being brainwashed by fake natty influencers to say this

I can hear the “Jeff Nipples” coming from a mile away

Nah the fact that machines and free weights have no difference in growing a specific muscle kinda proves mario’s point. With free weights you get the same muscle growth and additionally more core stability etc.

@@dawamee Machines help to work around stability issues. You wouldn't want to be limited by your stability. I'm not saying that machines are 'objectively better' than free weights, just that they are a great tool to target muscles.

Whos that

@@wobbl6980 And machines have a significantly lower risk of injury.

Don’t forget Rich Piana. As much as I love him and his honesty with steroids/drug use, he’s said some outrageously stupid shit about working out like 8 hours a day and doing dozens and dozens of sets 😂 I saw a video of Dr.Mike talking about the outrageousness of it. Also a dope paragraph about the importance of these dudes. Very well written 👍

They may just talk about the same thing but I swear to God every single vid also have the same dumb comments aswell

@@JesseStevenTrumm3992 8 hours a day!? Rabdo anyone fears him! XD

Distrust in science isn't what many think it is. A certain diet can show benefits for longevity, but that doesn't mean those benefits apply to everyone. The biggest mistake you can make when analyzing statistics is to assume they apply to everyone. You can't take a population study and apply it to individuals. The study can only be used as starting point.

@limitisillusion7 That's a fair point, but I think some people use that small percentage of contradictory results to completely throw out the study/evidence as a whole. Just because it may not hold true in every single case doesn't mean that the science isn't valid, and unfortunately that's the conclusion too many people draw these days, especially when supposedly reliable sources are essentially telling them to distrust it.

@@jtmoore9546 The science is valid, but if you interpret the science as "this is optimal for everyone and everything else is suboptimal," then you're not interpreting the science correctly. If someone has tried the scientifically suboptimal strategies and they've shown better results than the supposedly optimal strategies, then it is valid to throw out the evidence for them as an individual.

You clearly don't watch Jeff's content, but keep doing you ​@tartantulakid666

​@@tartantulakid666You're mixing up getting strong with Hypertrophy. Jeff always stresses that training with intensity and progessive overload are the most important factors for strength and muscle gains. He also emphasizes that you need to lift heavy in order to gain strength. The only instance where lifting lighter is preferred is if you're trying to improve your technique and lower risk of injury. Ego lifting is only gonna get you hurt in the long run

It’s becuase the long head originates over your shoulder joint. Helping shoulder extension or “pulling it backwards” think about a straight arm lat pull-down and how it feels in your triceps. I feel them at least. So when your doing extensions overhead you’re stretching out the long head way more effectively thus making it grow more :)

He already did a few videos covering I think

I actually asked him and he said he can’t

@@jacobwidingthe argument that other people are saying is that the long head doesn’t really benefit from stretch mediated hypertrophy compared to say the chest. I think people should just do it and base it off of anecdotes cause this debate is honestly annoying lol

@@DanBlabbers what you mean?

Science based lifting is just eggheads needlessly overcomplicating "lift heavy thing and eat protein" and patting each other on the back for doing it. It doesn't take a phD to discover that when you 🐴🐔weight you become a 🐴🐔.

@@VikVaughnMISC Who will do a better job of getting to the top of the mountain: someone who follows the path, or someone who mindlessly walks in a straight line until the top, regardless of the terrain and environment

@@minupakumarasinghe3446 That analogy works both ways.

you realize that not all peer reviewed studies are equal right? theres a lot of garbage studies with a p value thats insignificant and the population variation cant apply to the average person. You guys need to stop glazing science so hard LOL, I am a soft science major with two degrees and even in courses they tell you this. A lot of studies are created for funding further research and arent conclusive on results found because of how statistical data is important in reading data.

it's true--being able to think and speak that fast is a talent. but on the other hand, he's probably had this same exact conversation/spiel a million times

100%. A lot of them act like basic free weight exercises are inferior even though they’ve been used for decades. Also, depending on the machines available at your local gym, you may get to a point where you’re maxing out the stack if it’s on the lighter side. If that happens, how are you supposed to continue making progress?

⁠@@Soccastevemachines are generally safer… a lot of the time science based lifters aren’t maxing out machines because they aren’t ego lifters or they do slower and more controlled reps at much lower weight. That’s what I do and I can get close to maxing out a few machines at my gym but I like going lighter and slower

This is a valid point. There’s a lot of good (and not so good) information available to everyone for free that it becomes a little too much for beginners. But teaching them how to train smart from the beginning will maximize gains and reduce injuries. Keep it simple, but keep learning as you go

Not necessarily...some exercises are for specific additions to functionality or just any specific action

Anyone who is claiming that machines are better than free weights in the name of “science based lifting” aren’t actually referencing evidence based research. No study flat out says one is just better than the other. They both have their pros and cons, varying in results, and have their purposes. In some ways machines can be better for certain goals, in other ways they are not and hinder certain developments in ways that free weights don’t. In Jeff hypertrophy videos he only makes ranks some machines higher for the purpose of overloading, control, and not needing to use stabilizer muscles and therefore more weight can be added, this more tension to your muscles and can be controlled easier. That doesn’t make machines better, only potentially more effective for strictly hypertrophy development in a targeted area. The development of stabilizer muscles is still crucial for overall health, core strength, and development in power. If you want to generate more force, be more explosive, more athletic, you’ll need to have more variety than just machines.

That's science

Yes, cause that's why we all go to the gym, to train biceps

Dude I did that 3 days ago and my biceps are locked in their contracted positions...

8 hour arm workout ftw.

​@@trufortune6771😂😂😂

Nah he'll just talk while holding the carpet carry pose

@@LordHolley Jeff is not doing any of these things... He has help from 💉 & other PEDs.

The problem is people doing what makes them happy, sitting on a couch watching tv and eating junk all day.

​@@lukeautomata4396How do you know this? Do you have proof?

​@@Jahsurfer Proof is everywhere. Do a little research 🤓

​@@lukeautomata4396"I saw it in a dream"

It doesn't have to be complicated, tho. It just might seem like a lot if you're trying to learn it all at once. What this guy does takes years.

@@heehoopeanut420Good point this shit is for when your balls deep years in lol. Master the basics and then worry about these details later

@@JesseStevenTrumm3992 Hard disagree. Learning principles, effective methods and how to identify and properly manage issues is not just for advanced lifters. You just don’t need to learn everything all at once.

Yeah they never say HOW optimal using one method can be from another. Is the stretch good? Yes. How good? Might be 10% better which for the average gym goer is negligible. Statistical variances like this is rarely discussed.

@@michaelanthony4750it's probably closer to 1%

Yes and no. It's more that they can keep uping the dose and stacking compounds to overcome poor training, diet, edit, but eventually most still hit a wall. And most pros work with coaches who will at least follow the science even if it's not how they structure all their guidance.

Incredible that in a comment touting the benefits of science-based lifting, you push misinformation not only about steroid usage, but also about training as a natural, and somehow 7+ people agreed with you (presumably other science lovers). What peer reviewed study shows that anyone past the beginner-early intermediate stages puts on muscle no matter their methods if they're on gear? And if these studies only show gains no matter what in juiced beginners, how is that any different from natty beginners other than the rate of muscle acquisition?

And for the record, before anyone completely disregards the points I just made to make an ad hominem attack (which I'm absolutely sure no internet bro scientist would do), I am a science-based, lifelong natural lifter.

@@nimakay620 Bhasin Studies. The group that took steroids and didn't even lift, gained 50% more LBM on average than the placebo group that weightlifted. If you look at the individual results of the steroids/no lifting group in the 20 week version of the study, the worst responder to steroids gained 9 pounds of LBM, while the best responder gained 32 pounds LBM, without even lifting. Jeff Nippard also covered this, and mentions that 32 pound best responder, gained more muscle in 5 months of not-lifting, than Jeff Nippard has in 15 years of natural lifting... ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-VD9p9tEP9RE.htmlsi=iYlAsoCe6nsvy7Ut Jeff Nippard also mentioned it as well when talking about Sam Sulek (who has a LOT of improvement to make on his technique/diet). At a high level of enhancement, basically anything works. ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-ml5uvpfXcLU.htmlsi=qwLPFhDM6ypT75rF&start=275 As a personal trainer that works out 18-20 hours a week (I practically live in the gym), I've seen it with my own eyes as well. I've seen plenty of huge Roiders that train like casuals (3-4 hours a week tops, or even as little as 1.5 hours), with total garbage "bro-form" and technique (shit ROM, using bodyweight and momentum for their lifts, no controlled eccentrics, bad form, no advanced intensity techniques like drop-sets or myo-reps, etc), yet they keep getting bigger. These are guys who hopped on PEDs long before they learned good technique, and never saw the need to refine their training, because they kept gaining (largely due to the PEDs).

His physique hasn’t changed in the past 10 years though. Maybe he’s not trying to gain anymore size but you would think all this science based advice would make some difference.

he's also been lifting for about 2/3rds of his life. when you're natty your gains definitely slow down after a certain time... almost none of jeff nippard's naysayers have been lifting as long as he has and so they obviously can afford to progress quicker than he can. that doesn't mean he still doesn't look killer

Probably using too much shoulders/triceps on chest and too much rear delt/biceps on Back. Smith machine Bench usually helps with that for Back you should really Focus on pulling with your lats for example and keeping your Arms in a relativel, stable Position

Go lighter in weight try that for a couple weeks. See to many people going too heavy an having to use other muscle groups to help move the weight

for back it could be that you dont squeeze the weight on the top or its too heavy to the point your bicep and forearms are doing alot of the work, try going lighter and really feeling your back stretch and contract and control the eccentric, for chest try to get as deep of a stretch as possible, another thing you could try for chest is do a pre exhaustion set with any fly varient. hope that helps

The best way to feel a muscle is to slow down the eccentric, i.e, control the weight on its way down and go as deep as possible to get a full stretch and full contraction. If that doesn't work the weight is probably too light

Make your chest the highest thing when pressing, if your shoulder are more infront of the chest they will take over. And for back it’s hard to connect with but try reducing your weights and really try to lead with the elbow and get a good mind muscle connection and you should start feeling it a lot more, sometimes if your load is too heavy you will recruit a lot of other muscles to help with the lift x

And not being injured means more training and more gains

Mentzer is a scammer 😂

Emojis should be banned honestly

@@TurdBoi-tf5lf We should also ban homeless people while we're at it

Pro bodybuilding is all about genetic and drugs.

@@Han-nk3io Then when he trains other pros and himself, why does he bother with the stretch and the overly complicated mumbo jumbo, if it doesn't matter?

@@kidbrown2010 Everyone have to make money mate.

On the last part - he didn’t mention using machines will reduce your athleticism. You need those stabilizing muscles for balance and fine-control movements

Some people want EFFICIENCY, because we have lives beyond JUST working out. It's weird that's controversial. 🤨

Put the amount of weight on that you can do controlled reps with. Do those exercises that you connect best the muscle with. From time to time try putting on more weight on some with a spotter for 3 or so reps. Eat, sleep, repeat. Done.

@LucidStrike I think it gives people a false sense that they can get away with some miracle workout when all they lack is intensity and consistency. I dont think alot of people know what true failure is

@@LucidStrike You can have that same efficiency with barbells or dumbbells. Reduce your rest times.

Gear is definitely a science based approach. It’s literally chemistry and biology being optimized. Doing it natural is fine but the results suck as everyone knows and there’s not much scientific about it.

"Just lift as hard as you can with decent form"... in this part alone of your sentence you open a ton of questions that are the exact same thing scientist have been studying. How do you define "as hard as you can"? How do you find out "how hard you can" lift without f***ing your joints in the process? What is the amount of effort that is too low to yield results? What is "decent form"? How do you make sure you are engaging the correct muscles in a given exercise? So, in general... are science-based lifters overcomplicating or are gymbros oversimplifying?

Yep. There's nothing wrong with science based lifting per se, it is a very useful tool, but way too often I see some skinny ass guys doing ""optimal exercises" and never growing in size.

Its not complicated you just dont understand it

Except some of these people have shit genetics and will struggle more anyway, which is why they turn to science to get more out of their time and effort?

You’re confusing science based lifting with perfect form and lack of intensity. You don’t need to be so perfectionist with form especially at the end of sets, but you do need to control the negatives. And that is scientifically accurate, because muscles grow when challenged, if you end up maintaining the same form over a whole set well you most likely didn’t train with enough intensity.

You can still lift heavy with slow eccentric and stretch bias... science tells us what the most optimal way to grow muscle and/or strength. And this should be universally applicable since they tested these methods on thousands of people. Maybe your intensity was too low. Science based also means to have high intensity and working close to failure. Sounds like you forgot that.

High intensity is also science based lil bro

​@@bottomtext251That's not how you analyze statistics. It cannot be assumed that the results of population studies can be applied to individuals with certainty. They should only be used as a starting point.

​@@limitisillusion7 Genshin impact player detected

If you are seeing significant results in a month, you must’ve found some magic elixir.

@@richardjones9007 my biggest reference is arm and leg growth, which both grew 4cm (arm 35-39cm, leg 61-65cm). In the case of strength, my bench went from 30 to 70kg, squat from 80 to 140kg and deadlift from 60 to 150kg. Im am quite far from my goals, but I also advanced way faster than I expected

​@adriandiaz905 I haven't been tracking my size or weight, but I started doing more "science based" workouts aka ones from pros who won't hurt me lol about 6 months ago. I have been consistent, but definitely NOT maxing out or anything, and I've already noticed my arms and abs are more defined. I even lost like 10/15lbs without even trying to. I'm a woman, so the day I noticed my arms actually getting some tone was a HUGE motivator😂 I was also surprised at how quickly I was seeing results, faster than any other training I've tried. I love weights and calisthenics now❤

@samulhydenstein8208 i developed way quicker than a friend that has been lifting the same time as me, and one that has 5 months of experience

@samulhydenstein8208 thanks for commenting this so I don't have to

Google Image search: ‘Jeff Nippard with glasses powerlifting’, he was a teenager in that pic. You decide if he is natty or not.

Jet fuel can't melt steel beams.

Compared to the average lifter, sure. But Mike doesn’t even have a pro card and I don’t see Jared winning pro shows either. So that argument is completely invalid against or for their style of lifting.