You know, for a subculture so devoted to science and shit, there is surprisingly almost no content based on real, actual fitness sources like pro athletes or male models in fitness circles. In fact, it's all youtube grifters and middle aged guys on steroids.
What gives? There are no threads about actual workout routines used by current or past pro athletes or bodybuilders. I think once or twice a year, there's a thread about Arnold's or Mike Tyson's supposed routines, always without sources and more questions than answers. That's it. Similarily, there are never threads about actual male model diets and how they are done. Just quasi-religious stuff about teenager/housewive fad diets like veganism and keto.
So, what gives? What is wrong with fitness culture? Shouldn't there be books, articles nd threads about pro athletes and how they diet and work out? Or male models? Or top level bodybuilders? But there isn't, and there never was in all the years I've been here or on any other fitness forum/board. It's all hearsay and marketing.
Pretty weird, huh? Makes you wonder who's behind this whole show.
Broscience is unironically more trustworthy than modern ~~*academia*~~. These are the same people telling you dietary fat and cholesterol is bad for you and sugar is good for you, and then telling you to eat bugs (high in cholesterol) and onions.
>American reading comprehension
The entire thread could be summarises as do steroids
You're all pathethic hicks
Also America is a nightmare, but don't act like Europe is anything worthwhile
You have to be 18 to post here. Take this half baked shit back to middle school
There is not much you can learn from other people. The content is for people who want others to do the work for them.
>There is not much you can learn from other people.
Zoomer mentality in a nutshell lmao.
Are you talking about fitness in general or IST?
In general, there are plenty of youtube channels, e.g. Sika Strength, Juggernaut Training, Gaby Q, Will Ratelle, Zack Telander, Elitefts.
As for IST, nobody here is fit or lifts.
Listening to science over experience/observation is a founding myth of fitness. It wouldn't work any other way.
Why? Because all champions train in ways that are the opposite of what science says.
They'll say "Champions have such good genetics that they succeed despite their workouts, not because of them."
It's all hot bullshit of course, and exercise science is total crap. You should totally imitate champions instead of reading studies, but that's not how the fitness scene works.
Due to fitness being an autist hobby, science is the most important thing. Doesn't matter if it works, as long as there are studies supporting it.
And that's why everyone is fat and weak nowadays.
>"Champions have such good genetics that they succeed despite their workouts, not because of them."
this is 100% accurate though, at least in that genetics are the #1 make-or-break factor for elite athletic performance. you can never work hard enough to outperform your genetics. if you don't have top 0.0001% fast twitch fibers and the right proportions you'll never run a sub-10s 100m or c&j 200kg+ no matter how hard you train or what programming you do or what drugs you take
you see a lot of people who have those elite genetics doing weird shit because their genetics are so powerful that as long as they work hard doing something they'll keep progressing and they will conflate their weird programming or idiosyncratic technique with their success when they either aren't related or even actively harming their progress. this is especially prevalent in sports where genetic talent plays the largest role like sprinting vs team/technical sports like basketball.
Because it’s all genetics and steroids. You could train for 10 years and never run a sub 11 100m meanwhile a random kid who’s never played a sport a day in his life runs 10.5 his first time
You either have it and can get it doing whatever you want training wise, or you don’t.
The only source that's helped me is Lyle Mcdonald.
Guy is an absolute wiz at dissecting bad research and applying physiology and diet to exercise for methodology that works for natties. He pretty much solved non-cardio fitness 20 years ago and has stood firm and crazy on that hill forever. So if nothing else I believe him. And think given the options he's the best choice for people looking to expand their knowledge of lifting and diet. Although he does rant and rave he's consistently right and that's all he needs to be.
>CICO
Why are Americans so obsessed with the Atwater system? It boggles the mind.
>non-cardio fitness
>exercise methodology
why are you so obsessed with vivo?
Pilly takey.
>The only source that's helped me is Lyle Mcdonald.
So, did he train anyone of note? No? Why are you listening to him, then?
Natties aren't of note anywhere, and he's been out of fold for like 15 years. Still literally everyone apes his shit and claim they aren't. One of the downsides of being right is that if people with better marketing copy you they're also right and throw their guys on peds and they're "more right". It's irrelevant in this world who you've coached if randos can't get results with what you teach. You're the rando not the genetic elite they've picked from hundreds of applicants
So he never trained or coached anyone of note, but everyone repeats his bullshit, that must mean he's correct.
Do you even listen to yourself?
No one with a shred of self respect would stick with coach who's as abusive and bipolar as Lyle. That does not mean he's wrong. I give zero shits if he's the worst coach in the world, if he produces advice that I can follow and produces results. Which he does. That's the only metric you need. Not some shit that only works for outliers on peds.
Here’s a book I haven’t read yet, but was thinking about getting
Again, no clients of note, he's a nobody.
>pro athletes
you are not a pro athelete, and you will never be. Also their "general training" (i.e. not sport-specific) is usualy neutered because the head coach is afraid of injury, and the athlete has long been "strong enough". Hence the bullshit you see them do (bands, bouncy balls etc.), since it looks like it would do something, even though it does nothing (produces no useful adaptation that the athlete would not already have).
>focused on science
"""exercise science""" is a joke. Seriously, read it, it's all inductive garbage with zero chance for a controlled environment and dubious methodology at best, and it shows in how ridiculous and contradictory their results are.
All those people use trainers. And trainers/coaches put out most of the material that I've seen.
Most athletes I've met don't know shit about programming or exercise theory, they just do what's on the whiteboard and leave after skipping their conditioning.