honestly as much as i do ego lift every now and then (more do a weight i can’t hit a reliable rep goal for, i don’t try weight i can’t at least do a couple reps of unless i’m testing a max or something) i do believe that strict-form lifting is the way to go. at the very least it reduces injury risk from what i can tell, so that’s almost enough in itself.
You should go beyond muscle growth for that one, and include other variables such as joint pain, injury risk, mind-muscle connection, fatigue, etc. as longevity could be impacted by ego lifting.
I think ego lifting the positive and controlling the negative gives greats results and can get you to have a higher weight to strictly lift. At least that's what I do for things I'm weak in and I see a huge jump in growth and strength pretty rapidly.
@@nick2788I mean its basically a lit review not a meta-analysis of various studies. Jeff's review is more of a guide and tldr of what the field has established over the years and should be used as such.
This is a journal review not a study. A study is defined by original or novel research, a review is a summary interpretation of other published work. Might seem like a small correction, but it is an important one especially in the academic field.
It's a big distinction. It's basically just his opinion on the topic based on how he interpreted other peoples opinion or data. Calling this a "study" is misinformation. He may as well have written an article for Vanity Fair.
@@charleshill1906 narrative reviews still add value to the scientific literature. The authors still had to critically evaluate previously published studies to synthesize findings and draw evidence based conclusions. The article was also sent to peer review where the associate editor (an expert in the field) analyzed the article and then multiple peer reviewers also experts in the field analyzed the article. The authors likely had multiple rounds of revisions that had to be made before this final paper was accepted for publication. So to simply say “this is an opinion piece” is not valid and shows your lack of understanding of the peer review process.
@@brandonstroud4665 The fact that you would even give credence to the peer review process shows your lack of understanding of how corrupt and full of shit it is. The associate editor could have been some idiot from Kotaku and the "experts" don't even need to have credentials. You can literally make up all of that shit even using non-existent personalities to say your article was "peer reviewed." This happens all the fucking time. The peer review process is fucked. And even when it was somewhat reliable, it was used to heavily gatekeep by shutting down competition or to allow specific ideas in by removing barriers to access. This is an opinion piece and nothing more. Don't try and spin this as "peer reviewed" as if that has any weight in the scientific field. Until there is an ACTUAL STUDY with ACTUAL PARTICIPANTS in a comprehensive and double blind trial, then it's just opinions and speculation.
To put into context: a narrative review is basically a regurgitation of other papers. Obviously, they do have a place - mainly to summarize so other researchers/interested don't have to sift through the floods of papers themselves - but the way it sounds in the video might be a bit misleading to those not familiar with scientific publishing, as, in fact, no primary research was performed. And it's not a systematic review/meta analysis either. Now, he does acknowledge there is no study (or statistically comparable one's) yet on, for example ego lifting, but still.... Just to clarify, I'm not putting him down... just the subtextual message of the video implies (to my ears, subjective obviously) something a narrative review is not, and in the spirit of keeping it "science-based" I.thought it might be worthwhile to provide some context.
don’t think it’s that important tbh. you aren’t watching the video to determine what type of study he did you’re watching so you know how to build double D pecs
Although arguably these type of review studies are one of the most important type of studies in health sciences. They allow for a summarization and are an excellent bridge to (clinical) practice and are therefore just as scientifically valid as the other types. Does not take away from his achievement at all.
@imuw5408 the thing his he didn't do any tests. He looked at already published research. In your example, that'd be like looking up a few tests that verify the constant, writing a paper agreeing with those tests, and publishing it.
Before i write a TH-cam Essay, Just Google the difference. I know it might Sound nitpicky to a Person Not involved in scientific Research, but it is very important to differentiate between different types of scientific papers. Reviews are often more opinion based than studys, and therefore might be more biased.
First of all, academically speaking “study” is the umbrella term for any academic work. So an academic review is indeed a study, although the opposite is not necessarily true. Secondly, literature reviews are hierarchically superior to empirical studies (the ones you’re referring to) - so he would be downplaying his work for comprehension’s sake according to your argument
arbitrary statement, semantic smooth brain argument- a review is a study of other studies- Definiton of 'Study': a detailed investigation and analysis of a subject or situation- a synonym of study is to 'contemplate' they studied plenty on their review of the pre-established scientific literature, this isn't opinion it is fact that both 1.this paper has 42 references of scientific fact and 2. youre braindead
@@ssigaprv8669it still isn’t a study academically speaking. Technically it’s an opinion formed from looking at the results of studies. It’s still useful though as it condenses information and the inferences he made can be tested with a study further down the line.
@@walkermorales337 What Im wondering is all of you keep saying this, but how do you know he didnt conduct actual tests and studies? He clearly works out, has 4M subs & with that is likely well connected & has access to things many wont. How do you know he didnt do any surveys or specfic tests with multiple people. Unless you guys have already read it ? Or is it because thats what he usually does in videos so he must of done it here?
Review papers are very important and valuable though. But yeah. I am curious about the level of statistics that went into it. Since in some cases, the statistics can be more intense for that kind of paper.
@jonathanlochridge9462 you give too much credit into a paper. The only things that matter are randomized clinical trials grouped up into a systematic review which we get our medical/professional guidelines from
Of course the gold standard is randomized control trials. But part of the point of review papers is to collate and compare good studies in a systematic way. Now, they aren't anywhere near as valuable as replication studies. As even randomized control trials can't end up not replicating a surprising amount of the time. Placebos, and even administrator bias can end up being significant factors that can make a study invalid. Being single random at least is a good base line. But with exercise related tests that aren't pill or diet related. (a lot of those are still pretty meh.) To a certain extent it can be exceptionally difficult to make the study blind even if assignment into the groups is random. (The random part is pretty important.) Regardless a bogus study should be revealed by replication studies. Unless it's methodology is really really flawed. And last time I looked at the math, based on typical rates of papers later being disproved after you weed out fraud cases. The level of Bayesian confidence you get in a study which has been replicated can make up for lack of blindness in the study. Of course, another major issue in the sports training field is the difficulty with getting a wide, diverse training pool with enough people to really get generalizable applications. Having a more focused set of criteria that isn't too limiting can help. So, the odds are that any replication study on different people with the same methodology is more likely to have significantly different results. Although, you might still get the same kind of trend but with a difference of a degree or confounding noise. Even in the medical field. Drugs are required to go through multiple rounds of testing, which includes replication studies. Both on animals, and eventually humans. I am not a doctor or anything though. Now based on the field the statistical standards for significance can vary based on typical practical sample sizes. In some fields that can be pretty suspect. Although, even in very respected fields replication is a major issue. Anyways, Review articles are important, although of course they aren't a study. When done well, they can actually tell us more than a standalone study since the odds are that in a lot of fields in individual study has a pretty good chance of being wrong unless it has been successfully replicated. (Even that doesn't completely guarantee things.) And they serve as a great too for people to get a general idea of a field. And a great thing to do both as a new researcher. And to help other researchers identify reasonable and practical ways to contribute to a topic/question. It's been awhile since I watched this video though. Looks like the discussion has evolved since then, and from what people are saying it is more of a narrative rather than a systematic review And so looking at the intent. It seems more geared towards identifying gaps in knowledge and Trying to spur on further research by illuminating the current state of the research rather than giving strong conclusions we can take away anyways. @@ptbro3334
Full reps with Tempo plus half reps at the off beat for your final working sets will smoke you. Think ooooone…twooooo.threee(peak contraction/hold for few seconds and squeeze) (lowering back down)oooooone-(get to end of stretch almost/highest point of muscle activation/ squats would be parallel, bench would be pre lock out/ near nipples/pretty much the middle) pop in a few half reps(stay in that sweet spot and cook/sear them muscles) at a tempo like 3 times faster. Onetwothree. Then on like 3rd half rep go full stretch back to slow tempo. That would be one rep, Tom Plats/Serge Nubert are like the best teachers
Honestly. I used to do 10kg x 8 reps of bicep curls and wouldnt feel a thing. One day I tried to go really slow, maybe 4-5s a rep. You can guarantee I felt it for the next 2 days lol.
first authors are usually a phd student that needs a paper on the resume. The last authors are the PI who had the oversight. And most importantly/ideally, the researchers participate in the work and they all are entitled to the paper? I dont get why you'd say that only the first author has the right to represent the paper
@@anarbatzoriganarwith review papers especially, usually the first author writes most of it, certainly it's rare that the fourth author would have much to do beyond a minor review but maybe I'm just bitter? It is def not just PhD students that want first name author though, that's still important beyond postdoc until you get to be the last author.
Congratulations on your first published article. I subbed back in 2017 when i first started lifting. I was looking for a YT channel that was big on evidence based research to help guide me. Just wanted to say thanks man, and I’m looking forward to what your next paper shows. 👍
Many compliments on the publishing Jeff!! Been following your channel for a long time, master degree in chemistry working out 3 times/week. Keep going man 💪🏻 Cheers
Congrats Jeff! I'm a trainer and I've been following you for years, thanks for all of your contributions to educating so many, staying objective, unbiased, and research-based as you do it! 👏
@@fred6907 He's a TH-camr man, he doesn't have a PhD in exercise science, physical therapy, or something related. This information is valuable. I think you just need to understand what the reasonable threshold here is and be happy for someone accomplishing something they've wanted to for a long time. You probably have an awful relationship with yourself if you feel the need to rain on his parade so I'd focus on that bud.
@@fred6907 The only goal of this short is to get more followers and customers, he knows that nobody will read it or even give a shit about what he said here, he just want more people to see him as a better expert than other youtuber/coach/merch
Well you didn't find much of anything tbf. You summed up a bunch of inconclusive studies which, btw, you all said should be taken with caution. Even your main marketing niche, which is training at longer muscle lengths, literally said that the current literature on training at longer muscle lengths is limited and shouldn't be taken literally yet. Yet you speak in absolutes. There simply isn't enough research (and there probably won't be for a while). Not saying you are wrong, just that it is irresponsible and misleading to speak in this manner, when you don't have enough evidence to support your claims.
@@sadbravesfan Yeah, he's lying to your face because in the video the title of the article and mentioned throughout specifically emphasizes that it is a REVIEW. "Optimizing Resistance Training Technique to Maximize Muscle Hypertrophy: A Narrative Review" A "review" is NOT a "scientific study." It is a review. A review is one of the lowest tiers of evidence as it's nothing more than the author's opinion based on data they are interpreting. It's not a systematic review where massive amounts of data is poured over and analyzed objectively to find flaws in study data. It is not a meta-analysis which does much of that same shit. It's an opinion paper no different than if he was to write an article for some random magazine or internet website.
Jeff, between your programs and your videos, you’ve changed my life! As a man going through a slight midlife crisis, the gym has been my savior and your knowledge has been the guide. Thank you
Wow. We are NOT bullshiting here are we? As scientific as it can get! More power to you. Hopefully I can support you monetarily once I get a job. Thank you so much ❤
So stoked to run the ego lifting study. Do you think ego (cheat-form) lifting or strict-form lifting will result in better muscle growth?
honestly as much as i do ego lift every now and then (more do a weight i can’t hit a reliable rep goal for, i don’t try weight i can’t at least do a couple reps of unless i’m testing a max or something) i do believe that strict-form lifting is the way to go. at the very least it reduces injury risk from what i can tell, so that’s almost enough in itself.
2024
MUSIC
You should go beyond muscle growth for that one, and include other variables such as joint pain, injury risk, mind-muscle connection, fatigue, etc. as longevity could be impacted by ego lifting.
I really want strict-form lifting to be proven better across the board. But, part of me is really worried about ego-lifts coming out on top somehow
I think ego lifting the positive and controlling the negative gives greats results and can get you to have a higher weight to strictly lift. At least that's what I do for things I'm weak in and I see a huge jump in growth and strength pretty rapidly.
My man took it to the next level.
Way to go 💪
1.5 likes with no replies. Here u go 😊
Frfr, proud of him for being so dedicated to promote fitness and releasing a study regarding the same
5.7k likes and only 2 replies??
Let me fix that
7.5k likes and only 3 replies? Smh
he didnt do a study its a review
Amazing work Jeff!! Doing incredible work for the lifting community, not to mention how great it is having your own study published
It’s a flawed study
@@nick2788ok scientist
@@nick2788I mean its basically a lit review not a meta-analysis of various studies. Jeff's review is more of a guide and tldr of what the field has established over the years and should be used as such.
@@nick2788 how so, I haven’t read it fully yet
he didnt do a study its a review
This is a journal review not a study. A study is defined by original or novel research, a review is a summary interpretation of other published work. Might seem like a small correction, but it is an important one especially in the academic field.
It's a big distinction. It's basically just his opinion on the topic based on how he interpreted other peoples opinion or data. Calling this a "study" is misinformation. He may as well have written an article for Vanity Fair.
He's just profiting off the misleading people that's it. Real researchers barely make much money publishing actual results
Totally agree@@charleshill1906 especially when you read the content of the review
@@charleshill1906 narrative reviews still add value to the scientific literature. The authors still had to critically evaluate previously published studies to synthesize findings and draw evidence based conclusions. The article was also sent to peer review where the associate editor (an expert in the field) analyzed the article and then multiple peer reviewers also experts in the field analyzed the article. The authors likely had multiple rounds of revisions that had to be made before this final paper was accepted for publication. So to simply say “this is an opinion piece” is not valid and shows your lack of understanding of the peer review process.
@@brandonstroud4665 The fact that you would even give credence to the peer review process shows your lack of understanding of how corrupt and full of shit it is. The associate editor could have been some idiot from Kotaku and the "experts" don't even need to have credentials.
You can literally make up all of that shit even using non-existent personalities to say your article was "peer reviewed." This happens all the fucking time. The peer review process is fucked. And even when it was somewhat reliable, it was used to heavily gatekeep by shutting down competition or to allow specific ideas in by removing barriers to access.
This is an opinion piece and nothing more. Don't try and spin this as "peer reviewed" as if that has any weight in the scientific field. Until there is an ACTUAL STUDY with ACTUAL PARTICIPANTS in a comprehensive and double blind trial, then it's just opinions and speculation.
Jeff: "I published a study"
Real Life: ''I contributed to a review"
😂 It's funny cause it's true
😂😂 he dont know difference btw review and actual research paper 😂
You: "I shit on other people's accomplishments because I'm a low-life troll." Get lost
Did yall hear anything he said? Control the negative! 😂
To put into context: a narrative review is basically a regurgitation of other papers. Obviously, they do have a place - mainly to summarize so other researchers/interested don't have to sift through the floods of papers themselves - but the way it sounds in the video might be a bit misleading to those not familiar with scientific publishing, as, in fact, no primary research was performed.
And it's not a systematic review/meta analysis either. Now, he does acknowledge there is no study (or statistically comparable one's) yet on, for example ego lifting, but still....
Just to clarify, I'm not putting him down... just the subtextual message of the video implies (to my ears, subjective obviously) something a narrative review is not, and in the spirit of keeping it "science-based" I.thought it might be worthwhile to provide some context.
Yep , but people are stupid enough to believe this random youtuber . I doubt this guy could perform an actual study.
don’t think it’s that important tbh. you aren’t watching the video to determine what type of study he did
you’re watching so you know how to build double D pecs
Interesting thank you
That's some great info on this, thank you! So could it be considered a small meta analysis? I mean I assume not, im just wondering why exactly
Although arguably these type of review studies are one of the most important type of studies in health sciences. They allow for a summarization and are an excellent bridge to (clinical) practice and are therefore just as scientifically valid as the other types. Does not take away from his achievement at all.
Thats Not a study. It is a review.
Tomato Tomato. I believe we constantly test gravity to verify the constant. Is that study or review?
@imuw5408 the thing his he didn't do any tests. He looked at already published research. In your example, that'd be like looking up a few tests that verify the constant, writing a paper agreeing with those tests, and publishing it.
Before i write a TH-cam Essay, Just Google the difference. I know it might Sound nitpicky to a Person Not involved in scientific Research, but it is very important to differentiate between different types of scientific papers. Reviews are often more opinion based than studys, and therefore might be more biased.
But isn’t it a review of a study?
First of all, academically speaking “study” is the umbrella term for any academic work. So an academic review is indeed a study, although the opposite is not necessarily true.
Secondly, literature reviews are hierarchically superior to empirical studies (the ones you’re referring to) - so he would be downplaying his work for comprehension’s sake according to your argument
Using the muscles fully gives big results. What a surprize!
Congrats on the publication!
Congrats on your first publication Jeff! 🥳
Congratulations on the publication!!
Congrats Jeff!!! I know how tough it is to get published, being a researcher myself (albeit in a different field). That’s huge. Respect.
Well done Jeff. You somehow keep taking our training to a whole new level
what a milestone! congrats on your publication
definitely deserving of high praise, this is something that we meed more of!
Dude. I'm so happy for you. We all appreciate what you're doing for us.
I am just happy about the fact that jeff is using playboi carti's 2024 beat in this 😂 his music taste is next level
I caught that too😂
Fr
I peeped that too
PUTEM ON THE NEWS OR SUMN 🗣️‼️
Carti is booty cheeks
This isn't a study, it's a review. Which is opinion, not science.
I mean, It's Good enough for TH-camr.
arbitrary statement, semantic smooth brain argument- a review is a study of other studies- Definiton of 'Study': a detailed investigation and analysis of a subject or situation- a synonym of study is to 'contemplate'
they studied plenty on their review of the pre-established scientific literature, this isn't opinion it is fact that both 1.this paper has 42 references of scientific fact and 2. youre braindead
But he probably took a lot of other studies into account while doing this. I don‘t believe this is based on his opinion. So is it still no study?
@@ssigaprv8669it still isn’t a study academically speaking. Technically it’s an opinion formed from looking at the results of studies. It’s still useful though as it condenses information and the inferences he made can be tested with a study further down the line.
@@walkermorales337 What Im wondering is all of you keep saying this, but how do you know he didnt conduct actual tests and studies? He clearly works out, has 4M subs & with that is likely well connected & has access to things many wont. How do you know he didnt do any surveys or specfic tests with multiple people. Unless you guys have already read it ? Or is it because thats what he usually does in videos so he must of done it here?
Awesome man! Congrats on the publication.
Woah!! Congrats Jeff. So proud of how far you’ve come 🎉🎉🎉❤❤❤
It's a Review paper, not a study.
Review papers are very important and valuable though.
But yeah.
I am curious about the level of statistics that went into it. Since in some cases, the statistics can be more intense for that kind of paper.
@@jonathanlochridge9462, did I say they are not important? They usually don't make any new discoveries 🤷🏻♂️. Especially in the era of LLMs 😬
@jonathanlochridge9462 you give too much credit into a paper. The only things that matter are randomized clinical trials grouped up into a systematic review which we get our medical/professional guidelines from
Of course the gold standard is randomized control trials. But part of the point of review papers is to collate and compare good studies in a systematic way.
Now, they aren't anywhere near as valuable as replication studies. As even randomized control trials can't end up not replicating a surprising amount of the time.
Placebos, and even administrator bias can end up being significant factors that can make a study invalid. Being single random at least is a good base line. But with exercise related tests that aren't pill or diet related. (a lot of those are still pretty meh.)
To a certain extent it can be exceptionally difficult to make the study blind even if assignment into the groups is random.
(The random part is pretty important.)
Regardless a bogus study should be revealed by replication studies. Unless it's methodology is really really flawed.
And last time I looked at the math, based on typical rates of papers later being disproved after you weed out fraud cases. The level of Bayesian confidence you get in a study which has been replicated can make up for lack of blindness in the study.
Of course, another major issue in the sports training field is the difficulty with getting a wide, diverse training pool with enough people to really get generalizable applications.
Having a more focused set of criteria that isn't too limiting can help.
So, the odds are that any replication study on different people with the same methodology is more likely to have significantly different results.
Although, you might still get the same kind of trend but with a difference of a degree or confounding noise.
Even in the medical field. Drugs are required to go through multiple rounds of testing, which includes replication studies. Both on animals, and eventually humans.
I am not a doctor or anything though.
Now based on the field the statistical standards for significance can vary based on typical practical sample sizes. In some fields that can be pretty suspect. Although, even in very respected fields replication is a major issue.
Anyways, Review articles are important, although of course they aren't a study.
When done well, they can actually tell us more than a standalone study since the odds are that in a lot of fields in individual study has a pretty good chance of being wrong unless it has been successfully replicated.
(Even that doesn't completely guarantee things.)
And they serve as a great too for people to get a general idea of a field. And a great thing to do both as a new researcher. And to help other researchers identify reasonable and practical ways to contribute to a topic/question.
It's been awhile since I watched this video though.
Looks like the discussion has evolved since then, and from what people are saying it is more of a narrative rather than a systematic review
And so looking at the intent. It seems more geared towards identifying gaps in knowledge and Trying to spur on further research by illuminating the current state of the research rather than giving strong conclusions we can take away anyways.
@@ptbro3334
@@jonathanlochridge9462facts
Congrats on the first study, and thanks for sharing findings
Well done mate💯🙏
jeff is a blessing to the community honestly
How
congrats on the publishing!
I've been waiting to see some published work! Great job man! The science community isn't ready for the masterpieces yet to come!
Finally, someone talks about lifting tempo. This really works and makes a huge difference in results. Great job!
Full reps with Tempo plus half reps at the off beat for your final working sets will smoke you. Think ooooone…twooooo.threee(peak contraction/hold for few seconds and squeeze) (lowering back down)oooooone-(get to end of stretch almost/highest point of muscle activation/ squats would be parallel, bench would be pre lock out/ near nipples/pretty much the middle) pop in a few half reps(stay in that sweet spot and cook/sear them muscles) at a tempo like 3 times faster. Onetwothree. Then on like 3rd half rep go full stretch back to slow tempo. That would be one rep, Tom Plats/Serge Nubert are like the best teachers
Honestly. I used to do 10kg x 8 reps of bicep curls and wouldnt feel a thing. One day I tried to go really slow, maybe 4-5s a rep. You can guarantee I felt it for the next 2 days lol.
Bro wasn't even first author and called it MY STUDY
first authors are usually a phd student that needs a paper on the resume. The last authors are the PI who had the oversight. And most importantly/ideally, the researchers participate in the work and they all are entitled to the paper? I dont get why you'd say that only the first author has the right to represent the paper
He is second last in the list, so he was probably the least involved in the review.
@@anarbatzoriganarwith review papers especially, usually the first author writes most of it, certainly it's rare that the fourth author would have much to do beyond a minor review but maybe I'm just bitter? It is def not just PhD students that want first name author though, that's still important beyond postdoc until you get to be the last author.
Why would you feel the need to downplay other peoples’ accomplishments?
@@lorenzotorri605Because Jeff is indirectly downplaying the accomplishment of creating an actual study
Congratulations! Absolutely outstanding work. Super excited for the next study. 🙏
Congratulations on your first published article. I subbed back in 2017 when i first started lifting. I was looking for a YT channel that was big on evidence based research to help guide me. Just wanted to say thanks man, and I’m looking forward to what your next paper shows. 👍
Congrats on the publication of your study. Thanks for all you do
He published a review, not a study. Big difference. Also, he didn't do the paper by himself.
Awesome to see you published your own research! Are you going to make a longer video discussing this, more in depth?
The publisher’s gotta make their money. Pay up to read the article! (unless it is open source)
He hasn't done any research himself, just amalgamation of previous research to provide a summary.
Many compliments on the publishing Jeff!! Been following your channel for a long time, master degree in chemistry working out 3 times/week. Keep going man 💪🏻 Cheers
Congratulations! Happy to see you contributing to the industry in a positive and meaningful way!
Congrats on the first published study Jeff!!🎉
It's a review paper, not even close to a study.
THIS IS HUGE NEWS!! CONGRATULATIONS!!!
Congrats Jeff! I'm a trainer and I've been following you for years, thanks for all of your contributions to educating so many, staying objective, unbiased, and research-based as you do it! 👏
Your physique is my target physique and David laid it so symmetrical and perfect fit!
So awesome to hear that you completed and published your first study!!! This is so exciting!
Except he didn't. He published a review, with several other peopel. HUGE difference.
@@fred6907 I hope you find someone that loves you
@@kyleschuette1667 You're ok with someone who flat out lies about his "study"? You need better standards my man.
@@fred6907 He's a TH-camr man, he doesn't have a PhD in exercise science, physical therapy, or something related. This information is valuable. I think you just need to understand what the reasonable threshold here is and be happy for someone accomplishing something they've wanted to for a long time. You probably have an awful relationship with yourself if you feel the need to rain on his parade so I'd focus on that bud.
@@kyleschuette1667 Again, he is flat out lying in his video so there is nothing to be happy about.
Thanks tons for your service, sir
Nothing but RESPECT 🖖🖖
Congratulations on being published! BTW- I totally agree with your findings!
I used to always do strict form, but I did some ego reps on a row machine yesterday n 24 hours later I can definitely feel the soreness in my muscles.
Bro 5th author 😢
6th
that was my first observation as well LOL
Yall are some professional haters 😂😂😂
On a REVIEW paper, not even a study. The guy is full of himself.
@@fred6907 The only goal of this short is to get more followers and customers, he knows that nobody will read it or even give a shit about what he said here, he just want more people to see him as a better expert than other youtuber/coach/merch
Congratulations man that's so big!!
Now that optimal lifting tempo window is genuinely interesting. I'll be keeping that in mind when I lift
Great job Jeff been looking at your material for years you really out did yourself every year keep up the good work
I love the fact that you bring the scientific method to your audience and you keep it brief and digestible.
Congrats mate!
love this man...
congratulations on your publication, Jeff my man
Congratulations Jeff, that's a feat! Awesome that you're pursuing your passion this throughly and sharing useful info with us. Thanks.
You can’t claim the whole study when you co-authored as secondary. Give props to all the writers
It's not even a study. It's a review paper
Their names are on the paper too
been waiting until I was 37 to get this study so I can start working out, Thanks.
Congrats on publishing!
Well you didn't find much of anything tbf. You summed up a bunch of inconclusive studies which, btw, you all said should be taken with caution. Even your main marketing niche, which is training at longer muscle lengths, literally said that the current literature on training at longer muscle lengths is limited and shouldn't be taken literally yet. Yet you speak in absolutes. There simply isn't enough research (and there probably won't be for a while).
Not saying you are wrong, just that it is irresponsible and misleading to speak in this manner, when you don't have enough evidence to support your claims.
Congrats JEFF 🎉 we need more studies like this one 🫡
The fitness industry at its finest.
wicked hyped for the next study!
Holy shit, so impressed! Keep up the amazing work!
Bro went from bodybuilder to scientist
No.
This is just a review paper
Jeff's source: "Trust me bro."
**hands over his scientific study**
Review. Not a study. It's just an opinion piece.
@@charleshill1906he specifically says scientific study
@@sadbravesfan Yeah, he's lying to your face because in the video the title of the article and mentioned throughout specifically emphasizes that it is a REVIEW.
"Optimizing Resistance Training Technique to Maximize Muscle Hypertrophy: A Narrative Review"
A "review" is NOT a "scientific study." It is a review. A review is one of the lowest tiers of evidence as it's nothing more than the author's opinion based on data they are interpreting. It's not a systematic review where massive amounts of data is poured over and analyzed objectively to find flaws in study data. It is not a meta-analysis which does much of that same shit.
It's an opinion paper no different than if he was to write an article for some random magazine or internet website.
Congratulations on getting published. Well done!
Thanks for all that you do, bringing more info to the people than the majority that step foot into the industry. GG's
keep up the solid work Jeff.. you're having a positive influence on the fitness community amid a lot of BS out there on the internet
Congratulations man! Been watching your channel for a couple years now and also studying science, you're making moves across the board x
Your program is the best. Running it right now.
Congrats on being published Jeff 👏
Congrats! I’ve always really enjoyed the scientific rigour of your videos!
Congrats on the publication
Congratulations! Looking forward to many more studies in the future.
You mean review papers?
DUDE, I'M SO HAPPY FOR YOU. Congrats!
Dude!! That’s so awesome! Congratulations!!! 🎉
subbed for straight forward content with no BS. Thanks :D
congrats on being published Jeff!
Jeff, between your programs and your videos, you’ve changed my life! As a man going through a slight midlife crisis, the gym has been my savior and your knowledge has been the guide. Thank you
Great work, good to see this published sans available to all of us!
Definitely earned a sub after this video your voice is just so soothing
Well done! Been a follower for a while now, keep going bro 💪🏾
Congratulations Jeff for your contribution to the review!
Love your work. Ive been implementing your tips for a couple years
Amazing, super happy about this as it confirms that my technique at the gym has been right. Thanks for sharing!
Wow. We are NOT bullshiting here are we? As scientific as it can get! More power to you. Hopefully I can support you monetarily once I get a job. Thank you so much ❤
Looking forward to seeing the next study
Wow getting published congratulations bro 🎉you do great work I look forward to reading the study sir 💪🏽
Big man. Super well done 👏. I'm super happy for you. You deserve the credit.
Needed this one Jeff! Thanks 💪🏾 🙏🏾
Congrats Man! Hard work pays off! 🎉
Props on getting a narrative review done
Big Congrats on solid work and scholarly effort.
CONGRATS! Thanks for bringing science to the TH-cam community!
Congrats big time! You've changed my life
Awesome bro! You’ve been doing a great work. Keep it up 💪🏼
Nice man! That's exciting! Congrats 💪🏽
Happy to see you succeed bro, you’ve been working too damn hard for YEARS
Congrats my man! I wish you all the best
Everybody already knew this for some time lol but looking forward to the next one you described!
Thank you Jeff! You doing great work!
Haven't seen your videos in a while but you have gotten big, your back looks more developed since watching over a year ago
Ty Jeff. Appreciate the work you do
Outstanding! You really love to see it. All I can say is thank you.
Nice Jeff!! Congrats! Keep it up