Get my books "Base Strength" and "Peak Strength" at www.empirebarbellstore.com Blog and FREE checklist at www.empire-barbell.com JOIN OUR Facebook FORUM! / 1515457825463939
The big problem is 99% of the people that watch "science based" fitness videos don't actually do any research after the fact. They trust the personality on the channel and assume they wouldn't lie to them.
@@Amish_Avenger Yep, the whole "trust the science" nonsense that people are parroting. Science that can't be questioned isn't science, it's just propaganda.
@@samj8932 Yep, easy to "debunk" something when you purposely misinterpret the data. Egotism and narcissism are well represented in the field of science. Throw in government funding and you get a lot of "scientists" making shit up so they can appease a political narrative and keep the "free money" flowing.
Most of the "science based" community is basically a lot of TH-camrs that are subscribed to MASS talking about topics on MASS. Here is the deal . The guys on MASS are Greg Nuckols,Eric helms, Mike zurdos, etc. They are real world coaches and athletes who use their experience together with their academic background to go through studies, check how they are conducted and give some practical applications. They go through the methods of the studies in order to show the viewer how to decipher these studies because most of the studies are lacking! Mike israetel is another good example of science based guy that values individual experience and difference. Also a good real world coach. If there is something that is proven is that multiple methods work. Low volume,high volume, low rpe, failure training, high frequency , low frequency. In the end though. What would it take to get you to the gym training and stick to it? And what are you training for? And I can guarantee that everyone of you who wants to be elite level athlete would not stick to science but hire a PROVEN coach
But the reality is that all of the coaches and athletes you mentioned have loads of coaches that have a better success rate then them. They don't use the same methods and get vastly superior results. A great example is Milos Sarcev has had more clients on the Olympia stage than all of the guys you mentioned combined. He's better. That's the reality of it. Just like Boris Sheiko, Louise Simmons and Stephen Korte have better powerlifters than all of your coaches and athletes combined. The science is pretty shit compared to the anecdote. Dr Stephen Seiler pointed this out in his TED talk. He mentioned how the real best athletes in various endurance sports DO NOT TRAIN in accordance to the science. Yet they have the athletes at the top echelon of their sport and not the control groups in the studies, that are training in accordance to the science.
@@stevenhewes1990 I do not disagree with ANY of what you said. Thats my point. What makes them good is not science (not on its own) . It's the fact they can listen to the individuals they are training. The fitness TH-camrs do not take.their advice because of their scientific background but because of their coaching skills. They use the "scientific background" for views. I never argued that coaches who have put better lifters exist.
@@stevenhewes1990 You're appealing to authority. Many top athletes are successful despite other factors, purely because genetics and hard work as so important. Usain Bolt's coach can claim to have won many medals yet is he the best sprint coach? There are many coaches who are right for the athlete, but not necessarily because they are amazing coaches. Serena and Venus Williams had their father for many years, again, is he a great tennis coach? He's probably alright but it worked for him because of who he had to work with.
That's an interesting take, but I honestly think we should be making a clear line between evidence based channels like Jeff Nippard, RP, Barbell medicine from channels that promote gimmicky stuff saying that it has a scientific background while cherry picking studies. I think you're not doing the good parte of the evidence based community justice in this video by clumping them with the clowns. And I say that with the greatest respect for you man as I really enjoy your content
But "evidence based" is used in the same stupid meaning as "science based". Bromley is evidence based. Juggernaut is evidence based. Starting Strength is evidence based. Coaches with a lot of experience are evidence based. The fact that something hasn't been "published" (i.e. published an an academic journal), doesn't mean that it doesn't exist and doesn't form a body of knowledge and experience.
@@kwastek The issue with this video is that it makes assumptions. Jeff Nippard for one is both. He started as accomplished powerlifter and has coached natural bodybuilders. Just the fact that he is "science based" does not mean he cant be "evidence based" aswell.
Personal training should be looked at more as a trade in my opinion. You wouldn't ask a plumber what he knows about laminar flow before he fixes a burst pipe. As long as you know that he's an actual plumber and that he's done this before with satisfactory results, you feel good about hiring him. Hiring a scientist to help you with personal training seems like hiring a physicist to fix your burst pipe. Yeah, they know the mechanics of how the pipe burst, and why the solder adheres to the copper pipe, but he's never fixed a pipe. Of course you can be both a tradesman and a scientist here, but the result is the part that matters.
That is a spot on analogy. Getting people in shape requires such a minimal understanding of the science behind it but an exceptional understanding of practical application. Should be a trade
Literally, I grew up as Internet was getting big. I know so many people who grew massive by just lifting heavy things and constantly lifting heavier and eating more. The focus on the details is new and has benefits. But consistency , progressive overload and eat protein is probably 90% of what you need to get big.
@@AlexanderBromley This is an absurd take. Plumbing is science based, and plumbers understand the physics and science of plumbing. If I want to do my own plumbing, I will research plumbing. Just as if I want to train myself in the gym, I will research what works and what doesn't. There is a tremendous amount of science related to strength and performance, and if people want to engage in that science, we should encourage and help them.
@@dustinirwin1 You're missing the point. Of course plumbers understand the science of plumbing. It’s the other way around that isn’t true. You wouldn't be worth crap as a plumber if you had a PhD in Physics but never went through a plumbing apprenticeship.
There’s a difference between shitting on someone and correcting them. Real love means telling the truth. Some people respond to the truth by learning something about themselves, even though it’s hard or embarrassing. If you know anything about yourself that’s valuable, you know it was difficult to accept at first. But then some people get offended and reactive. It’s exactly the difference between growth and stagnation; and when you give that mindset a whole system to support itself, you create a literal monster - constantly needing more artificial reinforcement because it’s based on insecurity rather than the truth. The truth isn’t negative except in the hands of an ego in denial. That’s the real take. Not “stop being negative bro!” That’s for pussies. Plain and simple. “Positivity” is a subjective ideal, totally dependant on anyone’s interpretation of whether something is “negative” or not. What it ends up meaning is that whoever is most willing to use this so called ideal as a club to beat down the people who disagree with them about something will have control over what “positivity” means. So not only is it extremely inefficient and confusing; it ends you up with the complete opposite of what it claims to be about; where tyrants claim to be in support of “positivity”, and use that elite status selfishly for their own personal gain with no regard to the cost to others. And because they’ve convinced themselves that they are in support of the good, they are even more dangerous than an outwardly aggressive and unapologetic person who won’t get nearly as much support form others. This is why Gandalf refuses to take the ring himself in the LOTR. He knows that with his status as a powerful wizard with a mindset and popularity as being in the service of the good, that he would be that much more dangerous as a tool for evil with the corrupting power of the ring. Niceness is not goodness. In fact, anywhere it’s focused on as any sort of value, it is usually evil.
Exactly. And this is the point I unsubscribe from Bromley. If I wanted half baked sophomoric takes on the difference between "hard" and "soft" science I'd hang out in liberal arts dorm rooms.
I know it was mostly a joke but if you look into Jeff cavalier more you’ll find shit that’s out right dangerous. He instructs people to breath out before squatting instead of properly breathing and braceing. Which is not great.
Yep, he teaches an exhale on the decent in the squat, his deadlift form has a rounded back. Fake weights aside, just his form errors are enough to question his information. And for awhile he was part of that balance on a bosu ball "functional " training fad.
When I first started lifting in college I remember just watching videos to get ideas to setup a program and came across that video and was like "nope." I don't know if anyone that follows him can squat more than 315 for reps.
@@reggie7716 yeah and I’m not saying he doesn’t have some good information cause he does on some stuff. I think Alex highlighted that but when it comes to things like exercise execution and programming it’s pretty clear Jeff is out of his depth.
Don't pick on Jeff, watching a famous strength training guru struggle to lock out four plates is the only thing on social media that makes me feel good about my PRs.
Rehab seems to be his wheelhouse, I believe he was head of rehab for the New York Mets at one time. I'm sure they don't trust pro athletes to anybody- when he tries to put on the hat of a strength coach, things are on less solid ground.
This is a very critical comment, so I want to first point out that I've followed and enjoyed your channel since you helped with my first weight cut in 2018. Please don't write this off as someone who isn't a fan coming in here to yell at you, I'm here because I was interested in your take on this. This video, insofar as it refers to Jeff Nippard, could not be more wrong. - Leverage degree to give position of authority: Literally doesn't mention his degree. I've followed him for years and found out what the degree was a few weeks ago due to Rona discussions. The entirety of his comments are surrounding the studies he's referencing. - Using one-off trash study to sell bullshit: Uses meta analyses when possible, rarely references just one study. Frequently mentions when something needs more exploration. - Overextrapolating study results: Also, no. In fact, every video states that fitness/muscle building is highly individualized, and that the "science-based" recommendations simply offer a good place to start. This feels like you made a video about Joel Seedman, then threw in the biggest YT names in the video and thumbnail for clicks, assuming they'd be the same. It's unsurprising you had to walk back your statement on Jeff Cavaliere given how little research you clearly did on Jeff Nippard.
I'm criticizing the approach which is synonymous with time in acadamia. Whether he leverages it by mentioning it or by making his channel revolve around research is not practically important. I haven't watched every Nippard video, but that's not the standard for response or criticism. He leans on academic research in every video and academic research is irrelevant to bodybuilding and strength sports. Plenty in the field have degrees but way, way more don't and zero competitors are staying up to date on these studies to get the next competitive edge. So I don't know what further research is needed to substantiate my point. All studies in this field are trash studies; even the best ones provide conclusions that are already well known or lead to trivia that doesn't influence how the most competitive train. It's not just about the study containing errors, it's about the limitation of the questions you can ask in the first place. If you ever find yourself in the warm up halls of the Worlds Strongest Man, IPL Worlds, or the Olympia, ask around about the last meta-study that shifted anyone's training paradigm. You are right, training is 'highly individualized', which means all lifters should be learning how to set a baseline and move forward, making intelligent changes based on need. These videos don't address that because it's beyond the scope of what academic research can take on. I had this issue with Prilepin's Chart; I constantly get hit with 'but it's a good guideline'. No, no it's not. I could say 'just do odd numbered reps'. It's a good guideline. It works. But it's not based on anything meaningful. I appreciate the time you took for your response!
@@AlexanderBromley Nippard does at least cite the research he reviews so you can go deep dive them later, that's not true of all and warrants mentioning.
@@AlexanderBromley I don't think your comments about studies being trash and non of the world-class athletes using them is true. They usually have professional sports coaches and trainers who would already apply them in their training. On top of that, those studies are the best available information and are still applicable for general population, even if it doesn't fit the top 0.1% of population. I think you have gone too far in this video. I mean, who are you really to judge those academics and studies?
My kinesiology degree was pretty good from penn state. As far as for lifting and athletics not so much. The main thing i took from it was experiment design, epidemiology, and research. Kinesiology seems to mostly to be an avenue for physical therapy.
I can't take the AthleanX dude seriously. I actually listened to his advice and wasted a lot of time I could have spent doing squats. Nippard is a good boii tho.
AX is a joke. But I don't like Nippard. He just rubs me the wrong way. He's to proper. A good school boy. I prefer guys throwing an F bomb here and there ;) you know what I mean..
I think there are levels to this, when I started working out I got a lot of information from channels like Jeff Nippard. I don't think "intermediate" and "advanced" lifters rely on the information from Jeff Nippard, I think they know how individual training is and might watch more channels like RP or JST (or none at all because they read books or know their own training). These are also scientific channels but make clear that training is individual and that you must try to search what is optimal for yourself (or client).
Agreed. I would personally take it further and say that the Bromley-type advice of "it's all individual, man" is as harmful to beginners as it is helpful to intermediates. When I was starting out, I had no idea what program was good, what would do nothing, and what would put me at injury risk. And as much merit as there is to trying things out, beginners will improve on nearly anything and just picking something at random with no understanding of if it's good is unsatisfying. "It's all individual, man" created so much frustration for me and made it really, really difficult to learn anything because it asserts there is nothing to learn. "Everything is highly individualized, but this is the general best practice" gives you a place to start and an actual opportunity to learn.
That's not really how I approach giving newbies a place to start. I have a couple of books and a few hundred videos that all reinforce the same idea: pick a baseline of work and progress forward. The progression is what causes growth, not the exact arrangement of stress in an individual workout. Anyways, I really don't see how starting with thin research and ending with, "but it's all individual" doesn't create more confusion. To address the OP, I would think the most current research would actually apply to the most advanced since they would theoretically be walking the thinnest tightrope to continue growing. But it doesn't. And if it doesn't apply to them, it certainly has no business being applied to people who can accidentally bench 300lbs by following Arnold's Bodybuilding Encyclopedia, a year subscription to M&F, Sheiko's Powerlifting Fundamentals, Crossfit, Starting Strength or exploiting literally any one of the COUNTLESS triggers for growth that can be mastered without needing a stats class.
@@anthonypillarella Disagree. Anecdotally, Bromley's advice was the simplest and most clear when I started running Greyskull as a beginner. What I got from this channel was "have a basic plan, show up, be consistent, get lots of volume so you learn technique". Bromley simplified a lot of the confusion for me early on in his program reviews.
To be fair a lot of science based people have also gotten rid of some of the old bullshit ideas these do it yourself guys came up with back in the day but yeah there’s some guys that obviously get scamy with “science”
As someone currently studying S&C at university level, I feel this. Such a soft science, large amount of fluff and anything useful they teach can easily be found on the internet. Love the martial arts analogy, will definitely be using that going forward.
Martial arts is an acquired skill that has nothing to do with science whatsoever, the act of building muscle involves human/cellular biology which is quite literally a science…
Its a bad analogy and now they are using scientific methods to create better coaching in bjj like the ecological approach which seems like its working.
I have always found it comical when people like Mike Israetel act like his Phd in sport science is like the hardest fucking thing to get ever and even calls himself a doctor. It's not a terrible degree if you want to become a personal trainer or something but it's nowhere near as difficult as a lot of sciences.
all those guys you described as having "better than average physiques nothing exceptional" like Nippard and Jeremy have a much better physique than you for what I care about. Looking good and being strong enough and healthy is more important to me than taking PEDS and ending up like a massmonster just to bench 500lbs. I think you know a lot about getting strong, but are too dismissive of things you don't know a lot about like HIIT and the benefits of cardio more generally. it might not matter to strong man but to living a long life of vitality i beg to differ.
This is asinine. The guys you site all started back when the YT fitness space was utterly doninated by juiced morons preaching bro-science nonsense. Wanting to switch that up and apply a) some real knowledge and b) realistic expectations, was admirable, not cynical. They deserve all the success that brought.
hahaha between the breadth courses and bouncing around from different majors, I learned quickly that much of college is High School part II. My loathing for the university system is a different video....
@@AlexanderBromley I think it provides more value in the networking opportunities and other career resources than the courses will ever provide - especially in this day and age. I'm pursuing a graduate degree and have found that just completing the coursework will not really get you anywhere. If the courses is what someone is going to university for then they are pretty much getting scammed.
Yeah I will say that part of the argument doesn’t really apply to Jeff N. at all, he is pretty on top in those fields. He held the bench press national record at one point (it was broken right after but still)
@@jojcaac5488 I believe he is natty, along with 99% of tested powerlifters (in the ipf) but I know novices that don’t know anything about how gear, wada, or out of meet testing works will say “drUg tEsTeD dOESnT mEaN dRuG fREe”
@@jojcaac5488 but the likelihood that someone is going to shut themselves down for over a month causing a regression for the ability to use gear for maybe a week is not high. Unless there is a way to do something like the Russians did where the urine is completely swapped, or the person hasn’t competed in a year and isn’t at the top level to where they are in the out of meet testing pool there isn’t a window of time anyone could get away with it. And using bio identical compounds while your levels are in the reference range and all the other work you’d have to do to keep the rest of your bloods within normal limits just isn’t worth the work or time AND on top of that being in the middle of the reference range on TRT is not near the same as being able to blast test tren anadrol and halo through a meet.
This is how I felt in grad school tbh. There is science and there are the people doing science. Humans are not robots. We make mistakes and have biases. Scientists are just regular people studying theory. And rarely does theory meat the road of reality.
I think with a lot of these youtubers, what is "exceptional" is their video production quality. Kind of like how do you make a fancy dinner, ingredients are the same but sprinkle some garnish on top and arrange it nicely on a plate and suddenly you can charge 3x the price for CRB.
@@TheJollyMisanthrope That's called spreading information. Which is the job of an informational video. If every researcher made their own videos as well, it would be a pretty slow process.
@@larrypotter2243 Most fitness channels are just parroting information they have no clue about, and making money off of it. Little to no integrity to be found.
@@TheJollyMisanthrope I agree that most do that. You original comment just lacked enough specificity as to what you were referring to. The parroting of info that they don't know anything about is pretty dumb.
Performance physcology is very interesting. Did you know that nor-adrenaline, when it get's to a threshold level in our brain actually forces us to QUIT! it litterally switches off motor control so we can't keep running for example. Dopamine help tamp down nor-adrenaline so we can push through the performance. The best atheltes know how to release dopamine during thier performance to stop nor-adrenaline from forcing them to quit.
Before I start unpacking and debunking some of the more ridiculous claims and inaccuracies in this video, I have to make a disclaimer to kids - this is why you shouldn't listen to meatheads. Mr. Bromley is a perfect example of someone who doesn't understand much about anything discussed in this video yet positions himself as an expert. Great presentation doesn't mean great information, applies to some of the people he discussed too. Now I assume the rest of the comment will be on the negative side, but let me be clear, Bromley's main point of the video is perfectly valid. He is 100% correct. A lot of charlatans have used the science brand, especially in the fitness industry to sell and/or preach all kinds of nonsense. He is 100% right on keeping science honest, but luckily science has in-built mechanisms that do that already. Bromley is also fully or partially correct on a couple of other things which I'll highlight next. Is Bromley wrong about everything? No. For example, he realized that Jeff from Athlean X is not your average coach. The guy has an exceptional coaching career under his belt and a solid academic background too. I like how he calls these guys "runners who did some curls" and just a bit to the right on the Bell curve but both Jeffs, Nippard and Athlean X, are at least one standard deviation to the right, probably closer to two standard deviations. That would be fine if you, Mr. Bromley, weren't someone who looks barely above average and takes gear to accomplish that. Another thing he is partially correct on is the division of science into hard and soft. While no actual scientist would divide it like this, it does serve a valuable purpose for this video. Where he is wrong though is that nutrition science, medicine and exercise science fall under this category. They are very, very much hard sciences in this categorization. The only difference is that we simply don't have fully developed models of how everything works exactly in our bodies YET. Eventually we will get to the point of understanding enough to be able to make high certainty claims. Mr. Bromley also understands the point of you being your own test subject. You are basically your scientific sample and should be figuring how things work for you. Lastly, the point on time and environment changing is 100% on point. The most egregious inclusion here is you lumping in Jeff Nippard with the other people. Bromley said that these science based fitness individuals have no high achievements and/or top tier athletic performance. First and foremost, elite performance is not indicative of coaching ability. Quite literally 99% of the best coaches in ANY disciple were never even remotely close to being elite athletes themselves. This is not an exaggeration, almost nobody who is elite becomes a good coach. Great coaching requires one to be quite cerebral and methodical in their approach but you wouldn't know much about that would you Alexander. By this moronic logic, Jordan would be the best basketball coach, Messi would become a god tier coach in soccer, Coleman would be the goat of coaching in bodybuilding, yet all of them are mediocre coaches at best. Back to Nippard - the dude competed in natural bodybuilding and powerlifting (I belive 6 competitions in each sport) with great success, ranking as one of Canada's best for his age and weight categories. He also has a prolific career coaching athletes to the bodybuilding stage as well as a wealth of experience coaching the gen pop. Jeff would also be the first one to point out the shortcomings of science in bodybuilding, but in order to know that you would have to spend time researching topics instead of researching marketing tactics Alexander. Mr. Bromley stated at one point in the video that science is absent from the best coaching practices and with best athletes which is demonstrably false. Most of the elite athletes in practically any athletic discipline employ a ton of science, especially if their sport requires extensive strength and conditioning. In sports near and dear to my heart, bodybuilding and MMA, the leading trainers and camps are increasingly becoming more science focused. Matt Jensen, the RP crew and 3DMJ guys in bodybuilding, American Top Team in MMA. It is no surprise that these guys are producing elite athletes at a faster rate than anyone else plus they have insane longevity and health preservation as one of their focuses which will be the future of these sports. Another easy rebuttal is with respect to science not being at the cutting edge in "lifting" sports. Again, check out what the aforementioned coaches are doing. Also bodybuilding has a natural side too and more than 80% of the best WNBF competitors have accomplished their results by adhering to the the scientific principles. So Mr. Bromley, science is pushing us to the new frontier in lifting, you just choose to be blinded by your biases. Maybe you should take your own advice from the end of the video. Last but most certainly not least, here's a takeaway point for people interested in bodybuilding, if you made it this far - use science as presented by Nippard or Dr. Mike and the rest of the RP crew, or Dr. Eric Helms as a starting point. Test a reasonable training and nutrition plan, rigorously keep a logbook on everything you do and then make changes, test, compare and repeat until you figure out what really works for your unique genetic makeup and structure. Science will help you discard a lot of nonsense like partials and bro splits, that's why it is a useful tool. It is also the best method for knowledge acquisition. If you have the potential and the aspirations to be elite, then science will only help you as a tool you use on yourself because what we know now simply breaks down at the very extremes in bodybuilding. In this scenario you will literally be the lab coat guy studying yourself to see what helps you squeeze out the 1% gains.
This was a lot of writing for something no one is going to see. I planned on a thorough response, but got far enough to see the condescending tone and decided not to bother.
"Quite literally 99% of the best coaches in ANY disciple were never even remotely close to being elite athletes themselves." This is completely untrue. Zinedine Zidane, Pep Guardiola, Mario Zagallo, Kenny Dalglish, Franz Beckenbauer, Jupp Heynckes , Giovanni Trapattoni, Alex Ferguson, Larry Bird, Doc Rivers, Carlo Ancelotti, Cael Sanderson, Mike Brown. These are just a few that come to mind as a casual fan of these sports and don't even include every sports coach ever. Pep Guardiola who've I've mentioned is arguably the greatest soccer coach of all time, do you think that him being one of the most renowned players of his era added more or less to his ability to coach? Be honest. If you look at Soccer's history of giving out the Onze d'Or Coach of the Year and FIFA World Coach of the Year award you'll immediately notice that almost every winner of it is a former athlete of the sport, and a very high level one at that, same with all of the AP NFL Coach of the Year Award going to coaches with extensive history playing in College Football. Ron Rivera won AP Coach of the Year twice, he's a former NFL Champion and consensus All-American. If you actually look at most coaches you'll quickly notice the majority are former elite athletes of the sport.
@@crackmonsieurluckily, football is my sport - you proceeded to list a lot of names as former athletes. His point wasn't that best coaches weren't athletes themselves, but that they weren't elite. Let's take a look at some names in your list. Zidane was considered the best player on Earth for a good bit. Why was he so highly regarded? BECAUSE HE WAS A CEREBRAL PLAYER. He was as unathletic as they come, but a genius. This is the key to coaching, you need to be cerebral in your approach and most truly elite athletes aren't. They are gifted with ridiculous genetics, but not brains. Carlo and Pep were both average players in their day and responsible for these more intelligence based tasks on the football pitch. so the original commenter is 100% on point.
@@mrvacepadrva81" He was as unathletic as they come" Yeah this is nonsense. Zidane is lauded more for his dribbling, passing, and vision but these are all downstream from his athletic gifts. He was praised during his time for his strength and accerlation, plus later in his career for his defensive work rate. an unathletic person isn't doing any of this, a average athletic person isn't. " and most truly elite athletes aren't. Ok? I'm not arguring that every elite althlete becomes an elite coach, but that many of the best coaches themselves were elite althetes. You just seem to be working with a very narrow definition of what "elite" means.
@@rockon8174 the people he mentioned, for sure. The people in forums who will convince you that you can't make progress without using the latest most perfect up to date science based training protocol while hitting the exact macros prescribed by the latest peer reviewed study, not so much.
I don't know how in the fuk you compare Jeff Nippard to AthleanX and Seedman. The quality of his information is leaps and bounds above theirs, not to mention he is legitimately strong (was a tested Powerlifting champion) and is a pro bodybuilder. He not only properly cites the research that he uses, but he gives the limitations of that research and provides nuance to pretty much everything he covers. He sure as sh*t isn't just a "medium distance runner with biceps". He's not even on the same playing field as everyone else you mentioned in this video.
In properly giving the nuance and limitations of the studies, exponentially more questions are raised, leaving the only actionable advice to be "do what works for you". This renders the analysis of these studies pointless. The state of academic strength and conditioning research is not such that training decisions can be informed by them, not even close. So while I don't believe Jeff's channel is without value or that he is an out and out fraud, as long as he pretends that poring over research studies was the key to his success, his viewers will be distracted with it, be confused by it and approach training decisions incorrectly because of it. I don't care that people like him. He goes in the same boat.
This just seemes like a guy saying. "Trust me i know best, beacuse you know.... well, trust me". I think everyone should study some basic sience methodology, then you will know when someone is full of BS like Seedman and when someone actually atleast try to bee helpfull like Nippard or "Bro Brad" or Mike Isratel. Its not black or white but this video made me understand how a lack of understanding make you see all of these guys like the same thing.
@@AlexanderBromley if you can check out Alec Enkiri’s (this guys channel is really good) video on why Jeff is not a strength coach Btw really appreciate your content man👌
@@AlejandrooVIII It's moronic saying he's not a strength coach. You don't get hired by The Mets if you know nothing. Alec Enkiri on the other hand literally trains no one beyond the under 9s athletics at his local high school.
@@AllanThrawlNutHugger well without throwing appeals to authority here’s the thing - A strength coach should know proper bracing (Jeff doesn’t know or at least he recommends exhaling before squatting) - A strength coach knows you can’t program a 4RM deadlift set, then rest then again 4RM deadlift set (I don’t even know how much time he put for rest) and he calls that a back workout meaning do it whenever you train back (which is just weird and pretty much stupid) - He doesn’t seem to understand the concept of what RM means btw - His german training volume is crazy, resting 1 min doing 10 sets of 1 reps with 75-85% of RM (Again if you understand RM and percentages you know how crazy that is) - I’m not trying to be mr. Right man however for the sake of your progress I recommend you to read this with an open mind and challenge what Jeff says, to see if it makes sense - Bromley is an excellent channel for strength you are better of hearing him than Jeff
@@AlejandrooVIII Dude you are trying to be Mr KnowItAll. I don't follow everything Jeff says but a lot of what he says agrees with many other PROFESSIONAL strength coaches. IDK what you're talking about with the telling you to do 4RM DLs everytime you do your back days. In fact he doesn't get his Pro Athletes to conventional dl at all but he does say make DLs a regularly part of your program which is right. Dan John in Easy Strength has you doing DLs at either 2 sets of 5 or 3 sets of 3 everyday. The 10x10 stuff was just a 'try it and see how much you can do then try it again later and see how much you can do' thing, not a serious program. Check out the Will Tennyson review for a real program. Bromley's very good too but I've heard him talk bollocks on occasion as well, such as the acute rise in Testosterone you'll get from doing a high rep squat set will 'make you grow like a weed'. Lol.
Seems like a strange gripe tbh. The vibe here is jealousy over more successful creators. I'm a fan of this channel and most the others listed. Both can exist in this world.
Lifting is legit the most simple thing that you can get lost in a metric fuck ton of overcomplication. Go gym, lift heavy weights (relative to your strength) and when its not heavy anymore lift heavier, if you cant lift heavier lift it for more reps or sets
Wish I had known about you years ago. Amazing stuff. I have combined the 70s powerlifter and bullmastiff programs from your book. One cycle through in base phase and I love it. Love the freedom of the auto regulation in the bullmastiff program and the just brutal work of the 70s program. Thank you for everything.
Every individual is their own fitness experiment. You have to set a goal, establish a hypothesis on how to meet that goal (pick a program, diet, etc.), run the experiment (actually stick to the program, diet, etc.), and compare your results to where you were and your goal. Wash, rinse, and repeat. It takes time, it's frustrating, but it's the only way to find the real truth for you. TH-cam channels including this one are just a tool to learn about new methods to try in your own experiment.
I actually watched Jeremy Ethier a little bit when I was new to this but after a while I realized he wasn't much bigger than me and I was a complete beginner 🤣
I can definitely see some black market scam program by Jeremy ethier on how he made millions and became famous by using this exact Scientific method. For just 699.99 British pounds.
I’d say Jeff Nippard is a good source of basic information but his issue is over complicating simple topics by over inflating his videos with complex terminology that novice lifters won’t understand. He needs to explain the practical application of the studies he’s referencing
I can easily forgive the click baitey nonsense, as long as the content remains excellent. I greatly respect your recanting of accusations against AthleanX after finding that your research didn't support your theory. This perfectly illustrates the honesty and dedication to truth that makes your channel one of my favorites.
@@AlexanderBromley It's so cute that a lowly YT viewer like myself, who happens to have more experience with a certain thing like AX here, can observe a pro like you and think: "son" you still have a lot to learn - but you'll get there :D
@@kwastek Meh, I have yet to watch a video of his that I totally disagree with given the context of what he's trying to do and who the typical viewer is. And he set up a gofundme for the Meadows family so he automatically gets points from me for that.
A piece a lot of people miss is that much of the science done in applied exercise science is based on bro science. Concepts are started in the gym, they seem to work, so we then research it to test and prove/disprove it. Science is our best bet, but it comes from laypeople most often.
Jesus people get so offended these days, I kinda like some of the science based community, like Jeff Nippard, Mike Israetel and even some of Barbell Medicine stuff (although their arrogance really turn me off sometimes), but I understand Bromley's criticism, you can like some stuff and dislike others, I don't even agree with everything Bromley says and I'm a patreon subscriber of his, this goddamn cancel culture is really getting out of hand
Being totally ignorant, my newbie approach to volume has been to increase it over several weeks then drop it and add weight. I also use long rest times because when I started out, I had half an hour with a trainer and the breakneck speeds we took to get in as much variety as possible meant we could get to push-ups, an exercise im decent at, and I couldn't do a single one because my muscles were jelly. And week to week it didn't feel like I was progressing as I got too exhausted to PR much.
Brilliant. This is the kinda content I'm going to rewatch multiple times to get all the good info wrung out. With the tiny exception of the AthleanX fandom, but I wouldn't expect you to be up on his ethical controversies.
I love this video. Being a guy who works in marketing, I see through the science-based messaging. Sure, many bodybuilders from the 70s and what not have great genetics, but a lot of the techniques they used were effective. One thing I’ve noticed with a Jeremy Ethier is that he often misreads studies and ignore basic principles. This is especially true when he said you should backload protein before bed. He ignored the fact the fact that protein has a high thermic effect of food and that it can impact sleep.
If there's one of these guys that you're gonna want to do a deep dive on to maybe change your opinion on, it's Nippard, not Cavalier. Actually, do one on Cavalier too. But for the opposite reason.
I actually like Nippard's content. Only criticism is the continued appeal to 'science', which just serves as a massive distraction for anyone trying to wrap their heads around this stuff.
Powerlifters and bodybuilders are divas. Lol they want to make their training more complicated than it is. No disrespect to the science based guys, but their target audience doesn’t really even lift.
Athlean-X: Science Based Training is killing your gains. Great video, Alex. I graduated with my Bachelor's in Exercise Science in 2013. I've been working with clients ever since. It is daily battle reeling people in and getting them to actually understand "what the science says." To be honest, I've learned more by actually coaching people hands on, than I did from reading studies. That said they still a great resource and if you can understand what they were actually testing and how it can be applied, you can further develop your methods using the information.
Good sir. Would you mind explaining what a exercise science degree is and what classes you took. I’m currently going to college and am still figuring out what to major in and exercise science seems pretty interesting.
@@dannybautista8817 it's a 4 year/bachelor's. Classes included. Anatomy and Physiology, Biology with labs, physics, motor learning, kinesiology with labs, statistics and research analysis, specific classes for programming for strength training and personal training, cardio Physiology classes, medical pathology classes and a few others I'm forgetting. If you can find a nationally accredited program, it's no joke. You'll be set up for either becoming an exercise professional, physical therapist with more education or a bunch of other career paths.
Bromley - your content stands out, just saying. I have recommended your breathing/bracing videos alone to dozens of people. Also the videos about spinal stability, the McGill Three etc, Your channel is premium stuff. Keep up the good work please.
Trying to equate scientific analysis of martial arts to hypertrophy or strength is pretty fucking dumb. Martial arts is infinitely more complex and subjective than, say, muscle growth. Let alone the fact that to some people martial arts is arguably an art form. Scientific analysis of muscle growth is well within our grasp. However I don't know of anyone that argues exercise science is infallible.
Equate?? It's called a goddamn analogy. I know, I know, you memorized the short list of fallacies from Intro to Philosophy so you can mindlessly graft them onto every online disagreement you get into. But analogies take just the slightest bit of critical thinking. Let me help you out. Analogy: "a comparison between two things, typically for the purpose of explanation. a correspondence or partial similarity." Both strength sports and MMA are physical disciplines with A.) a competitive hierarchy that selects for best practices B.) a century (or more) of dedicated study within those competitive hierarchies C.) many different methods of becoming competitive D.) a level of complexity that makes meaningful study in a lab setting damn near impossible. MMA is not 'arguably an art form'. I'm talking about "Mixed Martial Arts" which is a competitive sport, not fucking Tai Chi. Art forms don't have right and wrong answers. If you think that 'scientific analysis of muscle growth is well within our grasp', meaning that formal lab study has ever, or will ever, contribute to what the best bodybuilders, powerlifters and strongmen will do, then I feel EXTREMELY confident assuming that you aren't within a square mile of being competitive in any of those fields.
@@AlexanderBromley Sorry I hurt your feelings by using the word equate instead of analogize. You obviously just wanted to find a reason to complain about guys with lower totals than you being more successful on yt.
@@Swamp_Donkey_ Well, they mean two different things, so thank you for your apology. If you are going to play the 'educated internet asshole with strong opinions', do better. Write a rough draft. Have someone check it. Fuck.
Coming from someone like yourself who has quantifiable, real world success that your methods work carries a lot of weight. Not just someone who has a bunch of letters after their name.
I'd be very curious to see you dissect one of Nippard's videos and see where his advice is off base or misleading when compared to real world knowledge. I think you make good points and express yourself quite well, but deal mostly in generalities. Specifics could be most enlightening. Thanks for the vid.
I think that you are mistaken in calling out Jeff Nippard. The dude's been coaching for more than a decade, is an accomplished pro natural bodybuilder and powerlifter too. He has coached accomplished natural bodybuilders. And what do you mean by "better than average physique"? He is probably extremely close to his natural genetic limit... An excellent science communicator, he's probably in the top 20 of "fitness personalities you should actually listen to". I really think you're wrong about him. Edit: edited down because I got carried away and Bromley doesn't deserve that tone.
Yeah I agree. I enjoy watching Bromley and I get the point he was aiming at but he really didn't do his own research on this one and missed the point completely with Nippard. The fact that Jeff creates easy to access content to share information and popularise science to the masses does not mean that he is exploiting it to push his own agendas. Instead he is giving us tools to work with but in the same time he allways reminds his viewers to find out what works for them and has collaborated with the accomplished expermentalist like the late John Meadows on techiques that have not yet been proofed by science but absolutely work in practise.
This, Jeff his body is great and his advice is really solid. Just because he cant bench 500 lbs or coaching mr olympia bodybuilders doesnt mean he doesnt know his stuff.
That's a bit of a stretch, he didn't even say anything negative about Jeff. I personally can't stand him, but I can't really stand any "science based" channels. Like Bromley said, exercise science isn't a hard science and the studies are flawed. Reading studies and actually being an experienced lifter/coach are two completely different things. Not saying Jeff doesn't know how to train I just personally don't like how heavily he pushes the whole "science based" training idea.
You're right, I haven't watched every Nippard video, but that's not the standard for response or criticism. He leans on academic research in every video and academic research is irrelevant to bodybuilding and strength sports. Many in the field have degrees but way more don't and zero competitors are staying up to date on these studies to get the next competitive edge. So I don't know what further research is needed to substantiate my point. Also, I'm not trying to assassinate Nippard's character or anyone else. I don't think I need to insert "but his other stuff might be really good" every 4 sentences when I am critiquing an obvious trend in the industry. It's fine if you like Nippard. I was literally just commenting on this trend and only this trend. Natural bodybuilding is the equivalent of rec-league baseball; that's not a dig, it's an objective comment on how deep the talent pool is in that field. Jeff has a good physique (certainly better than mine) and has no doubt worked hard for it, but there are better physiques in every Fitness 19 in the US. So, I do not consider him an elite performer (my standards might be more strict) but you're right, that doesn't mean he doesn't know his stuff. I believe he knows more about these studies than virtually all of the elite coaches and athletes out there, but that's the point: not a single one of his clients or audience members, or even himself, are better off for it. Popularizing formal research is not a benefit to strength, physique or performance and this information actually distracts the audience and sets them back. That's the point of my critique.
Nippard does however in many of his videos illustrate how the research he cites can be incomplete and how much academic and formal research need to be scrutinized when placing forward practical recommendations.
The biggest mistake of the science-based comunity is to jump on any correlation: Advanced powerlifters have more muscle than non-advanced lifters: Powerlifters should train like bodybuilders! Advanced bodybuilders have more strength than non-advanced bodybuilders: Bodybuilders should train like powerlifters.
In fairness, linking Nippard with some of these other guys is a bit off. His physique is not elite level by natural standards (though well above average and improbable to achieve for many of us without drugs), but he coaches a guy with a physique and strength level (he can bench 405lbs) that is elite level. His videos acknowledge the necessity for experience and not just research; and his technique, his programs, his circle of lifters (which included John Meadows) all testify to his experience and ability. Jeremy Ethier is not in that league by a long way. Jeff may use 'science based' as a buzz word occasionally, but he doesn't rely on it.
Very thought-provoking video Bromley! You bring up a lot of really good points in this video about science-based content and want to share my thoughts as someone who holds a bachelors (CSUSB alum) and masters degree in Kinesiology - and is now doing a Ph.D. in Health Science. 1) I've realized that many of the KInesiology programs are hit or miss with the way that they lay out their curriculum. Some are very much a glorified personal training degree while others are very vigorous and oriented in the hard sciences. I'm lucky in that I've had the latter experience for both of my degrees (not sure what was going on with CSUSB when you were there, they have outstanding faculty now though). I would say I was trained as a physiologist rather than a "kinesiologist". 2) You are alluding to a big issue with many Kinesiology programs: they don't teach you how to apply this knowledge into everyday situations and how to coach people. The ACSM has caught wind of this (about time) and is lobbying for accrediting bodies to change this of for the future. 3) You bring up a great point about how muddy a lot of the work is. Science, specifically with humans, is very tedious and has so many variables involved. You can't reasonably control everything (nor should you, the real world application will take a big hit). I've learned to take findings with a grain of salt half the time because the parameters of the studies may or may not be reproducible. As an aside, science (not just my field, but all field) have a big issue with reproducibility of results. Academics aren't incentivized to reproduce data - it's all about who can produce the most novel and interesting data. 4) You also allude to a big issue with science at the moment: we are prioritizing randomized control trials way to much. Sure, RCTs are the best way to see if an intervention works but you'd think the way people talk about them that it's the ONLY way to obtain new knowledge. Case studies, observational, cross-sectional, etc. methods are all valuable. I honestly gravitate towards yourself, Matt Wenning, Dave Tate, and Greg Nuckols more than these "science-based" folk because of my latter point. 5) As much as we like to shit on the flaws of science, most of the way we know about how humans adapt had it's start in scientific research. 6) Physical fitness/exercise has always been in this muddy spot socially. It simultaneously fits in the healthcare setting as a preventative strategy but also functions as a way to obtain a higher social standing. I think that's part of what makes it hard to study. Your perspective matters immensely here. Keep up the great work man, I really enjoy the content you put out!
You hit the nail right on the head in first part of your video. If you can't back up your "science" with athletes you've produced then it's not science.
I think Nippard is a step above these; trying to follow Athlean X advice when I started out didn't get me any results at all until I saw a Nippard video on diet then my body changed overnight almost
@@AlexanderBromley That’s true. But their stated mission is to bring together modern medicine and S&C. They work with healthcare providers as much as gen pop/competitive lifters. They wrote the UpToDate article on resistance training for clinicians to reference in their practice. In this instance, wouldn’t you say that’s justified (as opposed to, say, Dr Jim Stoppani or Dr Aaron Horschig)?
I feel that that's great that guys read all the studies and do all the research but the problem comes in where they believe who heartedly and will fight to the death that whatever the conclusion was to a particular study is the end all be all. My argument is that it has nothing to do w me . That's great that 70% of the time you get a 40% increase in lean Mass by 5 to lbs if you eat in 300caloroe surplus. That was a joke an example but we are all different and can all do the same thing and there's still so many variables that we can all get diff results. And we can also all do the same thing 3 times individually and still get 3 diff results. You have to just try diff things u til you see what works and doesn't work for you!
The big problem with the science around strength training is that everything works... just not for everyone. I only have three fast-twitch fibers in my entire body, and they work in shifts. So any program that centers around explosive movements will be useless to me. But "studies show" that those programs are effective.
What you are describing is, individuals regardless of degree, Ignoring scientific method in their descriptions and hypothesis . Science observes what happens and records it. Sure much not understood, you could spend your whole life reinventing the wheel, And achieve nothing, Even a certification level personal training textbook will be a more sure path. You’re swinging at the hills over nuggets of truth. Anatomy physiology ….etc Not as well understood as some think. But Are you going to choose a phd for your heart surgery or someone who just learned by doing? They tried this in Maoist china In The beginning. Even they had to admit it didn’t work. Unless you just want to join a club, Martial arts are b.s. If you plan to start competing at a professional level, You, just like everyone else will not get far without accredited coaching. Knowledge does not equal understanding, But without it, what you think is belief. Societies based on belief, Result in genocide. one more time,simpler pro mma fighters hire accredited conditioning coaches. Would be scientists citing hypothetical data as if it’s law, Is a serious issue, But it’s no different from what you’re doing here.
My problem with Athlean-X is that his PT degree means nothing in the context of strength training/bodybuilding. I am a PT myself, and nothing in our therapeutic exercise classes touches on bodybuilding. Most PT programs do not even use much equipment-they use Therabands and towels for resistance. Only 5 of 50 people in my PT class were into strength training. While his experience as a PT may have led him down the CSCS route or into strength training, saying, "Trust me, I am a PT and my degree backs this," is very dishonest.
Since powerlifting and bodybuilding are 90% genetics, it's similar to martial arts. It's not about which art is the best martial art to know. It's about who is more accomplished at his/her art, regardless of the art. Did you guys see how many times the Gracie family lost to guys who knew different arts than they did? Okay, back to bodybuilding. It's not about the type of workout. It's who responds best to their style of training. I just know everyone reading this suddenly feels a pit in their stomach. Yes, I know, reality often feels real crummy. Great video here.
Stumbled upon this and I really don’t know why Nippard got the raw deal here, especially having watched a lot of his videos as well as Bromley’s - and the differences aren’t all that tremendous. All I can really take away from that is Nippard does better SEO and marketing - it’s not really criticism based on the merits of his videos. Ethier is entry level lifter stuff. It’s pretty unobjectionable, i.e. it’s not going to hurt someone, will probably help beginners get better at lifting, and then they’ll outgrow his content. Not really a bad thing either.
Also, JUST because defining a variable is difficult, DOES not mean that the research it is apart of is any less valid than if it were “easy to define”. Which even within Chemistry, physicists and Astronomy has been a difficult task. How do we measure depression? With depression scales, and in fact we are quite good at it. Now, how effective are depression scales or methods of quantifying the degree of any psychiatric disease in guiding treatment? Minimally really, aside from screening in a very general sense.
In my veiw Jeff Cavalier says some real shit, then has enough bullshit mixed in to still be bullshit. We should crowd fund a critique on athlean x. I got an extra 30 for you to hit this guy. Look, he is either a softcore Joel Seedman, or Joel Seedman is a hardcore Jeff calvalier. Jeff snapped himself up training like an idiot, and now he nocebos everybody. He is known for twlling people to "breathe OUT, and tighten down" before a squat. Hes known for using fake plates, then trying to prove he wasn't by catbacking 405 on the deadlift and showing the whole world that its okay to egolift a weight you have no business handling. By all means bro, do that deep dive. He... Is the one... Who is corrupting the noobs.
That is an amazing video. Breath of fresh air. The majority of ailments humans have to deal with, there are 3 outcomes (at least in the short term) that are common if the issue is ignored: 1 the person gets worse 2 the person stays the same 3 the person gets better I try to be careful about hard conclusions from observing correlations.
The example of going into TH-cam and searching “science based” in incognito mode has an incorrect assumption of how TH-cam/Google search results work. Yes your search results are based on your account history, but also based on your local IP. This is why you will see ads for things other people in your house search for on your home wifi. TH-cam doesn’t know your account history of fitness videos when your are in incognito mode, but it still knows a lot of people in your house watch fitness videos, so it feeds you more of that. If you’re on a VPN that complicated that a little bit.
I feel that this Video hasn't made any point at all. Alex says that they are clickbaiting with the word science and are not actually using science... I guess we would have to prove then that there is no Science being used or that it is intentionally misleading. He goes on to site some TV show that has nothing to do with the youtubers that this video is about. He bashes Joel Seedman for feigning his knowledge(I will say Joel Seidman seems a bit sus but idk enough about him) and kind of compares other content creators to him... saying no actual coach would use the information given by the named yoututbers. I don't watch any of these but Jeff Nippard and for him I've seen many of his takes be informed by coaches and by studies alike. I guess for the others it would just be nice to see a single example of something disproven and not up for debate. Something these people are still trying to cling to because of their brand I guess? Unless he doesn't make exactly the same point about these other content creators as he did with Joel Seedman, sounds like he did tho, especially since he is calling these people scammers. I guess then comes a weird throwaway comment about Athlean X and Ethier having bad physiques?... I will let you be the judge of that... Point about bad subjects in Studies by Alex/Jeff Cavelier is solid. He points to Jeff Cavelier who says that in many studies they don't account for enough variables like how much experience you have and what you are training for and applauds him. Implicitly Jeff Nippard is stanced in opposition to that claim by having a video running of him trying to show what the best rep range is. Sadly I couldn't find that video but I doubt that Jeff Nippard didn't account for Variables like training goals, RPE, number of sets and experience.. it would be a surprise to me since he usually always talks about this in context with the research. If he didn't then that might be the reason I can't find the Video since Jeff Nippard has actually corrected/adjusted his beliefs on stuff that he has said in the past about for example training intensity or tension or Protein intake to name some that come to mind. This is btw a reason I quite like him because he really doesn't seem to have an incentive to cling to certain narratives and presents genuine, from studies and coaches and scientists derived, beliefs. He also qualifies the studies in being more or less accurate and how good they are at controlling for these variables quite a lot. Jeff also often concludes that there just isn't enough research or that it cannot be substantiated from these single studies that he pulls up. This is presenting a Nippard that I dont really recognize and it makes me question the assesment about the other content creators. He then goes on to discredit ethiers academic background. That's ok if you think Kinesiology is not as important as other fields but to use it as evidence in a video that wants to say he's a scammer is off... I need more than a college anecdote of yours. He then says that no amount of research made a difference in making MMA champs and then says that it still has a use... IDK maybe I just don't understand that statement. Especially since he says that research is not gonna be the main driving factor in how strength sports are being done and to give the better alternative he sights the scientific method of looking at larger amounts of people and looking at what works for them. What a paragraph. Anyways, Im just a 20 yo, I know that I DO NOT know as much about sports as any of these people and Alex. Im not saying he is lying about them but I do know however that when you say people are lying in their business and you call them scammers, you have to substantiate that. I dont really give a shit about how many disagreements you have with them on a Sports science and coaching level. If they are scammers then I as a viewer would be the first to be interested in that video, really.
The martial arts point is a good one. I think it needs a bit more nuance though. As someone who trains, I think a martial art like Juijitsu could benefit from a more systematic (if not exactly scientific) approach. There's an overwhelming number of techniques, and having them cataloged and systematized would be very useful in allowing students and instructors to choose the best tools for the job. Also teaching methods are based on tradition not nessarally what works well. Having some pedagogical research into to some general guidelines for best practice could help at least some gyms teach in ways that has the potential to be more efficient and effective for a lot of people
Athlean-X aka Jeff Cavaliere is an exception in regards to accomplishment. He was the head Physical Therapist & Assistant Strength Coach for the Mets when they had some winning years.
A lot of these "science based" is also just circular logic. Like "people with bigger chests also bench more weight, therefore bench press for bigger chest", they word it very convincingly with graphs and stuff so it's entertaining and people don't even care lol.
“Studies show…” is the modern day equivalent of holier than thou priests referencing scripture to support any given viewpoints or positions they take on topics related to everyday people, while remaining very detached from real world struggles. It’s related to the meritocracy, and meritocratic underpinnings of predominantly capitalist market economics being a modern day restructuring of “good people deserve to go to heaven” into “this person is rich, therefore they deserve that wealth because what they’ve done must’ve been good” - while reality shows that some people do well life by making positive contributions, while may have made a fortune by inheritance, fraud, etc., and some people may have gone to a great school, college or university through their merits (intelligence, ability, etc) while others may have had far more opportunities or financial upper hands early on in life regards of where their innate abilities would’ve led them if required to compete without such advantages or if others did not have institutional disadvantages working against them
Your argument regarding their physiques is trash. Basically saying you should listen to people with great results , so practically people with great genetics. Have a guy with no arms ask phill heath how to build arms like that is going to help him. Ideally if you're looking at the results of someone you would want someone with mid genetics who struggled and learned to get towards a above average physique. Though in reality all that matters is the information. Also jeff nippard has a insane physique.
The comparison to martial arts is funny because we do see science/evidence based martial arts content as a thing lol. That’s a huge market with the likes of Icy Mike and Ramsey Dewey, what are you talking about?
This video should of been called something like: "the REAL truth about SCIENCE BASED training, ARE YOU LOSING GAINS?". Can't beat em join em Alexander xD.
![[UNCUT] “บอสณวัฒน์” ลากไส้!! ใครหนุนหลัง "แม่ตั๊ก ป๋าเบียร์" I คนดังนั่งเคลียร์ I 30 ก.ย. 67](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/QlD7mU2KKRk/mqdefault.jpg)
I wouldn't put Jeff N and BB medicine with Seedman or Athlean x in t he same bag though
Seedman is the worst. Don't follow BB Med, but I respect the Jeffs.
I sure would.
They're all con artists.
@@cjh1438 feigenbaum and baraki tho? whew.
@@diegozenteni1613 anyone who provides fitness information is prone to spike it with information designed to sell their products or services.
The big problem is 99% of the people that watch "science based" fitness videos don't actually do any research after the fact. They trust the personality on the channel and assume they wouldn't lie to them.
that's not a problem just with fitness. scientism is really bad nowadays. it's basically a religion at this time
@@Amish_Avenger Yep, the whole "trust the science" nonsense that people are parroting. Science that can't be questioned isn't science, it's just propaganda.
They also assume what research is cited was interpreted correctly. Which often isn't the case 😅
Crabs in a bucket.
@@samj8932 Yep, easy to "debunk" something when you purposely misinterpret the data. Egotism and narcissism are well represented in the field of science. Throw in government funding and you get a lot of "scientists" making shit up so they can appease a political narrative and keep the "free money" flowing.
Most of the "science based" community is basically a lot of TH-camrs that are subscribed to MASS talking about topics on MASS. Here is the deal . The guys on MASS are Greg Nuckols,Eric helms, Mike zurdos, etc. They are real world coaches and athletes who use their experience together with their academic background to go through studies, check how they are conducted and give some practical applications. They go through the methods of the studies in order to show the viewer how to decipher these studies because most of the studies are lacking! Mike israetel is another good example of science based guy that values individual experience and difference. Also a good real world coach. If there is something that is proven is that multiple methods work. Low volume,high volume, low rpe, failure training, high frequency , low frequency. In the end though. What would it take to get you to the gym training and stick to it? And what are you training for? And I can guarantee that everyone of you who wants to be elite level athlete would not stick to science but hire a PROVEN coach
But the reality is that all of the coaches and athletes you mentioned have loads of coaches that have a better success rate then them. They don't use the same methods and get vastly superior results.
A great example is Milos Sarcev has had more clients on the Olympia stage than all of the guys you mentioned combined.
He's better. That's the reality of it.
Just like Boris Sheiko, Louise Simmons and Stephen Korte have better powerlifters than all of your coaches and athletes combined.
The science is pretty shit compared to the anecdote.
Dr Stephen Seiler pointed this out in his TED talk. He mentioned how the real best athletes in various endurance sports DO NOT TRAIN in accordance to the science. Yet they have the athletes at the top echelon of their sport and not the control groups in the studies, that are training in accordance to the science.
@@stevenhewes1990 I do not disagree with ANY of what you said. Thats my point. What makes them good is not science (not on its own) . It's the fact they can listen to the individuals they are training. The fitness TH-camrs do not take.their advice because of their scientific background but because of their coaching skills. They use the "scientific background" for views. I never argued that coaches who have put better lifters exist.
Ever since I started using Jeff Nippards POV on exercises and form as well as his frequency based studies I'm telling you no BS works
@@stevenhewes1990 You're appealing to authority. Many top athletes are successful despite other factors, purely because genetics and hard work as so important. Usain Bolt's coach can claim to have won many medals yet is he the best sprint coach?
There are many coaches who are right for the athlete, but not necessarily because they are amazing coaches. Serena and Venus Williams had their father for many years, again, is he a great tennis coach? He's probably alright but it worked for him because of who he had to work with.
@@richpayne504 which was brought to him by MASS and eric helms. So what is your point?
as a flat earther i completely agree with your anti science stance
That's an interesting take, but I honestly think we should be making a clear line between evidence based channels like Jeff Nippard, RP, Barbell medicine from channels that promote gimmicky stuff saying that it has a scientific background while cherry picking studies.
I think you're not doing the good parte of the evidence based community justice in this video by clumping them with the clowns.
And I say that with the greatest respect for you man as I really enjoy your content
That is exactly what I was thinking.
But "evidence based" is used in the same stupid meaning as "science based". Bromley is evidence based. Juggernaut is evidence based. Starting Strength is evidence based. Coaches with a lot of experience are evidence based. The fact that something hasn't been "published" (i.e. published an an academic journal), doesn't mean that it doesn't exist and doesn't form a body of knowledge and experience.
@@kwastek The issue with this video is that it makes assumptions. Jeff Nippard for one is both. He started as accomplished powerlifter and has coached natural bodybuilders. Just the fact that he is "science based" does not mean he cant be "evidence based" aswell.
lol, if i look up "Science based" on YT, this vid is third to come up. Thats the alghorithm for ya
because you watch this channel, the algo takes into account your viewing history
I've become part of the system I hate.....
@@AlexanderBromley "Resistance is futile." *laughs in Borg*
Personal training should be looked at more as a trade in my opinion. You wouldn't ask a plumber what he knows about laminar flow before he fixes a burst pipe. As long as you know that he's an actual plumber and that he's done this before with satisfactory results, you feel good about hiring him.
Hiring a scientist to help you with personal training seems like hiring a physicist to fix your burst pipe. Yeah, they know the mechanics of how the pipe burst, and why the solder adheres to the copper pipe, but he's never fixed a pipe.
Of course you can be both a tradesman and a scientist here, but the result is the part that matters.
That is a spot on analogy. Getting people in shape requires such a minimal understanding of the science behind it but an exceptional understanding of practical application. Should be a trade
Literally, I grew up as Internet was getting big.
I know so many people who grew massive by just lifting heavy things and constantly lifting heavier and eating more.
The focus on the details is new and has benefits. But consistency , progressive overload and eat protein is probably 90% of what you need to get big.
@@AlexanderBromley This is an absurd take. Plumbing is science based, and plumbers understand the physics and science of plumbing. If I want to do my own plumbing, I will research plumbing. Just as if I want to train myself in the gym, I will research what works and what doesn't.
There is a tremendous amount of science related to strength and performance, and if people want to engage in that science, we should encourage and help them.
@@dustinirwin1 You're missing the point. Of course plumbers understand the science of plumbing. It’s the other way around that isn’t true. You wouldn't be worth crap as a plumber if you had a PhD in Physics but never went through a plumbing apprenticeship.
@@dustinirwin1Have you spoken to many plumbers? They have very little knowledge of stuff like even basic physics IME.
This is the new fitness TH-cam. Channels shitting on each other in an bid to outperform the algorithm.
Now THIS is cooking with peanut oil.
@@furezj What are you cooking today my man. :)
The Blaha legacy lives on
There’s a difference between shitting on someone and correcting them.
Real love means telling the truth. Some people respond to the truth by learning something about themselves, even though it’s hard or embarrassing. If you know anything about yourself that’s valuable, you know it was difficult to accept at first.
But then some people get offended and reactive. It’s exactly the difference between growth and stagnation; and when you give that mindset a whole system to support itself, you create a literal monster - constantly needing more artificial reinforcement because it’s based on insecurity rather than the truth.
The truth isn’t negative except in the hands of an ego in denial. That’s the real take. Not “stop being negative bro!” That’s for pussies. Plain and simple.
“Positivity” is a subjective ideal, totally dependant on anyone’s interpretation of whether something is “negative” or not.
What it ends up meaning is that whoever is most willing to use this so called ideal as a club to beat down the people who disagree with them about something will have control over what “positivity” means.
So not only is it extremely inefficient and confusing; it ends you up with the complete opposite of what it claims to be about; where tyrants claim to be in support of “positivity”, and use that elite status selfishly for their own personal gain with no regard to the cost to others.
And because they’ve convinced themselves that they are in support of the good, they are even more dangerous than an outwardly aggressive and unapologetic person who won’t get nearly as much support form others.
This is why Gandalf refuses to take the ring himself in the LOTR. He knows that with his status as a powerful wizard with a mindset and popularity as being in the service of the good, that he would be that much more dangerous as a tool for evil with the corrupting power of the ring.
Niceness is not goodness. In fact, anywhere it’s focused on as any sort of value, it is usually evil.
Exactly. And this is the point I unsubscribe from Bromley. If I wanted half baked sophomoric takes on the difference between "hard" and "soft" science I'd hang out in liberal arts dorm rooms.
I know it was mostly a joke but if you look into Jeff cavalier more you’ll find shit that’s out right dangerous. He instructs people to breath out before squatting instead of properly breathing and braceing. Which is not great.
Yep, he teaches an exhale on the decent in the squat, his deadlift form has a rounded back. Fake weights aside, just his form errors are enough to question his information. And for awhile he was part of that balance on a bosu ball "functional " training fad.
When I first started lifting in college I remember just watching videos to get ideas to setup a program and came across that video and was like "nope." I don't know if anyone that follows him can squat more than 315 for reps.
@@reggie7716 yeah and I’m not saying he doesn’t have some good information cause he does on some stuff. I think Alex highlighted that but when it comes to things like exercise execution and programming it’s pretty clear Jeff is out of his depth.
Don't pick on Jeff, watching a famous strength training guru struggle to lock out four plates is the only thing on social media that makes me feel good about my PRs.
Rehab seems to be his wheelhouse, I believe he was head of rehab for the New York Mets at one time. I'm sure they don't trust pro athletes to anybody- when he tries to put on the hat of a strength coach, things are on less solid ground.
This is a very critical comment, so I want to first point out that I've followed and enjoyed your channel since you helped with my first weight cut in 2018. Please don't write this off as someone who isn't a fan coming in here to yell at you, I'm here because I was interested in your take on this.
This video, insofar as it refers to Jeff Nippard, could not be more wrong.
- Leverage degree to give position of authority: Literally doesn't mention his degree. I've followed him for years and found out what the degree was a few weeks ago due to Rona discussions. The entirety of his comments are surrounding the studies he's referencing.
- Using one-off trash study to sell bullshit: Uses meta analyses when possible, rarely references just one study. Frequently mentions when something needs more exploration.
- Overextrapolating study results: Also, no. In fact, every video states that fitness/muscle building is highly individualized, and that the "science-based" recommendations simply offer a good place to start.
This feels like you made a video about Joel Seedman, then threw in the biggest YT names in the video and thumbnail for clicks, assuming they'd be the same. It's unsurprising you had to walk back your statement on Jeff Cavaliere given how little research you clearly did on Jeff Nippard.
I'm criticizing the approach which is synonymous with time in acadamia. Whether he leverages it by mentioning it or by making his channel revolve around research is not practically important.
I haven't watched every Nippard video, but that's not the standard for response or criticism. He leans on academic research in every video and academic research is irrelevant to bodybuilding and strength sports. Plenty in the field have degrees but way, way more don't and zero competitors are staying up to date on these studies to get the next competitive edge. So I don't know what further research is needed to substantiate my point.
All studies in this field are trash studies; even the best ones provide conclusions that are already well known or lead to trivia that doesn't influence how the most competitive train. It's not just about the study containing errors, it's about the limitation of the questions you can ask in the first place. If you ever find yourself in the warm up halls of the Worlds Strongest Man, IPL Worlds, or the Olympia, ask around about the last meta-study that shifted anyone's training paradigm.
You are right, training is 'highly individualized', which means all lifters should be learning how to set a baseline and move forward, making intelligent changes based on need. These videos don't address that because it's beyond the scope of what academic research can take on. I had this issue with Prilepin's Chart; I constantly get hit with 'but it's a good guideline'. No, no it's not. I could say 'just do odd numbered reps'. It's a good guideline. It works. But it's not based on anything meaningful.
I appreciate the time you took for your response!
@@AlexanderBromley Nippard does at least cite the research he reviews so you can go deep dive them later, that's not true of all and warrants mentioning.
Nippard is not worth listening to IMO
@@cgibbons2673 He's a fantastic beginners resource.
@@AlexanderBromley I don't think your comments about studies being trash and non of the world-class athletes using them is true. They usually have professional sports coaches and trainers who would already apply them in their training. On top of that, those studies are the best available information and are still applicable for general population, even if it doesn't fit the top 0.1% of population. I think you have gone too far in this video. I mean, who are you really to judge those academics and studies?
My kinesiology degree was pretty good from penn state. As far as for lifting and athletics not so much. The main thing i took from it was experiment design, epidemiology, and research. Kinesiology seems to mostly to be an avenue for physical therapy.
I started my gym with a guy who got a kines degree from Penn state. That evaluation makes sense.
Penn State also is home to Zatsiorsky 🏋️♀️
I can't take the AthleanX dude seriously. I actually listened to his advice and wasted a lot of time I could have spent doing squats. Nippard is a good boii tho.
Agreed. Nippard’s content is pretty good as long as you remember not to treat the science as dogmatic gospel (which he doesn’t suggest either).
AX is a joke. But I don't like Nippard. He just rubs me the wrong way. He's to proper. A good school boy. I prefer guys throwing an F bomb here and there ;) you know what I mean..
Agreed
Using Jeff's training I'm benching 325 with a fit look. Not a powerlifters body
And that's 8 months of training soooo
I think there are levels to this, when I started working out I got a lot of information from channels like Jeff Nippard. I don't think "intermediate" and "advanced" lifters rely on the information from Jeff Nippard, I think they know how individual training is and might watch more channels like RP or JST (or none at all because they read books or know their own training). These are also scientific channels but make clear that training is individual and that you must try to search what is optimal for yourself (or client).
Agreed. I would personally take it further and say that the Bromley-type advice of "it's all individual, man" is as harmful to beginners as it is helpful to intermediates.
When I was starting out, I had no idea what program was good, what would do nothing, and what would put me at injury risk. And as much merit as there is to trying things out, beginners will improve on nearly anything and just picking something at random with no understanding of if it's good is unsatisfying. "It's all individual, man" created so much frustration for me and made it really, really difficult to learn anything because it asserts there is nothing to learn.
"Everything is highly individualized, but this is the general best practice" gives you a place to start and an actual opportunity to learn.
That's not really how I approach giving newbies a place to start. I have a couple of books and a few hundred videos that all reinforce the same idea: pick a baseline of work and progress forward. The progression is what causes growth, not the exact arrangement of stress in an individual workout.
Anyways, I really don't see how starting with thin research and ending with, "but it's all individual" doesn't create more confusion.
To address the OP, I would think the most current research would actually apply to the most advanced since they would theoretically be walking the thinnest tightrope to continue growing. But it doesn't. And if it doesn't apply to them, it certainly has no business being applied to people who can accidentally bench 300lbs by following Arnold's Bodybuilding Encyclopedia, a year subscription to M&F, Sheiko's Powerlifting Fundamentals, Crossfit, Starting Strength or exploiting literally any one of the COUNTLESS triggers for growth that can be mastered without needing a stats class.
@@anthonypillarella Disagree. Anecdotally, Bromley's advice was the simplest and most clear when I started running Greyskull as a beginner.
What I got from this channel was "have a basic plan, show up, be consistent, get lots of volume so you learn technique". Bromley simplified a lot of the confusion for me early on in his program reviews.
@@jamesallred342 I agree, both side are needed practical aka "real life" and scientific. Like watching Dave tate vs watching Mike isratel.
“Athlean X and Jeremy Ethier look like distance runners who do some bicep curls” 🔥🔥🔥
Damn king good to see you here.
That is true for Jeremy, but seems harsh on Cava seen as he’s in his mid 40’s and still ripped.
you have body dismorphia, they are muscular...
@@joshuadawson8202 Skinny! There is a difference. If Jeff is "ripped" so is 99% of Ethiopia
To be fair a lot of science based people have also gotten rid of some of the old bullshit ideas these do it yourself guys came up with back in the day but yeah there’s some guys that obviously get scamy with “science”
As someone currently studying S&C at university level, I feel this. Such a soft science, large amount of fluff and anything useful they teach can easily be found on the internet. Love the martial arts analogy, will definitely be using that going forward.
Martial arts is an acquired skill that has nothing to do with science whatsoever, the act of building muscle involves human/cellular biology which is quite literally a science…
Its a bad analogy and now they are using scientific methods to create better coaching in bjj like the ecological approach which seems like its working.
I have always found it comical when people like Mike Israetel act like his Phd in sport science is like the hardest fucking thing to get ever and even calls himself a doctor. It's not a terrible degree if you want to become a personal trainer or something but it's nowhere near as difficult as a lot of sciences.
all those guys you described as having "better than average physiques nothing exceptional" like Nippard and Jeremy have a much better physique than you for what I care about. Looking good and being strong enough and healthy is more important to me than taking PEDS and ending up like a massmonster just to bench 500lbs. I think you know a lot about getting strong, but are too dismissive of things you don't know a lot about like HIIT and the benefits of cardio more generally. it might not matter to strong man but to living a long life of vitality i beg to differ.
This is asinine. The guys you site all started back when the YT fitness space was utterly doninated by juiced morons preaching bro-science nonsense. Wanting to switch that up and apply a) some real knowledge and b) realistic expectations, was admirable, not cynical. They deserve all the success that brought.
High School Teacher - "Your habits in high school won't slide in university, it's a different animal."
University Professor: "Here's some playdough"
hahaha between the breadth courses and bouncing around from different majors, I learned quickly that much of college is High School part II. My loathing for the university system is a different video....
@@AlexanderBromley I think it provides more value in the networking opportunities and other career resources than the courses will ever provide - especially in this day and age. I'm pursuing a graduate degree and have found that just completing the coursework will not really get you anywhere. If the courses is what someone is going to university for then they are pretty much getting scammed.
That playdough costs $30K or more!
@@AlexanderBromley cant wait
Yup!!!
I will say in Jeff nippards defense he used to be a high level tested powerlifter, and is a pro tested bodybuilder I do believe as well
Heh heh "tested" (not sayin he's on gear)
Yeah I will say that part of the argument doesn’t really apply to Jeff N. at all, he is pretty on top in those fields. He held the bench press national record at one point (it was broken right after but still)
@@jojcaac5488 I believe he is natty, along with 99% of tested powerlifters (in the ipf) but I know novices that don’t know anything about how gear, wada, or out of meet testing works will say “drUg tEsTeD dOESnT mEaN dRuG fREe”
@@Jmack7861 ya never know, the only one who knows if a person is on drugs or not is the person themselves.
@@jojcaac5488 but the likelihood that someone is going to shut themselves down for over a month causing a regression for the ability to use gear for maybe a week is not high. Unless there is a way to do something like the Russians did where the urine is completely swapped, or the person hasn’t competed in a year and isn’t at the top level to where they are in the out of meet testing pool there isn’t a window of time anyone could get away with it. And using bio identical compounds while your levels are in the reference range and all the other work you’d have to do to keep the rest of your bloods within normal limits just isn’t worth the work or time AND on top of that being in the middle of the reference range on TRT is not near the same as being able to blast test tren anadrol and halo through a meet.
Looking forward to the deep dive and subsequent disillusionment with Cavaliere.
LOL, my thoughts exactly! :D
This is how I felt in grad school tbh. There is science and there are the people doing science. Humans are not robots. We make mistakes and have biases. Scientists are just regular people studying theory. And rarely does theory meat the road of reality.
I think with a lot of these youtubers, what is "exceptional" is their video production quality. Kind of like how do you make a fancy dinner, ingredients are the same but sprinkle some garnish on top and arrange it nicely on a plate and suddenly you can charge 3x the price for CRB.
Not to mention a lot of what they present is just them rehashing another person's work.
this
@@TheJollyMisanthrope That's called spreading information. Which is the job of an informational video. If every researcher made their own videos as well, it would be a pretty slow process.
@@larrypotter2243 Most fitness channels are just parroting information they have no clue about, and making money off of it. Little to no integrity to be found.
@@TheJollyMisanthrope I agree that most do that. You original comment just lacked enough specificity as to what you were referring to. The parroting of info that they don't know anything about is pretty dumb.
Lol @ the kinesiology rant. My own experience with nutrition & dietetics was very similar.
I knew it wasn't just me!
"Science based" gained a lot of traction because of the backlash from youtube charlatan's e.g. V shred
Performance physcology is very interesting. Did you know that nor-adrenaline, when it get's to a threshold level in our brain actually forces us to QUIT! it litterally switches off motor control so we can't keep running for example. Dopamine help tamp down nor-adrenaline so we can push through the performance. The best atheltes know how to release dopamine during thier performance to stop nor-adrenaline from forcing them to quit.
Now that's what I was talking about!
Before I start unpacking and debunking some of the more ridiculous claims and inaccuracies in this video, I have to make a disclaimer to kids - this is why you shouldn't listen to meatheads. Mr. Bromley is a perfect example of someone who doesn't understand much about anything discussed in this video yet positions himself as an expert. Great presentation doesn't mean great information, applies to some of the people he discussed too.
Now I assume the rest of the comment will be on the negative side, but let me be clear, Bromley's main point of the video is perfectly valid. He is 100% correct. A lot of charlatans have used the science brand, especially in the fitness industry to sell and/or preach all kinds of nonsense. He is 100% right on keeping science honest, but luckily science has in-built mechanisms that do that already. Bromley is also fully or partially correct on a couple of other things which I'll highlight next.
Is Bromley wrong about everything? No. For example, he realized that Jeff from Athlean X is not your average coach. The guy has an exceptional coaching career under his belt and a solid academic background too. I like how he calls these guys "runners who did some curls" and just a bit to the right on the Bell curve but both Jeffs, Nippard and Athlean X, are at least one standard deviation to the right, probably closer to two standard deviations. That would be fine if you, Mr. Bromley, weren't someone who looks barely above average and takes gear to accomplish that. Another thing he is partially correct on is the division of science into hard and soft. While no actual scientist would divide it like this, it does serve a valuable purpose for this video. Where he is wrong though is that nutrition science, medicine and exercise science fall under this category. They are very, very much hard sciences in this categorization. The only difference is that we simply don't have fully developed models of how everything works exactly in our bodies YET. Eventually we will get to the point of understanding enough to be able to make high certainty claims. Mr. Bromley also understands the point of you being your own test subject. You are basically your scientific sample and should be figuring how things work for you. Lastly, the point on time and environment changing is 100% on point.
The most egregious inclusion here is you lumping in Jeff Nippard with the other people. Bromley said that these science based fitness individuals have no high achievements and/or top tier athletic performance. First and foremost, elite performance is not indicative of coaching ability. Quite literally 99% of the best coaches in ANY disciple were never even remotely close to being elite athletes themselves. This is not an exaggeration, almost nobody who is elite becomes a good coach. Great coaching requires one to be quite cerebral and methodical in their approach but you wouldn't know much about that would you Alexander. By this moronic logic, Jordan would be the best basketball coach, Messi would become a god tier coach in soccer, Coleman would be the goat of coaching in bodybuilding, yet all of them are mediocre coaches at best. Back to Nippard - the dude competed in natural bodybuilding and powerlifting (I belive 6 competitions in each sport) with great success, ranking as one of Canada's best for his age and weight categories. He also has a prolific career coaching athletes to the bodybuilding stage as well as a wealth of experience coaching the gen pop. Jeff would also be the first one to point out the shortcomings of science in bodybuilding, but in order to know that you would have to spend time researching topics instead of researching marketing tactics Alexander.
Mr. Bromley stated at one point in the video that science is absent from the best coaching practices and with best athletes which is demonstrably false. Most of the elite athletes in practically any athletic discipline employ a ton of science, especially if their sport requires extensive strength and conditioning. In sports near and dear to my heart, bodybuilding and MMA, the leading trainers and camps are increasingly becoming more science focused. Matt Jensen, the RP crew and 3DMJ guys in bodybuilding, American Top Team in MMA. It is no surprise that these guys are producing elite athletes at a faster rate than anyone else plus they have insane longevity and health preservation as one of their focuses which will be the future of these sports.
Another easy rebuttal is with respect to science not being at the cutting edge in "lifting" sports. Again, check out what the aforementioned coaches are doing. Also bodybuilding has a natural side too and more than 80% of the best WNBF competitors have accomplished their results by adhering to the the scientific principles. So Mr. Bromley, science is pushing us to the new frontier in lifting, you just choose to be blinded by your biases. Maybe you should take your own advice from the end of the video.
Last but most certainly not least, here's a takeaway point for people interested in bodybuilding, if you made it this far - use science as presented by Nippard or Dr. Mike and the rest of the RP crew, or Dr. Eric Helms as a starting point. Test a reasonable training and nutrition plan, rigorously keep a logbook on everything you do and then make changes, test, compare and repeat until you figure out what really works for your unique genetic makeup and structure. Science will help you discard a lot of nonsense like partials and bro splits, that's why it is a useful tool. It is also the best method for knowledge acquisition. If you have the potential and the aspirations to be elite, then science will only help you as a tool you use on yourself because what we know now simply breaks down at the very extremes in bodybuilding. In this scenario you will literally be the lab coat guy studying yourself to see what helps you squeeze out the 1% gains.
This was a lot of writing for something no one is going to see. I planned on a thorough response, but got far enough to see the condescending tone and decided not to bother.
@@AlexanderBromley he might be a condescending bellend but he is also mostly right
"Quite literally 99% of the best coaches in ANY disciple were never even remotely close to being elite athletes themselves."
This is completely untrue.
Zinedine Zidane, Pep Guardiola, Mario Zagallo, Kenny Dalglish, Franz Beckenbauer, Jupp Heynckes
, Giovanni Trapattoni, Alex Ferguson, Larry Bird, Doc Rivers, Carlo Ancelotti, Cael Sanderson, Mike Brown. These are just a few that come to mind as a casual fan of these sports and don't even include every sports coach ever. Pep Guardiola who've I've mentioned is arguably the greatest soccer coach of all time, do you think that him being one of the most renowned players of his era added more or less to his ability to coach? Be honest.
If you look at Soccer's history of giving out the Onze d'Or Coach of the Year and FIFA World Coach of the Year
award you'll immediately notice that almost every winner of it is a former athlete of the sport, and a very high level one at that, same with all of the AP NFL Coach of the Year Award going to coaches with extensive history playing in College Football. Ron Rivera won AP Coach of the Year twice, he's a former NFL Champion and consensus All-American. If you actually look at most coaches you'll quickly notice the majority are former elite athletes of the sport.
@@crackmonsieurluckily, football is my sport - you proceeded to list a lot of names as former athletes. His point wasn't that best coaches weren't athletes themselves, but that they weren't elite. Let's take a look at some names in your list. Zidane was considered the best player on Earth for a good bit. Why was he so highly regarded? BECAUSE HE WAS A CEREBRAL PLAYER. He was as unathletic as they come, but a genius.
This is the key to coaching, you need to be cerebral in your approach and most truly elite athletes aren't. They are gifted with ridiculous genetics, but not brains. Carlo and Pep were both average players in their day and responsible for these more intelligence based tasks on the football pitch.
so the original commenter is 100% on point.
@@mrvacepadrva81" He was as unathletic as they come" Yeah this is nonsense. Zidane is lauded more for his dribbling, passing, and vision but these are all downstream from his athletic gifts. He was praised during his time for his strength and accerlation, plus later in his career for his defensive work rate. an unathletic person isn't doing any of this, a average athletic person isn't.
" and most truly elite athletes aren't.
Ok? I'm not arguring that every elite althlete becomes an elite coach, but that many of the best coaches themselves were elite althetes. You just seem to be working with a very narrow definition of what "elite" means.
Athlean-X should never be mentioned in a neutral-positive light
haha I knew I would regret that comment
Just an observation, the "science based" community as a whole tends to be more focused on winning online arguments than getting results anyway.
100%
💀
Facts
They look pretty good
@@rockon8174 the people he mentioned, for sure. The people in forums who will convince you that you can't make progress without using the latest most perfect up to date science based training protocol while hitting the exact macros prescribed by the latest peer reviewed study, not so much.
I don't know how in the fuk you compare Jeff Nippard to AthleanX and Seedman. The quality of his information is leaps and bounds above theirs, not to mention he is legitimately strong (was a tested Powerlifting champion) and is a pro bodybuilder. He not only properly cites the research that he uses, but he gives the limitations of that research and provides nuance to pretty much everything he covers. He sure as sh*t isn't just a "medium distance runner with biceps". He's not even on the same playing field as everyone else you mentioned in this video.
In properly giving the nuance and limitations of the studies, exponentially more questions are raised, leaving the only actionable advice to be "do what works for you". This renders the analysis of these studies pointless. The state of academic strength and conditioning research is not such that training decisions can be informed by them, not even close. So while I don't believe Jeff's channel is without value or that he is an out and out fraud, as long as he pretends that poring over research studies was the key to his success, his viewers will be distracted with it, be confused by it and approach training decisions incorrectly because of it. I don't care that people like him. He goes in the same boat.
@@AlexanderBromley Also the scientific community is beyond corrupt
This just seemes like a guy saying. "Trust me i know best, beacuse you know.... well, trust me". I think everyone should study some basic sience methodology, then you will know when someone is full of BS like Seedman and when someone actually atleast try to bee helpfull like Nippard or "Bro Brad" or Mike Isratel. Its not black or white but this video made me understand how a lack of understanding make you see all of these guys like the same thing.
Not many “science based” TH-cam’s are worth listening to…. Dr. Israetel, the RP team, Nuckols, Layne Norton, etc. are the exceptions.
I like Helms too
Science based scientism is a religious cult masked as truth, it has all the trappings of cultism.
Barbell Medicine, especially their videos on pain and injury have helped me a lot.
Barbell Medicine, Helms, Nuckols, Israetel are the only ones worth watching. Sometimes Nippard is good too.
Those channels you mentioned are no better than the rest
Ohhh nooo Alex you are betting on the wrongest of horses hahaha Jeff Cavaliere is as bad for fitness as he is for performance
Lol I had to give the man his due on this topic. But I haven't watched more than 5 minutes of his channel. I'll proceed cautiously.
@@AlexanderBromley if you can check out Alec Enkiri’s (this guys channel is really good) video on why Jeff is not a strength coach
Btw really appreciate your content man👌
@@AlejandrooVIII It's moronic saying he's not a strength coach. You don't get hired by The Mets if you know nothing. Alec Enkiri on the other hand literally trains no one beyond the under 9s athletics at his local high school.
@@AllanThrawlNutHugger well without throwing appeals to authority here’s the thing
-
A strength coach should know proper bracing (Jeff doesn’t know or at least he recommends exhaling before squatting)
-
A strength coach knows you can’t program a 4RM deadlift set, then rest then again 4RM deadlift set (I don’t even know how much time he put for rest) and he calls that a back workout meaning do it whenever you train back (which is just weird and pretty much stupid)
-
He doesn’t seem to understand the concept of what RM means btw
-
His german training volume is crazy, resting 1 min doing 10 sets of 1 reps with 75-85% of RM (Again if you understand RM and percentages you know how crazy that is)
-
I’m not trying to be mr. Right man however for the sake of your progress I recommend you to read this with an open mind and challenge what Jeff says, to see if it makes sense
-
Bromley is an excellent channel for strength you are better of hearing him than Jeff
@@AlejandrooVIII Dude you are trying to be Mr KnowItAll. I don't follow everything Jeff says but a lot of what he says agrees with many other PROFESSIONAL strength coaches.
IDK what you're talking about with the telling you to do 4RM DLs everytime you do your back days. In fact he doesn't get his Pro Athletes to conventional dl at all but he does say make DLs a regularly part of your program which is right.
Dan John in Easy Strength has you doing DLs at either 2 sets of 5 or 3 sets of 3 everyday.
The 10x10 stuff was just a 'try it and see how much you can do then try it again later and see how much you can do' thing, not a serious program. Check out the Will Tennyson review for a real program.
Bromley's very good too but I've heard him talk bollocks on occasion as well, such as the acute rise in Testosterone you'll get from doing a high rep squat set will 'make you grow like a weed'. Lol.
Seems like a strange gripe tbh. The vibe here is jealousy over more successful creators. I'm a fan of this channel and most the others listed. Both can exist in this world.
Lifting is legit the most simple thing that you can get lost in a metric fuck ton of overcomplication. Go gym, lift heavy weights (relative to your strength) and when its not heavy anymore lift heavier, if you cant lift heavier lift it for more reps or sets
Wish I had known about you years ago. Amazing stuff. I have combined the 70s powerlifter and bullmastiff programs from your book. One cycle through in base phase and I love it. Love the freedom of the auto regulation in the bullmastiff program and the just brutal work of the 70s program. Thank you for everything.
Every individual is their own fitness experiment. You have to set a goal, establish a hypothesis on how to meet that goal (pick a program, diet, etc.), run the experiment (actually stick to the program, diet, etc.), and compare your results to where you were and your goal.
Wash, rinse, and repeat. It takes time, it's frustrating, but it's the only way to find the real truth for you. TH-cam channels including this one are just a tool to learn about new methods to try in your own experiment.
WOW !!! Vibrating plats build muscles.😂😂
Well, it also helps the algorithm to have a girlfriend who's ass you can point at in the thumbnail.
You get three studies that say one thing and three that say the opposite, you can get bogged dawn in this stuff.
I actually watched Jeremy Ethier a little bit when I was new to this but after a while I realized he wasn't much bigger than me and I was a complete beginner 🤣
Jeremy Ethier isn't even muscular
i’m 19 and i was bigger than the Jeremy eitier or whatever the fuck his name is at like 17 years old. guy barely even lifts, no idea how he’s popular
I can definitely see some black market scam program by Jeremy ethier on how he made millions and became famous by using this exact Scientific method. For just 699.99 British pounds.
"Formal academic research is not the cutting edge of strength training." So true. Experience speaks loudly in this field.
I’d say Jeff Nippard is a good source of basic information but his issue is over complicating simple topics by over inflating his videos with complex terminology that novice lifters won’t understand. He needs to explain the practical application of the studies he’s referencing
I can easily forgive the click baitey nonsense, as long as the content remains excellent. I greatly respect your recanting of accusations against AthleanX after finding that your research didn't support your theory. This perfectly illustrates the honesty and dedication to truth that makes your channel one of my favorites.
Yeah, but AX is shitty in his own way.
lol I had to give him credit on this point, but that's what I keep hearing
@@AlexanderBromley It's so cute that a lowly YT viewer like myself, who happens to have more experience with a certain thing like AX here, can observe a pro like you and think: "son" you still have a lot to learn - but you'll get there :D
@@kwastek Meh, I have yet to watch a video of his that I totally disagree with given the context of what he's trying to do and who the typical viewer is. And he set up a gofundme for the Meadows family so he automatically gets points from me for that.
@@jamesgrant lately he’s been a lot better other than the fear mongering. 2010-2016 was the prime of functional quackery and bro science
A piece a lot of people miss is that much of the science done in applied exercise science is based on bro science. Concepts are started in the gym, they seem to work, so we then research it to test and prove/disprove it. Science is our best bet, but it comes from laypeople most often.
Alex has the most under-appreciated lifting channel on youtube. He provides so much value for free
Just wanna say: Thank you very much Alexander!
I watch this channel because you give solid advice, based on experience as a competitor and a coach.
Jesus people get so offended these days, I kinda like some of the science based community, like Jeff Nippard, Mike Israetel and even some of Barbell Medicine stuff (although their arrogance really turn me off sometimes), but I understand Bromley's criticism, you can like some stuff and dislike others, I don't even agree with everything Bromley says and I'm a patreon subscriber of his, this goddamn cancel culture is really getting out of hand
Lol such is the nature of social media platforms. I would complain, but I'm currently exploiting it for my own benefit......
Being totally ignorant, my newbie approach to volume has been to increase it over several weeks then drop it and add weight. I also use long rest times because when I started out, I had half an hour with a trainer and the breakneck speeds we took to get in as much variety as possible meant we could get to push-ups, an exercise im decent at, and I couldn't do a single one because my muscles were jelly. And week to week it didn't feel like I was progressing as I got too exhausted to PR much.
Brilliant.
This is the kinda content I'm going to rewatch multiple times to get all the good info wrung out.
With the tiny exception of the AthleanX fandom, but I wouldn't expect you to be up on his ethical controversies.
7 minutes in and it's clear you've never actually watched the videos of these channels
Is it?
I love this video. Being a guy who works in marketing, I see through the science-based messaging. Sure, many bodybuilders from the 70s and what not have great genetics, but a lot of the techniques they used were effective. One thing I’ve noticed with a Jeremy Ethier is that he often misreads studies and ignore basic principles. This is especially true when he said you should backload protein before bed. He ignored the fact the fact that protein has a high thermic effect of food and that it can impact sleep.
Jeff (Fake weights) Cavalier
Jeff ("Breathe out before you squat") Cavalier
Craplean X: putting the pseudoscience back into exercise fearmongery
If there's one of these guys that you're gonna want to do a deep dive on to maybe change your opinion on, it's Nippard, not Cavalier.
Actually, do one on Cavalier too. But for the opposite reason.
I actually like Nippard's content. Only criticism is the continued appeal to 'science', which just serves as a massive distraction for anyone trying to wrap their heads around this stuff.
@@AlexanderBromley Yeah, it's definitely a marketing strategy, but one that I would also appreciate if he would move away from.
I was just laughing to myself the other day about pseudo-intellectual science based lifting people. Great vid
Powerlifters and bodybuilders are divas. Lol they want to make their training more complicated than it is. No disrespect to the science based guys, but their target audience doesn’t really even lift.
Athlean-X: Science Based Training is killing your gains.
Great video, Alex. I graduated with my Bachelor's in Exercise Science in 2013. I've been working with clients ever since. It is daily battle reeling people in and getting them to actually understand "what the science says." To be honest, I've learned more by actually coaching people hands on, than I did from reading studies. That said they still a great resource and if you can understand what they were actually testing and how it can be applied, you can further develop your methods using the information.
Good sir. Would you mind explaining what a exercise science degree is and what classes you took. I’m currently going to college and am still figuring out what to major in and exercise science seems pretty interesting.
@@dannybautista8817 it's a 4 year/bachelor's.
Classes included. Anatomy and Physiology, Biology with labs, physics, motor learning, kinesiology with labs, statistics and research analysis, specific classes for programming for strength training and personal training, cardio Physiology classes, medical pathology classes and a few others I'm forgetting.
If you can find a nationally accredited program, it's no joke. You'll be set up for either becoming an exercise professional, physical therapist with more education or a bunch of other career paths.
@@scottlapier4797 wow that’s a lot of classes. Thank you for sharing everything. I hope you have a good day.
If you follow athleanx and belief its a credible soirce it means you are not credible
Bromley - your content stands out, just saying. I have recommended your breathing/bracing videos alone to dozens of people. Also the videos about spinal stability, the McGill Three etc, Your channel is premium stuff. Keep up the good work please.
Trying to equate scientific analysis of martial arts to hypertrophy or strength is pretty fucking dumb. Martial arts is infinitely more complex and subjective than, say, muscle growth. Let alone the fact that to some people martial arts is arguably an art form. Scientific analysis of muscle growth is well within our grasp. However I don't know of anyone that argues exercise science is infallible.
Equate?? It's called a goddamn analogy. I know, I know, you memorized the short list of fallacies from Intro to Philosophy so you can mindlessly graft them onto every online disagreement you get into. But analogies take just the slightest bit of critical thinking. Let me help you out.
Analogy: "a comparison between two things, typically for the purpose of explanation. a correspondence or partial similarity."
Both strength sports and MMA are physical disciplines with A.) a competitive hierarchy that selects for best practices B.) a century (or more) of dedicated study within those competitive hierarchies C.) many different methods of becoming competitive D.) a level of complexity that makes meaningful study in a lab setting damn near impossible.
MMA is not 'arguably an art form'. I'm talking about "Mixed Martial Arts" which is a competitive sport, not fucking Tai Chi. Art forms don't have right and wrong answers.
If you think that 'scientific analysis of muscle growth is well within our grasp', meaning that formal lab study has ever, or will ever, contribute to what the best bodybuilders, powerlifters and strongmen will do, then I feel EXTREMELY confident assuming that you aren't within a square mile of being competitive in any of those fields.
@@AlexanderBromley Sorry I hurt your feelings by using the word equate instead of analogize. You obviously just wanted to find a reason to complain about guys with lower totals than you being more successful on yt.
@@Swamp_Donkey_ Well, they mean two different things, so thank you for your apology. If you are going to play the 'educated internet asshole with strong opinions', do better. Write a rough draft. Have someone check it. Fuck.
@@AlexanderBromley "I wish my total was as good of an appeal to authority as Jeff Nippards degree"
@@Swamp_Donkey_ hahah there's that regurgitated fallacy.
Great video and really sound points 👍
Coming from someone like yourself who has quantifiable, real world success that your methods work carries a lot of weight.
Not just someone who has a bunch of letters after their name.
Great video. But you’re wrong about Jeff.
His content doesn't center around analysis of academic research?
I'd be very curious to see you dissect one of Nippard's videos and see where his advice is off base or misleading when compared to real world knowledge. I think you make good points and express yourself quite well, but deal mostly in generalities. Specifics could be most enlightening. Thanks for the vid.
See the video before this one
Facts! You can't depend on some study to tell you exactly how to train. Apply the fundamentals, gain experience, and just do what works 💪
I think that you are mistaken in calling out Jeff Nippard. The dude's been coaching for more than a decade, is an accomplished pro natural bodybuilder and powerlifter too. He has coached accomplished natural bodybuilders. And what do you mean by "better than average physique"? He is probably extremely close to his natural genetic limit... An excellent science communicator, he's probably in the top 20 of "fitness personalities you should actually listen to".
I really think you're wrong about him.
Edit: edited down because I got carried away and Bromley doesn't deserve that tone.
Yeah I agree. I enjoy watching Bromley and I get the point he was aiming at but he really didn't do his own research on this one and missed the point completely with Nippard.
The fact that Jeff creates easy to access content to share information and popularise science to the masses does not mean that he is exploiting it to push his own agendas. Instead he is giving us tools to work with but in the same time he allways reminds his viewers to find out what works for them and has collaborated with the accomplished expermentalist like the late John Meadows on techiques that have not yet been proofed by science but absolutely work in practise.
This, Jeff his body is great and his advice is really solid. Just because he cant bench 500 lbs or coaching mr olympia bodybuilders doesnt mean he doesnt know his stuff.
That's a bit of a stretch, he didn't even say anything negative about Jeff.
I personally can't stand him, but I can't really stand any "science based" channels. Like Bromley said, exercise science isn't a hard science and the studies are flawed. Reading studies and actually being an experienced lifter/coach are two completely different things. Not saying Jeff doesn't know how to train I just personally don't like how heavily he pushes the whole "science based" training idea.
You're right, I haven't watched every Nippard video, but that's not the standard for response or criticism. He leans on academic research in every video and academic research is irrelevant to bodybuilding and strength sports. Many in the field have degrees but way more don't and zero competitors are staying up to date on these studies to get the next competitive edge. So I don't know what further research is needed to substantiate my point.
Also, I'm not trying to assassinate Nippard's character or anyone else. I don't think I need to insert "but his other stuff might be really good" every 4 sentences when I am critiquing an obvious trend in the industry. It's fine if you like Nippard. I was literally just commenting on this trend and only this trend.
Natural bodybuilding is the equivalent of rec-league baseball; that's not a dig, it's an objective comment on how deep the talent pool is in that field. Jeff has a good physique (certainly better than mine) and has no doubt worked hard for it, but there are better physiques in every Fitness 19 in the US.
So, I do not consider him an elite performer (my standards might be more strict) but you're right, that doesn't mean he doesn't know his stuff. I believe he knows more about these studies than virtually all of the elite coaches and athletes out there, but that's the point: not a single one of his clients or audience members, or even himself, are better off for it.
Popularizing formal research is not a benefit to strength, physique or performance and this information actually distracts the audience and sets them back. That's the point of my critique.
Nippard does however in many of his videos illustrate how the research he cites can be incomplete and how much academic and formal research need to be scrutinized when placing forward practical recommendations.
I went to LSU and most the athletes (especially all of the football team) were "kinesiology majors" to create the illusion of being students.
The biggest mistake of the science-based comunity is to jump on any correlation:
Advanced powerlifters have more muscle than non-advanced lifters: Powerlifters should train like bodybuilders!
Advanced bodybuilders have more strength than non-advanced bodybuilders: Bodybuilders should train like powerlifters.
In fairness, linking Nippard with some of these other guys is a bit off. His physique is not elite level by natural standards (though well above average and improbable to achieve for many of us without drugs), but he coaches a guy with a physique and strength level (he can bench 405lbs) that is elite level. His videos acknowledge the necessity for experience and not just research; and his technique, his programs, his circle of lifters (which included John Meadows) all testify to his experience and ability. Jeremy Ethier is not in that league by a long way. Jeff may use 'science based' as a buzz word occasionally, but he doesn't rely on it.
Very thought-provoking video Bromley! You bring up a lot of really good points in this video about science-based content and want to share my thoughts as someone who holds a bachelors (CSUSB alum) and masters degree in Kinesiology - and is now doing a Ph.D. in Health Science.
1) I've realized that many of the KInesiology programs are hit or miss with the way that they lay out their curriculum. Some are very much a glorified personal training degree while others are very vigorous and oriented in the hard sciences. I'm lucky in that I've had the latter experience for both of my degrees (not sure what was going on with CSUSB when you were there, they have outstanding faculty now though). I would say I was trained as a physiologist rather than a "kinesiologist".
2) You are alluding to a big issue with many Kinesiology programs: they don't teach you how to apply this knowledge into everyday situations and how to coach people. The ACSM has caught wind of this (about time) and is lobbying for accrediting bodies to change this of for the future.
3) You bring up a great point about how muddy a lot of the work is. Science, specifically with humans, is very tedious and has so many variables involved. You can't reasonably control everything (nor should you, the real world application will take a big hit). I've learned to take findings with a grain of salt half the time because the parameters of the studies may or may not be reproducible. As an aside, science (not just my field, but all field) have a big issue with reproducibility of results. Academics aren't incentivized to reproduce data - it's all about who can produce the most novel and interesting data.
4) You also allude to a big issue with science at the moment: we are prioritizing randomized control trials way to much. Sure, RCTs are the best way to see if an intervention works but you'd think the way people talk about them that it's the ONLY way to obtain new knowledge. Case studies, observational, cross-sectional, etc. methods are all valuable. I honestly gravitate towards yourself, Matt Wenning, Dave Tate, and Greg Nuckols more than these "science-based" folk because of my latter point.
5) As much as we like to shit on the flaws of science, most of the way we know about how humans adapt had it's start in scientific research.
6) Physical fitness/exercise has always been in this muddy spot socially. It simultaneously fits in the healthcare setting as a preventative strategy but also functions as a way to obtain a higher social standing. I think that's part of what makes it hard to study. Your perspective matters immensely here.
Keep up the great work man, I really enjoy the content you put out!
You hit the nail right on the head in first part of your video. If you can't back up your "science" with athletes you've produced then it's not science.
I think Nippard is a step above these; trying to follow Athlean X advice when I started out didn't get me any results at all until I saw a Nippard video on diet then my body changed overnight almost
Athlean X and Ryan Humiston provide total garbage. Nippard isn't too bad, I agree.
Ryan is at least entertaining.
Nippard's video defending sumo deadlift is the most dishonest video I've ever come across on youtube.
"Trust because doctor??"
Trust because current/former elite powerlifters who coach a bunch of elite powerlifters... and also doctors.
Never suggested they weren't good at what they do. Im pointing to the fact they lead with their position as doctors to build authority
@@AlexanderBromley That’s true. But their stated mission is to bring together modern medicine and S&C. They work with healthcare providers as much as gen pop/competitive lifters. They wrote the UpToDate article on resistance training for clinicians to reference in their practice.
In this instance, wouldn’t you say that’s justified (as opposed to, say, Dr Jim Stoppani or Dr Aaron Horschig)?
Thanks for your video. Nice to listen to someone experienced. Natural hypertrophy did video on simillar topic. I recommend watching.
Who?
My incognito "science based" results are completely different. Except Andrew Huberman nothing "physique" related.
My incognito "science based" results are completely different. Except Andrew Huberman nothing "physique" related.
I feel that that's great that guys read all the studies and do all the research but the problem comes in where they believe who heartedly and will fight to the death that whatever the conclusion was to a particular study is the end all be all. My argument is that it has nothing to do w me . That's great that 70% of the time you get a 40% increase in lean Mass by 5 to lbs if you eat in 300caloroe surplus. That was a joke an example but we are all different and can all do the same thing and there's still so many variables that we can all get diff results. And we can also all do the same thing 3 times individually and still get 3 diff results. You have to just try diff things u til you see what works and doesn't work for you!
The big problem with the science around strength training is that everything works... just not for everyone. I only have three fast-twitch fibers in my entire body, and they work in shifts. So any program that centers around explosive movements will be useless to me. But "studies show" that those programs are effective.
What you are describing is,
individuals regardless of degree,
Ignoring scientific method in their descriptions and hypothesis .
Science observes what happens and records it.
Sure much not understood,
you could spend your whole life reinventing the wheel,
And achieve nothing,
Even a certification level personal training textbook will be a more sure path.
You’re swinging at the hills over nuggets of truth.
Anatomy physiology ….etc
Not as well understood as some think.
But Are you going to choose a phd for your heart surgery or someone who just learned by doing?
They tried this in Maoist china In The beginning.
Even they had to admit it didn’t work.
Unless you just want to join a club,
Martial arts are b.s.
If you plan to start competing at a professional level,
You,
just like everyone else will not get far without accredited coaching.
Knowledge does not equal understanding,
But without it,
what you think is belief.
Societies based on belief,
Result in genocide.
one more time,simpler
pro mma fighters hire accredited conditioning coaches.
Would be scientists citing hypothetical data as if it’s law,
Is a serious issue,
But it’s no different from what you’re doing here.
My problem with Athlean-X is that his PT degree means nothing in the context of strength training/bodybuilding. I am a PT myself, and nothing in our therapeutic exercise classes touches on bodybuilding. Most PT programs do not even use much equipment-they use Therabands and towels for resistance. Only 5 of 50 people in my PT class were into strength training. While his experience as a PT may have led him down the CSCS route or into strength training, saying, "Trust me, I am a PT and my degree backs this," is very dishonest.
AthleanX is by hardgainers, for hardgainers, which I imagine excludes most of Bromley's audience.
Since powerlifting and bodybuilding are 90% genetics, it's similar to martial arts. It's not about which art is the best martial art to know. It's about who is more accomplished at his/her art, regardless of the art. Did you guys see how many times the Gracie family lost to guys who knew different arts than they did? Okay, back to bodybuilding. It's not about the type of workout. It's who responds best to their style of training. I just know everyone reading this suddenly feels a pit in their stomach. Yes, I know, reality often feels real crummy. Great video here.
Stumbled upon this and I really don’t know why Nippard got the raw deal here, especially having watched a lot of his videos as well as Bromley’s - and the differences aren’t all that tremendous. All I can really take away from that is Nippard does better SEO and marketing - it’s not really criticism based on the merits of his videos. Ethier is entry level lifter stuff. It’s pretty unobjectionable, i.e. it’s not going to hurt someone, will probably help beginners get better at lifting, and then they’ll outgrow his content. Not really a bad thing either.
Also, JUST because defining a variable is difficult, DOES not mean that the research it is apart of is any less valid than if it were “easy to define”. Which even within Chemistry, physicists and Astronomy has been a difficult task. How do we measure depression? With depression scales, and in fact we are quite good at it. Now, how effective are depression scales or methods of quantifying the degree of any psychiatric disease in guiding treatment? Minimally really, aside from screening in a very general sense.
In my veiw Jeff Cavalier says some real shit, then has enough bullshit mixed in to still be bullshit.
We should crowd fund a critique on athlean x. I got an extra 30 for you to hit this guy.
Look, he is either a softcore Joel Seedman, or Joel Seedman is a hardcore Jeff calvalier.
Jeff snapped himself up training like an idiot, and now he nocebos everybody.
He is known for twlling people to "breathe OUT, and tighten down" before a squat. Hes known for using fake plates, then trying to prove he wasn't by catbacking 405 on the deadlift and showing the whole world that its okay to egolift a weight you have no business handling.
By all means bro, do that deep dive. He... Is the one... Who is corrupting the noobs.
That is an amazing video. Breath of fresh air.
The majority of ailments humans have to deal with, there are 3 outcomes (at least in the short term) that are common if the issue is ignored:
1 the person gets worse
2 the person stays the same
3 the person gets better
I try to be careful about hard conclusions from observing correlations.
The example of going into TH-cam and searching “science based” in incognito mode has an incorrect assumption of how TH-cam/Google search results work.
Yes your search results are based on your account history, but also based on your local IP. This is why you will see ads for things other people in your house search for on your home wifi.
TH-cam doesn’t know your account history of fitness videos when your are in incognito mode, but it still knows a lot of people in your house watch fitness videos, so it feeds you more of that.
If you’re on a VPN that complicated that a little bit.
I feel that this Video hasn't made any point at all. Alex says that they are clickbaiting with the word science and are not actually using science... I guess we would have to prove then that there is no Science being used or that it is intentionally misleading.
He goes on to site some TV show that has nothing to do with the youtubers that this video is about.
He bashes Joel Seedman for feigning his knowledge(I will say Joel Seidman seems a bit sus but idk enough about him) and kind of compares other content creators to him... saying no actual coach would use the information given by the named yoututbers. I don't watch any of these but Jeff Nippard and for him I've seen many of his takes be informed by coaches and by studies alike.
I guess for the others it would just be nice to see a single example of something disproven and not up for debate. Something these people are still trying to cling to because of their brand I guess? Unless he doesn't make exactly the same point about these other content creators as he did with Joel Seedman, sounds like he did tho, especially since he is calling these people scammers.
I guess then comes a weird throwaway comment about Athlean X and Ethier having bad physiques?... I will let you be the judge of that...
Point about bad subjects in Studies by Alex/Jeff Cavelier is solid.
He points to Jeff Cavelier who says that in many studies they don't account for enough variables like how much experience you have and what you are training for and applauds him. Implicitly Jeff Nippard is stanced in opposition to that claim by having a video running of him trying to show what the best rep range is.
Sadly I couldn't find that video but I doubt that Jeff Nippard didn't account for Variables like training goals, RPE, number of sets and experience.. it would be a surprise to me since he usually always talks about this in context with the research. If he didn't then that might be the reason I can't find the Video since Jeff Nippard has actually corrected/adjusted his beliefs on stuff that he has said in the past about for example training intensity or tension or Protein intake to name some that come to mind. This is btw a reason I quite like him because he really doesn't seem to have an incentive to cling to certain narratives and presents genuine, from studies and coaches and scientists derived, beliefs.
He also qualifies the studies in being more or less accurate and how good they are at controlling for these variables quite a lot. Jeff also often concludes that there just isn't enough research or that it cannot be substantiated from these single studies that he pulls up. This is presenting a Nippard that I dont really recognize and it makes me question the assesment about the other content creators.
He then goes on to discredit ethiers academic background. That's ok if you think Kinesiology is not as important as other fields but to use it as evidence in a video that wants to say he's a scammer is off... I need more than a college anecdote of yours.
He then says that no amount of research made a difference in making MMA champs and then says that it still has a use... IDK maybe I just don't understand that statement.
Especially since he says that research is not gonna be the main driving factor in how strength sports are being done and to give the better alternative he sights the scientific method of looking at larger amounts of people and looking at what works for them.
What a paragraph. Anyways, Im just a 20 yo, I know that I DO NOT know as much about sports as any of these people and Alex. Im not saying he is lying about them but I do know however that when you say people are lying in their business and you call them scammers, you have to substantiate that. I dont really give a shit about how many disagreements you have with them on a Sports science and coaching level. If they are scammers then I as a viewer would be the first to be interested in that video, really.
The martial arts point is a good one. I think it needs a bit more nuance though. As someone who trains, I think a martial art like Juijitsu could benefit from a more systematic (if not exactly scientific) approach. There's an overwhelming number of techniques, and having them cataloged and systematized would be very useful in allowing students and instructors to choose the best tools for the job.
Also teaching methods are based on tradition not nessarally what works well. Having some pedagogical research into to some general guidelines for best practice could help at least some gyms teach in ways that has the potential to be more efficient and effective for a lot of people
Athlean-X aka Jeff Cavaliere is an exception in regards to accomplishment. He was the head Physical Therapist & Assistant Strength Coach for the Mets when they had some winning years.
A lot of these "science based" is also just circular logic.
Like "people with bigger chests also bench more weight, therefore bench press for bigger chest", they word it very convincingly with graphs and stuff so it's entertaining and people don't even care lol.
"Never take lifting advice from a guy whose neck you could snap like a pencil" - Smart man
Wow, Jeff Cavalier is in better shape then a long distance runner, he's pretty shredded and he worked for the MLB New York Mets, dudes liget.
“Studies show…” is the modern day equivalent of holier than thou priests referencing scripture to support any given viewpoints or positions they take on topics related to everyday people, while remaining very detached from real world struggles. It’s related to the meritocracy, and meritocratic underpinnings of predominantly capitalist market economics being a modern day restructuring of “good people deserve to go to heaven” into “this person is rich, therefore they deserve that wealth because what they’ve done must’ve been good” - while reality shows that some people do well life by making positive contributions, while may have made a fortune by inheritance, fraud, etc., and some people may have gone to a great school, college or university through their merits (intelligence, ability, etc) while others may have had far more opportunities or financial upper hands early on in life regards of where their innate abilities would’ve led them if required to compete without such advantages or if others did not have institutional disadvantages working against them
Your argument regarding their physiques is trash. Basically saying you should listen to people with great results , so practically people with great genetics. Have a guy with no arms ask phill heath how to build arms like that is going to help him.
Ideally if you're looking at the results of someone you would want someone with mid genetics who struggled and learned to get towards a above average physique.
Though in reality all that matters is the information.
Also jeff nippard has a insane physique.
Man. When I think of "science based" the first person that comes to mind is Dr Mike/RP -- not Ethier, Athleanx, or Nippard.
Thank you for your knowledge and videos USA 🇺🇸 USA 🇺🇸
Alexander Bromley + Dr. Mike share the spot as the GOAT gym influencer
The comparison to martial arts is funny because we do see science/evidence based martial arts content as a thing lol. That’s a huge market with the likes of Icy Mike and Ramsey Dewey, what are you talking about?
This video should of been called something like: "the REAL truth about SCIENCE BASED training, ARE YOU LOSING GAINS?". Can't beat em join em Alexander xD.