Why does a potato physique who's not even natyy give bodybuilding advice? Stick to your lane

🎯💯

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

its a hobby

💯 if it’s not complicated no need for a middle man

@@joloshawnit’s a job

Fitness is g@y. Bodybuilding is where its at

Is easy as long as you are will do hard work. People are looking for the most bang for the least effort.

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

cool, just don't follow Mike's technique, it's horrible

😂

he is not old, dude

@@dmytrotkachov6859he has the spiritual qualification for elderly man yelling at the lawn-going exercise scientists status

Young man makes trite post on internet

@@yoeyyoey8937 old codger yells at lawn-going exercise scientists

It is its just a pic of his gym

@@Runner-Boy Ahh, the sweet, sweet satisfaction of being right about something stupid and pointless. Thank you for your confirmation!

​@@MalefiicusSTR he lives in texas so it's likely too hot for him to actually record from it right now

@@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 mean it is obvious "green screened" but it's his gym / garage or what ever you call it.

Aaaaaaand the election will go down without a hitch…

TATER TOT, MY GOD!

"sometimes, you just gotta lift heavy things" Me: *Lowers the Barbell OHP rep-range to 5-6* Less machines, MORE BARBELLS!

@@AMG-ko3gt IT'S THE MINDSET! IF MY GYM HAS BIGGER DUMBBELLS, I'M LIFTING THE BIGGER DUMBBELLS!

He brings balance back to all this tediousness.

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.

Mike has definitely off the money on several things

Pak is pretty cool tbh doesn’t take himself too seriously

@@legrandfromage9682 I like the guy's personality as well, but that's not the point! We're discussing their impact on training

⁠@@andrewmueller9986which is why he said ‘most’ not ‘every’

@@andrewmueller9986such as?

Right. Those are all things that we agree on specifically because we studied those things.

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

that is true for almost everything in every field, crazy discoveries are so rare that when they do happen we give out prizes

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.

30 reps is not Hypertrophy thats endurance and nothing more. Thats a waste of 25 reps for nothing 😂

based

Yes, this exactly.

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

@@AnUnknownPlayer.false

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

@@Axt3r If you aren't able to realize the logic of my argument then I'd question not only your lifting experience but also your intelligence

@@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

🐎🐓

Always has been

Damn, that means I have to start drinking a gallon of milk every day now. Pray for my toilet yall

Yeah that's why he jumped on roids

You're completely right but why should I care if someone else likes a more scientific, wordy version of that. Why should I give a fuck

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.

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

I don't know about _great_ results. Maybe _good_ results.

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 KZfaq 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.

Yeah, exactly the same thing stuck with me. Consistency is key. Go hard and don't keep program hopping.

Along with essential oils, strength focusing crystals and homeopathic steroids.

Gmod npc 😂

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.

Completely. The "icing on top" implies the other shit is maxed out... which it just never is.

L block periodization, just do concurrent periodization haha

@@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.

​@@gaelr.s7123Theyre both amazing. Do what you like, but come in with a plan, a goal, intensity, and consistency and youll succeed.

how is that legal

Haha. It's July in Texas. ILY guys but not that much

@@AlexanderBromleythat’s such an awesome detail and fitting for the vanguard of the enlightend gymbros 💪🏻💪🏻

I find that much more amusing than it should be.

I was wondering 😂

Dr. Mike does say in his videos to do what works for you, but to start at the best thing on average.

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.

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?

@@taylorhillard4868 Yes.

​@@taylorhillard4868One is entertaining, the other is the equivalent of watching paint dry

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.

Milo's clickbaiting is egregious.

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.

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 KZfaqrs 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.

@@DBaggns You must be trolling, otherwise you sound like an insane person. Everything you've written here is moronic.

@@DBaggns 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

Biby's shoulders are as big as his head, and on top of that, he ain't lean. But he found a way.

All pro strongmen are bigger than Mike yet they found a way​@@espenstoro

​@@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.

​ While incredible Bibi's bends ao much during his press that it looks more like a bench press.

@@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.

Elaborate?

never heard of him

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.

Jeez I really wrote an essay. A bit excessive, but whateva.

He gives extremely solid advice yes

I remember being a high school football player thinking i had the secret weapon over my rivals with Supertraining. Lol

You could only make it half way because you're weak.

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!

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

Soviets athletes were probably the closest thing to lab rats when it comes to exercise science

@@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.

How often? How much? When? How heavy? What type of movement?

"Large groups of studies" LOL so you haven't looked at a single meta analysis. Zero studies with pro bodybuilders, almost none with elite lifters, none tracking beyond very short time windows. Bad faith counter culture tactics? One of us knows how training works. The other is guessing.

@@AlexanderBromley That's absolutely true, every study I have ever seen has been not done on pro body builders, and any done on elite lifters appears to be from data scraped from some sources, and not actually interfacing with the lifter themselves. I have also not seen a study done over a long period of time. Everything there is a valid criticism. That in no way takes away from the point of a randomized and controlled study intended to interface with the general population is inherently meant to answer broad questions and give general advice that anyone can adopt. If anything, training people less naturally gifted in lifting under constraints that still yield improvements is a certainty to improve the performance of those actually gifted. You're argument would only apply if studies were done on the genetic outliers themselves. To address the meta study comment. There have been meta studies done on stretch mediated hypertrophy. Range of motion. Sets completed a week for muscle groups. All of these studies have not been inconclusive. There are clear findings. I'm certainly not aware of ALL of the meta studies done in this space, maybe there are more than I know to acknowledge that contradict my points? If I have time I'll try to link in some studies. Anyway, this is a big point I disagree with you on, but I absolutely love the content, been watching for three years now. Relaying your experience has been a godsend for my squat and deadlift. Thanks for your effort! Edit: I feel like I'm being too general and in not engaging with the crux of your point and am myself doing something in bad faith. Some context, I'm someone who can go to the gym, absolutely decimate myself in 3-5 sets of squats and be sore for 4-5 days. I workout with a work bud who can go do 10-12 sets for quads and recover (avg) 1-2 days. He just doesn't have that mental drive to absolutely go nuts in the set. He is, what I believe, the average person that most if not all studies in the modern space are designed for. Following those studies (more sets, longer range of motion, controlled eccentrics, 1-2 RIR, etc) he benefits from immensely. I personally do not gain as much from following "science-bros" or the latest study, because I am not in a position in which my training needs to catch-up or I am plateauing. But there are notions these studies explore which are an incredible boon, like; just do more sets if you want to grow larger in one area (nuanced, I know). But for people like my friend, it's pivotal to have these studies because they can explain why plateaus occur, and essentially create a checklist of "*well what is missing*" from his workout plan.

"Alex Leonidas faked his lifts".."Oops no he didnt" - Eric Bugenahagen "Stay natty guys, unless WWE calls you"

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

Most of the bs is widely known to be bs and Ex Sci hasnt studied most of it directly anyways. "Put faith in science" is a slogan. It doesn't mean anything.

Don't you think it would be fun to see what happened if these roided up dudes used more "strict" technique? Would be cool to see if there was a difference! Because as it is those roids are doing a lot of heavy lifting

No because people who know better know wouldn’t make a difference lol Jay Cutler, Dorian and Coleman and many other bodybuilders were massive AF and those 3 specifically trained differently If anything is consistent it’s steroids, consistency, isolating body parts, sleep, diet etc

Ronnie could not have gotten bigger. He peaked his body's limit for mass. You're delusional if you think steroids alone carried him to Olympia. Dr Mike is on a tonne of gear too, but he looks pretty awful in comparison.

@@Seabass_Mcmuffin have u read my comment man ? please , actually go read my comment and come back lol

@@Seabass_Mcmuffin have u read my comment man ? please , actually go read my comment and come back lol

I actually like Mentzer even if his later advice was just too ideological, the Gracies were that ideological and marketing focused from the start.

It's paralysis by analysis in practice. All these pop exercise-science guys like Mike and those who spin around his orbit are targeting mostly noobs who don't need those studies about possible (questionalble?) marginal gains, when all they need to do is to focus on most important basic things that actually gives you most results. Look, Mike would be more useful if he stopped pushing his theories to the masses (that he, btw, can't even put to practice properly for himself) and instead mention simple yet so important thing as bracing to his sheep followers