Anti-science lifting is at an all time high.
I’ve never heard this line so much: “Just lift hard. Don’t overcomplicate it.”
I’m sure many of you agree with that line, and there is some truth to it. But as the anti-science trend rapidly gains popularity, I wanted to offer my response to the 4 most common arguments AGAINST science-based “optimal training.” I hear these every day.
First, let’s be clear about definitions.
Optimal training is when you train with the goal of “optimizing” your results (i.e. making the best gains possible).
Science-based training is when you use scientific principles to form the foundation of your training.
Let’s start with the best argument against “optimal” training.
ARGUMENT 1: “I don’t have time for all that.”
This is totally valid. If your goal is to get in a solid workout in a time-efficient manner, then optimizing your workouts may not be best for you. “Optimal” workouts often use higher volumes and require more fine-tuning. If you are looking to get in and out of the gym quickly and are perfectly content with 80-90% of maximum possible gains, you can just train hard, pick tried-and-true exercises, use decent technique, and be consistent. That alone will get you most of the way there.
Luckily though, science doesn’t only help us optimize, it can also inform us on how to structure quick AND effective workouts. Here are a few tips for a minimalistic training approach:
- do fewer sets but push them closer to failure,
- use compound exercises that hit multiple muscles at once,
- use separated supersets,
- gradually reduce your rest periods over time.
ARGUMENT 2: “There are problems with exercise science studies (small sample sizes, noobie subjects, and weak methods such as EMG).”
True, there are problems with nearly every study. No study is perfect on its own. That’s why we shouldn’t base our entire training approach off of single studies. Instead, we need to look at the entire body of literature as a whole.
But even when looking at single studies, which is sometimes necessary, these concerns are still a bit overstated, in my opinion.
I do wish some studies had more subjects. Still, I get it – recruiting for studies is extremely hard work and it’s not easy to get subjects to commit. But again, this is only a real problem if you’re taking single studies and running with them. Once a large number of studies show similar results, we can be much more confident in the findings.
I should also mention that personal anecdotes from single bodybuilders have the smallest sample size of all (n = 1). So those worried about small sample sizes in studies should be equally, if not more, worried about the small sample sizes of single anecdotes.
Another complaint I often hear is that most studies are on untrained beginners, so the results don’t apply to experienced lifters. While there is some truth to this, keep in mind that most people engaging with the fitness community ARE beginners themselves.
Plus, I’m not sure I fully agree with the general claim being made here. The upside of doing studies on beginners is that it’s a lot easier to actually detect an effect within a reasonable timeframe. Studies on more experienced lifters are more likely to yield no difference simply because the subjects are closer to their genetic ceiling. This doesn’t mean there wouldn’t have been a difference over a longer time frame though. This complaint also implies that there is a switch that is suddenly flipped once you move from beginner to intermediate or from intermediate to advanced. There isn’t. For the most part, the same fundamental training principles that work for beginners usually work for intermediate and advanced trainees. It just takes longer for the effect to take place. Obviously, yes, there are differences in how I’d structure a program for each level of advancement, but the demarcation between each level isn’t nearly as pronounced as many think.
And then people will complain about the methods themselves, especially EMG. This can be valid. EMG, for one, hasn’t actually been formally validated as a predictor of long-term hypertrophy, so I think it should be used cautiously. I usually don’t bother referencing EMG in my videos these days, unless I really think it strengthens the case of pre-existing biomechanical knowledge or longitudinal hypertrophy studies. As of now, we don’t really know if EMG is all that useful on its own or not. I take EMG findings with a grain of salt and put more stock in long-term hypertrophy studies.
Remember, these limitations rarely imply that a study is useless, but rather that it shouldn’t be viewed in isolation. Also, remember that most issues that exist in scientific studies are multiplied in anecdotes from bodybuilders (not that anecdotes can’t ever be useful either).
ARGUMENT 3: “All this optimal stuff doesn’t actually make a big difference.”
Although this is sometimes true, I think it’s a straw man. I don’t think I, for one, have ever claimed that optimizing your training will always make a night and day difference when it comes to your final results. I’ve been saying for the last decade that training hard and being consistent are the most important things. Optimizing is the cherry on top. In my opinion, the biggest benefit of science-based training is that it can help you cut out the fluff that’s been proven to not work and focus on the stuff that really matters. Many training strategies have now fallen by the wayside because scientific enquiry has thoroughly debunked them. Doing away with ineffective methods CAN make a big difference in not wasting your time or money.
ARGUMENT 4: “Bro lifters look bigger than science based lifters.”
This is the worst argument. How big you can get is mainly determined by your genetics and your anabolics use. For whatever reason, more natural lifters use a science-based approach than enhanced lifters, so it wouldn’t be all that surprising if science-based lifters were smaller on average. I don’t actually think this is a safe assumption, though. There are plenty of super jacked science-based lifters and for every 250 lb “bro lifter” you see at 8% bodyfat on Instagram, there’s a deluge of “bro lifters” at your local LA Fitness who have been spinning their wheels for years.
It could also be true that people with worse genetics are more likely to turn to science-based lifting because they try the anecdotal “bro” methods first, get poor results, and only then seek out a better approach. By contrast, those with great genetics see good results right away, even on a sub-optimal plan, and never need to go looking for something better.
One last thing I just thought of – many people think that science-based training is tedious and boring, while bro training is exciting and fun. But, science tells us people are more likely to stick to programs they enjoy. So “optimal” and enjoyable actually shouldn’t be mutually exclusive.
>One last thing I just thought of – many people think that science-based training is tedious and boring, while bro training is exciting and fun. But, science tells us people are more likely to stick to programs they enjoy. So “optimal” and enjoyable actually shouldn’t be mutually exclusive.
I agree with all your points but you're underestimating the role of having fun quite severely. I am certain no one can have fun doing technique cyborg kind of stuff, it takes the humph out of everything. Maybe someone does don't get me wrong but I think for most people it's just a way for them to feel better than others at the end of the day.
This why programs like SS are so successful, they're all about the humph, the fun, hardwienering everything and they do a good job at channelling this fun spirit.
>shouldn’t be viewed in isolation
it would be legit point if "science based" lifters would not wank to a new trendy study immediately.
Just look how they went full 180 when new study on partials dropped.
>1 stooody
>enough to change your training paradigm
They're very serious empiricists though. The fact that they're chasing novelty like a functional fitness moron is a coincidence.
I'm moronic, and I can't read all that. What's the tl;dr?
Lift to failure and eat a lot
The science says you're wrong
Blud's DNA test came back 100% Yapanese
The most salient reasoning for anti-science lifting is simple. It's because midwits will take science to replace actual real analysis on life.
The choice with regards to a work out is not simply:
A - doing optimal thing
B - doing suboptimal thing
For 99% of people in their real life situations, there will also be:
C - I'm too tired to go to the gym
D - I can't decide so frick it
E - I'm a fat frick and I want pizza
F - I'll make it up later
...
And so on. Where CLEARLY just doing B every time instead of choosing C through F and beyond, would have already yielded results beyond their wildest dreams.
The problem is not science. The problem is people using science as a means to cope. In this fashion, science is no better than weight loss drugs, fad diets, muh genetics, or any generic excuse. Just a way to pin your hopes on something faraway, so you don't have to face the fact that there were at least a 100 obvious things you did last week that were detrimental to your goal.
This.
The best workout is the workout your actually doing.
Lifting isn’t complicated.
It’s simple but hard.
If your try to replace simple by complex in order to not work hard you will fail.
Just lift bro
>But even when looking at single studies, which is sometimes necessary, these concerns are still a bit overstated, in my opinion.
Your opinion would be wrong.
>personal anecdotes from single bodybuilders have the smallest sample size of all (n = 1)
n=42 or whatever other typical number of participants is just 42 anecdotes. Do a similar study a dozen times and then you have maybe 500 anecdotes. And lets face it, statistics can be wrong and has been wrong in its predictions before, especially when deal with such relatively small sample sizes. We reasonably, with a system that is fairly complex as muscle hypertrophy or strength gainz believe that these studies, even if many, necessarily given results.
Unfortunately, in spite of using small sample sizes, the authors tend not to publish individual results and just pretend the averages mean anything at all. Many of the studies may just be most participants performing similarly regardless of what is varied while the people who are relative hyper-responders (whether its some alleged genetic propensity to put on muscle or they're pinning test and haven't been caught) who make it into the studies just respond better to certain variations. The type of person interested in this type of research may just be more likely to be a hyper-responder. In other words, the studies don't prove anything. They really just end up showing who is and who isn't a hyper-reponder to exercise while it doesn't make a difference for anyone else. Everyone else just has to grind and deal with the slow rates of improvement or start pinning test and hope they respond well to test if they want to grow faster. You'll never know unless they start publishing their raw data.
>Another complaint I often hear is that most studies are on untrained beginners, so the results don’t apply to experienced lifters
You don't understand the problem. You can get gainz from doing anything as long as it's not too moronic. With the short time periods of the studies, you can get a lot of results that end up being a nothingburger for the real average beginner.
>most people engaging with the fitness community ARE beginners themselves.
You misunderstand what studies should be for. Not to give tips to beginners or as an excuse to write silly magazine article which is printed next to an ad for the newest color Rogue ab wheel. They should be there to determine and confirm effective exercise principles that will work even for advanced lifters who will not be sensitive enough to exercise to gain contractile tissue from jerking off with a different hand than normal like a beginner might. Studies focused on beginners fail to determine and confirm effective exercise principles.
shut up you fricking 4'11" goblin, 15 years of "science based" lifting and you put on like 10 pounds of muscle to look like average gymbro while having the frame of a child
This isn't OP's post, it's a psychotic youtube post from Jeff Nippard
How can you write this much cope and not be an internet troll?
This image should be forever enshrined in the Meme Encyclopedia alongside the articles for “Pseud” and “Midwit”
Man, he got absolutely ass blasted by Bugenhagen making fun of his bullshit videos.
Is he worried that his gimmick is running out of steam?
That’s a lot of cope. Studies are gay because they are undertaken by academics in sports science who are by and large fricking idiots.
As if he isn’t on gear. What a piece of shit.
I would be butthurt and psychotic too if I was fricking pocket sized.
How small is it? Can't be more than 5'3.
he's about two beds short
Dude is barely containing his laughter there
He always looks like that. I think this guy is borderline moronic.
Jeff is 5'6. You going to post him next to shaq next?
>5'6
No, you're not. Those guys are 6'1 max.
Lee Priest was said to be 5'4 and recently he was measured in person and was actually 5'6. This will be the same with Jeff mark my words.
his tiny calves holy SHIT
Is he mentally ill?
his response to argument 2 is pretty weak, especially considering that it's one of the strongest arguments against science based lifting.
the studies aren't replicated, they work on small sample sizes, and a lot of studies occur over short time periods. these are all legitimate concerns and in any other field of science would be have the conclusions of the study labeled dubious at best. he seems to understand in this post that "we shouldn't base our entire training approach off of single studies" yet in his videos he suggests changing routine because on the outcome of one study.
more like science based grifting lol
that's a lot of yappin OP. now answer why do girls do this?
she's bluffing, even she doesn't know
Asked wife. She says the reason is for a kiss. I'm 6', she's 5'-2"
how old is she?
by now, for sure she has hit the wall.
It's so the guy is forced to hold her hips. If they hug you over the shoulder you can't really put your arms elsewhere without making it awkward
Hasn't Corona taught you that science is all bullshit? How? Why?
test
Bodybuilders have ALWAYS been ahead of science. Observation and heuristic and self experimentation is just faster than scientific literature. Science can’t even figure out what people should be eating lol frick off back to R*ddit science gay
facts facts facts facts facts
Trust the ~~*science*~~ goy.
So what if scientists study about how optimal the non optimal training is? Does it make it optimal or non optimal, or science or anti science
theyd never be able to account for all the non optimal variables
It's hilarious how people can look at proven results and then say that the methods were wrong.
Not reading all that
Just wat less and move more if you wanna lose weight, you dont need sciencemen to tell you that tubby
Science is for braindead hylics
Jeff Niphard is a turbomanlet and a turbomidwit.
Lift heavy, lift hard, do compounds. That’s it.
Scientific facts change every 10 years or so. Scientific lifting is a waste of time. Experiment and use what works for you personally. That's your only option.
>troosting the sooience after the coof
anyone who listens to gym science is le ghey
gay
There is no real science when it comes to lifting. Midwit homosexuals try to use measurements and a scientific approach to make themselves feel smart and nerd out about it instead of putting in the suffering and hard work. They are pussies, so their "scientific" approach gives then no results, which they just blame on genetics because that's the convenient excuse for everything.
It's not about science vs anti science. It's about knowing how to train and proper nutrition, which is easy and only takes a short time to master, and then years and years of putting in the work like a maniac, which is something very few ever do.
All the science in the world doesn't mean shit if you skip workouts and slack on your diet.
Didn't Bromley point out that 'SCIENCE-BASED' content was boosted massively in the algo? And, of course, there's enough junk science to carry through any belief. These people just shove anything into their god-shaped hole.
Jeff nippard, eric helms and the rest of the natty "evidence based" online fitness community have made no gains on their "optimal" shit for the last 8 years straight
true. they have to use "science" to sell shitty programs.
Maybe they don't want to gain anymore
or maybe they can't get any more gains because all training theoryceling is a waste of time since it's all genetics
arnold and mike mentzer bench pressed 180kg as teens
their livelihood depends on their fans thinking they know what they're talking about and have secret knowledge
but there is no such thing
training frequency doesn't matter
training volume doesn't matter
training intensity doesn't matter
exercise selection doesn't matter
what matters is your genetics
Is anyone else taken aback by manlet roid troons. I always find it funny too that they think themselves to be authorities in the field of athletics or fitness. Like homie all you did was hop on gear and watch as your tiny frame maxxed out its gains in like a month cause it takes so little for manlets to peak.
not that they seek my validation but if someone had to use steroids or dnp or any ped to build their physique whether that was size, strength or diet, they are complete air to me. they have absolutely zero authority, expertise or knowledge on any subject. Unironically even if you are Mr. Olympia. Just look how Jay Cutler does bench press and the fact that he never had a program, he never had any rep goals, weight goals, nothing, he just showed up to the gym and decided on the spot how many reps he ends up doing and what weight he uses.
literally 100% of your credibility goes out the window the second you are not natural. THATS how big of a difference frauding makes.
>he just showed up to the gym and decided on the spot how many reps he ends up doing and what weight he uses
What a gymbro
my honest opinion:
1. 80/20
2. studies are irrelevant for the individual
3. based transcendence aka self hypnosis aka placebo works in 100% of the cases, while studies just show the average or median, which means following that advice can actually have negative impacts on your gains.
>according to [study] you should only do banded cable chest pullunders because they are the most optimal exercise
>look at the study
>8 new lifters evaluated over a period of 2 weeks
And that's why I take "science based" lifting advice with a grain of salt.
I just go into the gym and hit some variation of push, pull and legs all in one day making sure I don't repeat an exercise from last gym's session and if certain muscles are still sore AF I work around them then I take one day off and rinse and repeat
getting good results going hard as frick and doing multiple sets
Does science explain why he got cucked by the gymshark guy?
Absolutely ass blasted by horsewienering, succulent, dense, and based broscience
I do brosplits and I'm a sick c**t
Science is for nerds. Go back to the library and write your term paper. I'm trying to get big.
Why do these scientific fitness youtubers always recommend moronic exercises like "handstand cable crossovers for optimal hamstring stimulation".
These threads always feel like a deadlock between people who propose stricter moderation and people who consider that proposal a motte and bailey for complete elimination of wrongthink. I doubt that there's a solution that could satisfy both parties due to the exclusively cynical interpretation of the other party by both sides involved in the argument.
...kind of like the federalist vs. antifederalist debate, now that I think about it? Oppression vs. Liberty, or Law vs. Anarchy, depending on who you ask.
Whoops, wrong thread, sorry.
suboptimal.
I agree. Just lift hard and heavy. None of this high volume garbage. You can't lift hard on high volume and no one every has. Progressive overload has been the foundation of the real science of lifting and that's all it comes down to. Every single study uses it regardless of what they're testing because everyone knows it works as long as you're training hard enough. If you're getting stronger, you have to lift more weight to stay within your rep range. If you lift more weight, you'll continue to get stronger. Plain and simple.
"Science-based" lifting is the ultimate grift as it supplies an endless treadmill of content to make videos on as there are always new studies saying this or that, the studies being junk is irrelevant. If fitness influencers confronted the reality that strength and muscle building has been effectively solved (lift hard with progressive overload and eat and sleep well) for over 50 years they'd be out of a job. It's why so many of them are hyper obsessed with form and weird estoteric exercises because it's easier for their newbie audiences (who are by far the biggest consumers of influencerslop) to believe that there's some super secret technique or training regiment that'll make them jacked instead of the simple fact that they don't train hard enough.
>muscle building has been effectively solved (lift hard with progressive overload and eat and sleep well)
That doesn't mean anything. Everyone knows that already. The question is what's the specific optimal path to do this. What if I lifted hard for 500 sets per week? That fits your definition, but it wouldn't give me the same results as if I lifted, for example, 15 sets per week. I agree with the rest of your message, but it's stupid to oversimplify things. You're the fitness equivalent of those people who tell you to "just go read a book".
We do know how many sets you should do per week, it's 1-30 basically. Yeah genetic variation is a hell of a thing
it's actually 4+ sets (more not necessarily better) of 8-10 reps per muscle within a single workout once a week and any amount of sets with whatever frequency as long as it is below 4 sets but you will only find that information in studies in my language that i am not going to tell you
Optimal is going to be different for every individual. Your not going to find the answer in a journal. Anyway pareto principal, 80% of your results is just going to be the basic stuff. And most people won’t even do that right and will get no results. Bottom line, few people should be worrying about the minutia. And even if you’re somebody who should the answer is going to be in your personal experience in what your body responds to, not in a scientific journal with a study conducted on 30 couch potatoes with big variance in results even among the subjects.
knowing and doing are different things. it is not "oversimplifying" because the vast majority of people still can't do the "simple" stuff that has been "solved". Optimization is a meme, people will literally waste hundreds of hours how to put in the work than just putting in the work. you see this in the gym every day.
>strength and muscle building has been effectively solved
true. that's also why this board is so shit and barely on topic. most fitness questions for anyone outside the professional level are more or less solved so people shitpost about diets, martial arts, broscience, and lookism unmolested.
>Science-based training is when you use scientific principles to form the foundation of your training.
No it's when you trick yourself into believing you do this because you follow the results of some small study without anything to concretely determine that the result is replicate-able & not just causation or that the authors didn't bullshit about some variable or make something up, all to reach a conclusion that only applies as an average & might not even be applicable to you. Exercise science as a field is relatively garbage
Give it to me straight bros, do I Mentzermaxx? Was he right?
He was. I will never accept the opinion of someone who looks worse (all of YouTube ecelebs)
Ive yet to see one natty HIT maxer post his body in here
Not reading all your stupid comments but I just wanted to say the reason you don't make gains is because you don't have a progression scheme in place and get stuck doing the same thing over and over again.
Look up Wave, Step, Linear and many other progressions
Mucho texto
Didn't read.
Exercise science is a very insular field with 1 journal and 9 people who are authors. No one else is doing it, they're not doing studies that are relevant to non-obese males 18-40 with at least one year of prior training. So naturally no one gives a frick what they say.
>“Just lift hard. Don’t overcomplicate it.”
Been saying this for years but mostly just because no one likes a gymcel
I wish i knew where to get more info about this science based lifting stuff.
I normally just learn from tiktok.
that whatshisname on the left, the bald roider frick who invented rpe, and that tattooed calisthenics asian (heria?) are the holy triumvirate of soilifting
What's wrong with Chris Heria?
dyel who is making videos containing either gimmicks or the most basic information for impressionable normies
He has the physique of a god and great performance in calisthenics. Definitely not a dyel.
He is a dyel in a shirt
You literally get that physique (actually better) by doing wrestling in high school
I had that physique when i was 16 doing pirated fricking p90x with 12kg dbs and a chinup bar and eating whatever grandma cooked me
>when he hides his body with baggy clothes, he looks dyel
Great argument.
>baggy
lmao delusional zoomer thinks anything that isn't s-sized painted on underarmor is baggy
put an untrained person wearing same clothes next to him
the only size difference would be in untrained dude's gut size
he's literally a grifter with the body that any 16 yo that does any decent sport and doesn't stuff himself with twinkies, has
he bought a $4 mil miami condo by showing videos with proper staged light etc to moronic normies like you
i wish i had 0 self respect so i could do the same
ugly homosexual on sarms who has cringe videos and brand and tries to sell people his shitty app and calisthenics program
Roids at clinical dosage is science lifting.