The Most Ridiculous Attack On Science-Based Lifters
Вставка
- Опубліковано 8 вер 2024
- People criticize science-based lifters for being smaller, but your genetics and anabolics use are the biggest factors in determining how big you can get. This is a clip that didn't make the final cut from my full video with Jesse James West!
Jeff & Dr. Mike have elevated my diet and workout routine to new levels. I wish I had this information when I was a young buck but I’m glad I got it now.
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
I think where people get confused is they assume “science-based lifting” means that the intensity is less. You can still hit the same intensity training optimally, you just aren’t wasting effort. There’s literally no downside to it other than looking a little goofy at the gym sometimes.
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
People will trust science for everything except for building muscles for some reason
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 can't see anyone ever saying "Jeff youre too small I'm not gonna listen to you "
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🤔😅
JEFF SCIENCE SQUAD 💀🍻
@@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💀
The fact that there's even a science/non-sciene backed dichotomy I so funny to me XD
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.
Personaly when i started following jeff and getting more into science based lifting, it helped my body to gain muscle better
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😅
Dude Jeff and Mr Mike are literal heroes in my eyes
So many people say they just talk about the same thing
Yes, they talk about those points in particular because they are so emphasized and amazingly important when it comes to working out.
But they also debunk misinformation spread by popular influencers, while showing what the data says.
Influencers like Liver King, V-Shred, or AthleanX, even some legends that data shows are incorrect.
They talk about the fake supplements that you shouldn't be wasting your money on, like fat burners. They talk about why it's important to train close to failure and how most people are unfortunately not working hard enough. They talk about dieting and how much protein you need to effectively build muscle. They talk about the resting period you need for muscles to progress and grow.
They talk about progressive overloading and how to properly track your progress. They talk about how much volume a beginner might need compared to an intermediate or advanced lifter. They talk about and explain myths about bulking and cutting, or body recomposition.
They are absolute pillars in the fitness community for anyone who wants to take working out casually or seriously.
Because keep in mind, not only was this information not widely spread or given in the past, but so many people fall victim to these 10-minute ab crunch workouts, thinking they spot-reduce fat, when that's inherently not true.
Most importantly they answer questions that people like you and I pose to them while being completely transparent and qualified to do so
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
Jeff cavalier isn't bad in my opinion at least the early days I don't really work out channels anymore I just am constantly taking in new research myself so it isn't necessary for me
Glad we have you Jeff, we need iconic lifters like yourself who put a good face forward for all us natural lifters.
Mario Rios bout to have an aneurysm 😂
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.
Insane physique, jeff.
Keep up, mate, you help a lot!
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 wish I had science based advice when I was in my teens , I've quit lifting many times now I'm 46 and I and gaining more than my 20s by listening to science ❤
I'd say Jeff's take can also explain some people's distrust in science in general - it challenges their intuitions and preconceived biases. This leads to some placing their trust in "bad science", or worse, outright misinformation and disinformation.
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
Another perspective:
Science based lifters base their knowledge on other people's science.
Non science based lifters base their knowledge on their own experiences. What feels good. What gets the most activation. What gets the best results. Because they experiment on themselves, they'll build a training formula that works best on themselves.
imagine if the general public had seen transistors and been like, "nahh that looks goofy as hell, that's just a gimmick. tf you gonna use those for?"
Your lateral raise advice has really helped me
The best response I’ve heard in my whole life
I never knew people would be against science based lifting. I don’t understand how people can see something like “this study just found that doing this makes you 15% stronger” and just go “nah”
"Science" really just means peer studied, tested and proved through testing rather than just anecdotal evidences. People ridicule science based lifting but still go to the doctor when they're sick. That's ironic.
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.
Jeff you’re the best fitness UA-camr and have been for years! The amount of free information you give out has been so helpful in my training and I have picked up so many methods I never would’ve known about.
Hey man can you make a video on addressing overhead tricep extension targeting the long head. Started doing them thanks to your vids but starting to see conflicting guidance circulating online. Thanks in advance!
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?
This account is next level, I needed this
The only thing i would criticize on science based lifting promoters is the overcomplication of simple stuff. Sticking to the basics is the best aproach.
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.
Just ignore everything and do curls until you can't lift your arms anymore. Works everytime.
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😂😂😂
Bro went all in 💀💀💀
Honestly the science side for me isn’t about maximising hypertrophy, it’s about minimising injury risk whilst still getting that hypertrophy.
And not being injured means more training and more gains
Do what makes you happy. At the end of the day, you don't need to make it over complicated. Lift, make your muscles tired, eat healthy, rest, and you will grow. I'm in my 50s and that still works.
@@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"
I love listening to this guy,
I always learn something different every time.
Attack on Science the new anime: Jeff about to bite his own hand and go crazy in the gym.
Nah he'll just talk while holding the carpet carry pose
I still think most influencers who claim natty aren’t being honest. They only take small doses. Not enough to blast themselves up and make it obvious. Just enough to give them an edge, keep them lean while maintaining muscle mass, and be able to give naive people a hope that hard work and optimal training can make them look like that. At the end of the day, social media influencing is their paycheck and people will do what they have to in order to keep the bag.
The only issue i believe with science based lifting is it makes working out too intricate & takes unnecessary effort to understand. You can simply stick with the basics & get similar if not equal results. The basics include being consistent, hitting each muscle & go hard enough to get tired
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%
How could you even question someone that does scientific research for anything compared to someone just guessing? 😂
Elite-level natural lifters are almost exclusively science-based lifters, because that's what it takes to reach the Elite levels as a Natty.
Once you reach the Intermediate-Advanced stages, you have to continously refine your technique and diet to continue progressing, which naturally leads to a science-based approach.
Guys on steroids can basically grow no matter how they train (this has literally been shown in studies), so a lot less of them are science-based. They can keep on making the same mistakes with training/diet/rest, and yet still keep growing, that's how powerful steroids are.
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...
ua-cam.com/video/VD9p9tEP9RE/v-deo.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.
ua-cam.com/video/ml5uvpfXcLU/v-deo.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).
jeff enunciates so well for speaking so fast
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
Nippard is such a goat, holy shit... Absolute legend. Priceless to the bodybuilding community.
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
Wow, this video was a lot!
I agree with our man Jeff doing must of the talking. People who exercise/lift and workout using science, rather than people who use supplements and train until failure are vastly different. The “Science-based lifters” while smaller, yes, have way more natural muscle because they train muscles with calculated exercises, they eat portioned and healthy meals, and they don’t train until they collapse. Also, if anyone knows what calisthenics is, this will really help with the explaining here, as calisthenics (I believe from definitions I’ve heard and my own self-connotation) are exercises or workouts that replicate movements done in the real world that ancestors would have down to survive, like pull-ups and such, so they build natural, useful muscle rather than muscle for looks. All and all, TL; DR, they both have solid arguments, but going to the gym should be about self-improvement and whether or not you’re happy with how you look, rather than what others think.
Mike Mentzer, before the fall, was the *Main Man.*
Mentzer is a scammer 😂
You are the best!!!!! Love all the work you do man!!! THANK you for everything ❤
Moto rows are the worst exercise you’ve ever approved 😭😭😭
Emojis should be banned honestly
@@TurdBoi-tf5lf We should also ban homeless people while we're at it
Beautifully put. After really delving into the science based stuff I've seen my gains really start to take off in a way they never did before. Further, I've learned more about the foundations of hypertrophy such that I can build my own plan rather than constantly program hopping/shopping.
Why dont i ever feel my back or chest in the gym?
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
I always tell my friends, don’t listen to the huge dudes that grow from just looking at a weight. Learn from the super skinny guy that added 20-30lbs in 10 years. He’s the one that had to try everything and see what works and what doesn’t
Meh dr mike gets washed each time he competes in an open bodybuilding show and he is on a whole lot of roids…I don’t think you can justify the small size of science based lifters with roids bro 😂
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.
I have been training for under a month, with science based advice, and progress has been incredibly fast.
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
I find it cringe when people over science lifting.
Move some weight and do it with consistency and intensity.
Its really not rocket science, rather human nature to make everything we do seem like its way more complicated than it actually is.
I understand people have committed theyre lives to moving steel plates around and that means everyday they have to try find some new way to make it seem much deeper than it is.
A perfect example is when he says there's no difference in hypertrophy between machine weights and free weights. I disnt need a study to tell me that moving weight is moving weight
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.
Jeff and Dr. Mike have helped me break into elite level lifts
"They're just bigger because they're on juice waaaaaah"
Literally the biggest 'science based bodybuilding' channel almost exclusively has roided up people on the channel
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.
Great argument and I'd add, in reference to natural lifters generally being smaller, the world's best coaches aren't usually the best athletes. When things don't come naturally you have to work harder and smarter to achieve your goals.
My biggest gripe with science nerds is that frankly if you just lift as hard as you can with decent form and eater good diet you will get 70 to 80% of the results without an insane amount of effort. I feel like the final 20% of results require many more times the effort than the initial 80%. Sometimes it feels like people just over complicate everything and are polishing the chrome so to speak.
"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?
yes or no answer question turned into whole book
To make a blanket statement like science lifters are small because they aren’t on steroids is an ironically unscientific statement. There’s absolutely no correlation between science based lifting and being natural or ego lifters and enhanced. Also I would argue most guys who lift following the science are bigger at my gym. Also what quantifies a science based lifter? A large portion of the science based advice when I started lifting is completely different than it’s now. Back 5-10 years ago it was all about peak contraction and what exercises get the most muscle recruitment and activation. Is science based lifting just chasing the flavor of the week as it pertains to the newest study that comes out? Because now it’s all about full rom and extremely slow eccentric movement and loading the movement in the stretched position. Go back to Jeff’s old stuff it just talks about doing stuff like one armed cable pulls for back because on one obscure study it showed highest muscle activation. It’s all very confusing for new lifters who really should just be showing up, working hard, and following some kind of program.
I love this guy. And since I been watching him and his tips on lifting I’ve felt and seen better results.
I did science based lifting for a while, and didn't get much results, then i lifted as heavy as I could with slightly worse form and got much better results. I think it differs from person to person
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
Ruben is an absolute Legend.
As a comic artist, I actually use your videos to apply better flowing anatomy.
AND to guilt-trip myself for not hitting the gym anymore.
But mainly art.
Just putting out there how many different people you inspire, keep up the great work!
Hypertrophy being the same between free weights and machines is reassuring for someone who workouts at home.
What an incredibly well spoken man, he clearly maxed out str, chr and int
Honestly I love your content so much more since applying your methods and training , along with some of Will Tenny’s….. and being natty is so much more rewarding I find!
science-based lifting is about to be my best friend
“Which shows no difference in hypertrophy by the way” just love how he slipped that in 😂
Love your stuff bro
I've been lifting for decades. But thanks to following new advice from Jeff, Dr. Mike, and others, I'm bigger than I've ever been. People think I'm juicing, but it's just very consistent and careful training and nutrition.
Jeff and Dr. Mike are great! They seem to have a focus on bodybuilding though. Is there anyone else like them that’s more “functional fitness” oriented without the focus on hypertrophy?
Science based lifters trying to justify their favourite flavoured crayon
Jeff is one of the realest people in the game today 💯❤ I hope it stays that way 🙏🏼
Sick vid as always
Jeff🔥
the science stuff might feel overwhelming or gimmicky and thats why it might be turning people off.
gimmicky in a sense like if you measure every meal to the last gram, that seems excessive/gimmicky/unproductive.
overwhealming in a sense that i already got a lot to think about and this adds so much on top of it with seemingly so little purpose (kinda like the 20/80 rule)
I'm with you, Jeff!! I now go with science based methods of exercises and actually I start to see others slowly start to imitate and incorporate some of them into their own workout. The consistency and the visible results on me are what they believe in. Seeing is very much believing for most people.
God bless you guys and I am so glad God made you all!
"Science-based lifters are like their research, paper-thin"
Yeah, because they're not on gear💀💀💀
I think both are great, you got one natty and one not natty using similar approaches and both with great results. I am a software engineer and a powerlifter and natural, so these guys are right up my alley.
Imagine Jeff starting gear. With his genetics and knowledge he would dominate the entire bodybuilding scene.
Google Image search: ‘Jeff Nippard with glasses powerlifting’, he was a teenager in that pic. You decide if he is natty or not.
When DR JEFF speaks… you listen as hard as you can
I'm so proud of all the science based lifters. Keep doing what you're doing brothers. Keep it clean. Always. Stay strong! 💪🏼
When i started out lifting(as a lifetime natural lifter), my slows were really slow at first. It was only once i started following and applying science based lifting from people like Mike Israetel, Jeff Nippard etc. that i really started gaining size fast.
When I started working out. I had the mentality of eat a lot and train a lot. I had a decent physique but it wasn’t great. Then I came across good ol Jeffy. Binged his videos and try some of his workout routines he had in vids. Then he started selling his workout routine. I gave it ago. And holy cow, my physique changed into something I didn’t think I could ever do. I love Jeffy
Jeff looks so irish that brain hears him with an accent
Science is the reasons those other exercises worked, most of the time we’re doing the same exercises just with a different range of motion or weight or something, we’re still moving the same muscles just trying to hit them more directly
Because Jeff Nippard science-based workout videos, I was able to get the form I wanted. Kudos to him!
Science is literally what you are doing when lifting. It’s like baking a cake: you can do it correctly and make a tasty cake, or you could add your own ingredients and maybe still make a tasty cake, but it can be weird. Lifting naturally based on science is the recipe to get big and strong, using steroids and only doing good looking/heavy exercises will still get you big, but it’s probably not gonna be the most appealing
Immediately made me think of Sam Sulek imitating Jeff and shitting on him 😂😂😂😂😂😂
This is such a great explanation 👏
Jeff Nippard & Mike Israetel by far the best. Keep it up bud we all love this, love the science, and love you
"I don't quit until something snaps or breaks" -Dwight Schrute
Doing something in a way that you think is best for you does not necessarily mean you will be better than everyone else. It just means you can be the best of yourself.
Jeff and Jeremy ethier are always my go tos ppl when it comes to workouts
No matter what anyone says , never listen to enhanced lifter , steroids took and keep them where they are
I watched Jeff videos back in 2017. I remember someone called me out that I was on steroids because I had huge physique improvement in just 9 months 😅
Free weights require a bit more thqn machine weights. Neuro connections are markedly increased due to balancing/ stability
“Nothing worked for me until I stuck a needle in my butt” - the other trainer I lost clients to and within weeks they all wound up injured and quitting
I mean Science-based lifters are smaller compared to juiced up folks, but I wouldn't DARE to call our bro Jeff "small", his tshirt is fighting for its life around the pecs and the arms 😂
Its also worth thinking about, that you don't know exactly which muscles you use andHOW you use them, until you either learn their functions or develop them.
Example. I got into a car wreck when i was younger. Knee slammed against the dash and otherwise I'm fine. However, me being the boney guy I am there no cushion. Straight bone/ joint impact into a corner of plastic. One of my tendons is now pinched directly on the side of my knee joint. Every so often it locks ups, and i cant bend my knee until I slowly force it to pop back into place (and it's a loud pop. Tendons are scary.) From one small muscle irregularity, my joint can completely immobilize itself.
Same thing with your back, arm, hip, even neck muscles. You need to both understand HOW they function, and then train them to function better and more efficiently than they do by design. You can lift all the weight in the world, but if certain muscle groups aren't conditioned to shift or support weight properly, you can very easily fail. That's why a full body workout is so crucial to bodybuilding. You have to selectively engineer and refine your body to be as strong and capable as it possibly can be.
Then of course, some people's genetics make things complicated out of the gate. Science is important. "Many rep of heavy weight" =/= gains at all times.
people who think science is a gimmick = flat earthers
Jet fuel can't melt steel beams.
A lot of science based lifters just don't train hard enough
To be a science based lifter and average size is wild
If you put two natural lifters next to eachother, one science based, one bro based, I would bet every time the science lifter will have over all more muscle, evenly distributed, and also have more mobility and possibly bigger muscles in comparison. For sure the science based lifter will have much more defined legs and glutes. Maybe the bro will have larger muscles in some isolated areas because they only work on that area for their aesthetic goals. So they'll have huge biceps or pecs, while having no hammies, calfs, or abs.
So the secret formula is to be a science based lifter while being on gear. Thanks jeff!
A big thing people don’t realize is that you don’t need to go to the gym and lift heavy weights to work out your muscles and build strength just use the muscles you need to build up, yes, it is easier to build specific muscles up with specific workouts with specific weights, but that’s just it; specifics. Target the area you want to work out and just use the muscle.
I've been watching Jeff and Dr Mike for a few months now, one of my friends who is what you could describe as a "gym bro" quite often disagrees with them...and that's why he doesn't have any formal education and Jeff and Dr Mike do. I'll keep listening to them, and let the gym bro talk his talk, and enjoy my gains.
Google the definition of the word science. You will find that the etymology is: know.
I lift based off of science.
I lift based off of knowledge.
Using science is the same thing as using what you know and different things work for different people.