honestly as much as i do ego lift every now and then (more do a weight i can’t hit a reliable rep goal for, i don’t try weight i can’t at least do a couple reps of unless i’m testing a max or something) i do believe that strict-form lifting is the way to go. at the very least it reduces injury risk from what i can tell, so that’s almost enough in itself.
You should go beyond muscle growth for that one, and include other variables such as joint pain, injury risk, mind-muscle connection, fatigue, etc. as longevity could be impacted by ego lifting.
I think ego lifting the positive and controlling the negative gives greats results and can get you to have a higher weight to strictly lift. At least that's what I do for things I'm weak in and I see a huge jump in growth and strength pretty rapidly.
@@nick2788I mean its basically a lit review not a meta-analysis of various studies. Jeff's review is more of a guide and tldr of what the field has established over the years and should be used as such.
This is a journal review not a study. A study is defined by original or novel research, a review is a summary interpretation of other published work. Might seem like a small correction, but it is an important one especially in the academic field.
It's a big distinction. It's basically just his opinion on the topic based on how he interpreted other peoples opinion or data. Calling this a "study" is misinformation. He may as well have written an article for Vanity Fair.
@@charleshill1906 narrative reviews still add value to the scientific literature. The authors still had to critically evaluate previously published studies to synthesize findings and draw evidence based conclusions. The article was also sent to peer review where the associate editor (an expert in the field) analyzed the article and then multiple peer reviewers also experts in the field analyzed the article. The authors likely had multiple rounds of revisions that had to be made before this final paper was accepted for publication. So to simply say “this is an opinion piece” is not valid and shows your lack of understanding of the peer review process.
@@brandonstroud4665 The fact that you would even give credence to the peer review process shows your lack of understanding of how corrupt and full of shit it is. The associate editor could have been some idiot from Kotaku and the "experts" don't even need to have credentials. You can literally make up all of that shit even using non-existent personalities to say your article was "peer reviewed." This happens all the fucking time. The peer review process is fucked. And even when it was somewhat reliable, it was used to heavily gatekeep by shutting down competition or to allow specific ideas in by removing barriers to access. This is an opinion piece and nothing more. Don't try and spin this as "peer reviewed" as if that has any weight in the scientific field. Until there is an ACTUAL STUDY with ACTUAL PARTICIPANTS in a comprehensive and double blind trial, then it's just opinions and speculation.
To put into context: a narrative review is basically a regurgitation of other papers. Obviously, they do have a place - mainly to summarize so other researchers/interested don't have to sift through the floods of papers themselves - but the way it sounds in the video might be a bit misleading to those not familiar with scientific publishing, as, in fact, no primary research was performed. And it's not a systematic review/meta analysis either. Now, he does acknowledge there is no study (or statistically comparable one's) yet on, for example ego lifting, but still.... Just to clarify, I'm not putting him down... just the subtextual message of the video implies (to my ears, subjective obviously) something a narrative review is not, and in the spirit of keeping it "science-based" I.thought it might be worthwhile to provide some context.
don’t think it’s that important tbh. you aren’t watching the video to determine what type of study he did you’re watching so you know how to build double D pecs
Although arguably these type of review studies are one of the most important type of studies in health sciences. They allow for a summarization and are an excellent bridge to (clinical) practice and are therefore just as scientifically valid as the other types. Does not take away from his achievement at all.
Emphasizing controlled negatives made my workouts feel so much better because my body felt so much better. Use the chest press machine to do heavy controlled negatives and you’ll feel your muscle fibers working like they’ve never worked before. This made by bench so much better because I could feel the correct muscles activating on the negative of my bench, leading to a better press with better form
I’ve found this too I’ve recently starting using a bench machine alongside benching and I feel I can actually target my chest muscles more with the bench machine. Carries over into the bench and my bench strength has actually increased as a result.
Full reps with Tempo plus half reps at the off beat for your final working sets will smoke you. Think ooooone…twooooo.threee(peak contraction/hold for few seconds and squeeze) (lowering back down)oooooone-(get to end of stretch almost/highest point of muscle activation/ squats would be parallel, bench would be pre lock out/ near nipples/pretty much the middle) pop in a few half reps(stay in that sweet spot and cook/sear them muscles) at a tempo like 3 times faster. Onetwothree. Then on like 3rd half rep go full stretch back to slow tempo. That would be one rep, Tom Plats/Serge Nubert are like the best teachers
Honestly. I used to do 10kg x 8 reps of bicep curls and wouldnt feel a thing. One day I tried to go really slow, maybe 4-5s a rep. You can guarantee I felt it for the next 2 days lol.
Funny you can watch the video to mention something in it but still not pay attention. He said it doesn’t matter as long as the weight is controlled. Doing a longer negative repetition is not creating anymore hypertrophy than just controlling the weight whether it be 1 or 2 seconds
@imuw5408 the thing his he didn't do any tests. He looked at already published research. In your example, that'd be like looking up a few tests that verify the constant, writing a paper agreeing with those tests, and publishing it.
Before i write a RU-vid Essay, Just Google the difference. I know it might Sound nitpicky to a Person Not involved in scientific Research, but it is very important to differentiate between different types of scientific papers. Reviews are often more opinion based than studys, and therefore might be more biased.
First of all, academically speaking “study” is the umbrella term for any academic work. So an academic review is indeed a study, although the opposite is not necessarily true. Secondly, literature reviews are hierarchically superior to empirical studies (the ones you’re referring to) - so he would be downplaying his work for comprehension’s sake according to your argument
Congrats Jeff been watching your channel for years and it’s great to see you hit a major milestone in your goals/passion thanks for some more great content
Review papers are very important and valuable though. But yeah. I am curious about the level of statistics that went into it. Since in some cases, the statistics can be more intense for that kind of paper.
@jonathanlochridge9462 you give too much credit into a paper. The only things that matter are randomized clinical trials grouped up into a systematic review which we get our medical/professional guidelines from
Of course the gold standard is randomized control trials. But part of the point of review papers is to collate and compare good studies in a systematic way. Now, they aren't anywhere near as valuable as replication studies. As even randomized control trials can't end up not replicating a surprising amount of the time. Placebos, and even administrator bias can end up being significant factors that can make a study invalid. Being single random at least is a good base line. But with exercise related tests that aren't pill or diet related. (a lot of those are still pretty meh.) To a certain extent it can be exceptionally difficult to make the study blind even if assignment into the groups is random. (The random part is pretty important.) Regardless a bogus study should be revealed by replication studies. Unless it's methodology is really really flawed. And last time I looked at the math, based on typical rates of papers later being disproved after you weed out fraud cases. The level of Bayesian confidence you get in a study which has been replicated can make up for lack of blindness in the study. Of course, another major issue in the sports training field is the difficulty with getting a wide, diverse training pool with enough people to really get generalizable applications. Having a more focused set of criteria that isn't too limiting can help. So, the odds are that any replication study on different people with the same methodology is more likely to have significantly different results. Although, you might still get the same kind of trend but with a difference of a degree or confounding noise. Even in the medical field. Drugs are required to go through multiple rounds of testing, which includes replication studies. Both on animals, and eventually humans. I am not a doctor or anything though. Now based on the field the statistical standards for significance can vary based on typical practical sample sizes. In some fields that can be pretty suspect. Although, even in very respected fields replication is a major issue. Anyways, Review articles are important, although of course they aren't a study. When done well, they can actually tell us more than a standalone study since the odds are that in a lot of fields in individual study has a pretty good chance of being wrong unless it has been successfully replicated. (Even that doesn't completely guarantee things.) And they serve as a great too for people to get a general idea of a field. And a great thing to do both as a new researcher. And to help other researchers identify reasonable and practical ways to contribute to a topic/question. It's been awhile since I watched this video though. Looks like the discussion has evolved since then, and from what people are saying it is more of a narrative rather than a systematic review And so looking at the intent. It seems more geared towards identifying gaps in knowledge and Trying to spur on further research by illuminating the current state of the research rather than giving strong conclusions we can take away anyways. @@ptbro3334
first authors are usually a phd student that needs a paper on the resume. The last authors are the PI who had the oversight. And most importantly/ideally, the researchers participate in the work and they all are entitled to the paper? I dont get why you'd say that only the first author has the right to represent the paper
@@anarbatzoriganarwith review papers especially, usually the first author writes most of it, certainly it's rare that the fourth author would have much to do beyond a minor review but maybe I'm just bitter? It is def not just PhD students that want first name author though, that's still important beyond postdoc until you get to be the last author.
Well you didn't find much of anything tbf. You summed up a bunch of inconclusive studies which, btw, you all said should be taken with caution. Even your main marketing niche, which is training at longer muscle lengths, literally said that the current literature on training at longer muscle lengths is limited and shouldn't be taken literally yet. Yet you speak in absolutes. There simply isn't enough research (and there probably won't be for a while). Not saying you are wrong, just that it is irresponsible and misleading to speak in this manner, when you don't have enough evidence to support your claims.
@@jsmr451 Full ROM is highly subjective, full functional stretch also depends on the exercise and resistance profile, the eccentric should always be controlled but not exagerrated. It is very difficult to discuss this as it can quickly be misinterpreted. My current viewpoint is that it is important to incorporate exercise with a longer and shorter resistance profile, saying that one is inherently better than the other is still speculative. Maybe I was too harsh in my original comment.
@@fred6907 The only goal of this short is to get more followers and customers, he knows that nobody will read it or even give a shit about what he said here, he just want more people to see him as a better expert than other youtuber/coach/merch
A review summarizes and discusses the findings of many existing studies, but contains no new data. To produce a new study you need to collect and analyze new data.
In regards to the ego lifting study, here’s my hypothesis: - it’s not optimal for muscle growth, because it’s true that muscle grows through direct tension on the target muscle -ego lifting does place some tension on the muscle, but because it can be too heavy the tension is not directly on the target muscle, either through compensating with a breakdown in form / technique or momentum moving the weight through range of motion -there’s some use though it the beginning motion because you do need muscle to begin the motion, but it’s going to be better for direct muscle growth. -AND there’s a higher risk factor for injury I could be over simplifying it, and I’m definitely leaving out a bunch of other factors. But that’s my short hand hypothesis
Thank you bro! I have been learning a lot in these past couple of days because of you! I am getting inspired, encouraged and motivated! I am certainly getting some quality guidance!
I acknowledge your shoulders and chest are astounding. And having a face which is that easy on the eyes increases my desire to work 5X harder just to look Half as good as you. Don’t take this news too hard Jeff. Congrats on looking so good. Hard work pays hard. Truth be know. You are one of the most knowledgeable man on social media. And I have seen so many. Your one of the best of the best. You make it easy to understand for people like me who tend to overthink everything and drown in our own minutia. Peace gratitude and lots of love to you.
