Is science-based lifting legit? How swole (and more importantly how healthy) would I be after 3 years if I listened exclusively to them?

>>76368318 (OP)
Nothing wrong with science based lifting but the guy on the right is spreading malinformation. Idk about the guy on the right

>>76368318 (OP)
If you want real science-based lifting, listen to Lyle.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n1eLqbQPCz0

Ive done all 3 kinds of liting

1. Broscience training

2. Science based training

3. Doing whatever the fuck I feel like on the day

The difference in results between all 3?

I honestly get better results doing 3

>>76368403
Same.

>>76368318 (OP)
Literally no benefit whatsoever to "science-based" lifting. No science-based lifting study results contradict the frequency/intensity/duration training paradigm. Train hard. Recover hard. Train hard again when recovered. Method of periodization doesn't matter. All methods are equivalent.

Science-based cardio training is valuable for endurance athletes because you can generate much more stimulus and fatigue management based on training modality is actually important. If you do 5 hard sets of squats you're wiped out and doing 20 sets of squats with no weight will do nothing for you. If you do 5 intervals on the bike you can still get gainz from a zone 2 ride/jog/swim.

Basically, Jizzraetel is a fraud, but we all knew that *fart noise lat spread*.

>>76368403
Same. I'm making all my gains in between programs where I'm just doing something until I decide what to do. Not so much gains though that I feel compelled to do entirely that as my program. And I never find a program that I like and make more gains than not doing. I've been stuck like this for years.

>>76368318 (OP)
It's amazing how absolutely dogshit MIke's genetics are.

For someone who's absolute potential limit is probably getting that pro card, he really shouldn't hamstring himself so hard that not only do his shit genetics come into play, but also his shit training methodologies. Should have had someone who knew what they were doing train him.

>>76368318 (OP)
Making basic human movements/activity and compounds complicated for the sake of feeling smart and OCD tier "optimisation" is unhinged.
Maybe if you're a professional it would work to some degree but i have yet to see a serious bodybuilder or weightlifter endorse it or fare well with it, otherwise there is not reason to min-max as a casual
Just pick up the bar load it within reasonable limits while still going heavy and do whatever the fuck seems enjoyable AND works for you

>>76368318 (OP)
Yeah but sports science isn't a real science, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z3OpxT65fKw.

>>76368663
Seriously it's so stupid. There's so many beginners at my gym who talk about "I don't want to overfatigue" and "that's not optimal"

Nigga pick up some weights and lift them holy fuck. If you obviously still have a ton more in the tank after your 2 shitty sets of OHP then go do some fucking dips or something.

Its not that hard. This paralysis by analysis shit is what holds people back. You're not going to go into shock from systemic fatigue from doing a third set of OHP with 75lbs, just go lift til your arms can't lift it anymore. Then go do dips.

Newbies use science based shit to justify their fears of actually going as hard as they possibly can in the gym. Like they can 'out think' actually putting in the work. They're not some meat head like all those bro idiot jacked guys, they're smart, they go on reddit, they know better despite being completely deconditioned.

>>76368318 (OP)
Some modern studies are questionable and/or biased to shill a certain supplement or equipment, and the individuals tested are usually beginner level who never have to worry about long term lifting consequences.

>>76368663
Oversimplification is also bad, and leads to some people getting injured

Pro athletes generally listen to their bodies and measure their success based on their sports performance. That’s why they are often so superstitious.

>>76369056
>Some modern studies are questionable
That is an enormous understatement. Show me one (1) study in strength conditioning that has been replicated and shown similar results. Literally all of these studies are cherry picked, lazily slapped together, and then influencers will run with it anyway because hey it sounds like it might be legit maybe

>>76368318 (OP)

>>76368318 (OP)
Yeah it's legit, legit shit.

All the ACTUAL science based lifting indicates that broscience is just right, just that they tested it in a lab.

Sets of 10 ideal? Broscience and actual science agree.
Overtraining very hard to do? Both agree.
CICO? yeah both agree.

So just do whats proven to work you dumb fuck.

science based lifting = roids

Its actually funny because any time I would find myself debating a science cultist about another topic, bodybuilding would be one of the areas I could use as an example where heuristics and self experimenting far surpassed scientific understanding because it was faster, had higher turnover, didn't have ethical concerns etc. Like its one of the most clear arenas where science constantly gets BTFO. But cultists are cultists

>>76370818
They are nowhere near reconciliation. One word, periodization.

>>76368318 (OP)
I've gotten similar results doing almost every style of lifting in the intermediates.
The second biggest take away I have is the natty limit is largely not worth getting to natty unless you have the genes to get there with HIT or just really really like lifting. The biggest is you can be happy with your results regardless of what a bunch of sexless retards on the internet say, you can't make them happy for other people it is not in their capacity to be that.

>>76368387
i am not listening to some autist rambling for 3 hours recorded on a shitty webcam and mic. if you want to be taken seriously, make some effort to present your thoughts properly.

>>76370871
Nobody is saying that self-experience is not useful, but in practice without controlled conditions, it is very hard to tell exactly what it is that you are doing that works, and what is just noise or actively harmful.

>>76372071
The controlled conditions being a bunch of academic world non lifting faggots trying put lifting for a study.
>our participants who curl 15lb barbells demonstrated a correlation between blablabl-
Don't care.

>>76368318 (OP)
science based anything is pure faggotry

btw those are two roided up literal midgets, and one of them has a pregnant stomach

the science says what it says it is not a rule it is a guidance

science only exists when white men (goyim) are practicing it