Reason 483737 I do not like this new generation of “bodybuilding”

[massephase]

Smells like a lack of estrogen control

 

[hawkmoon]

I just opened this thread and I think it gets the record for the most " You are ignoring content by this member." comments. You all can guess who. Amusing for that if nothing else.
I'm not being snide...well maybe a little.

Relating this to the OP - while we don't have an ignore button in life, but we can as adults choose to not engage with someone who is being snappy. I just shut people off if they step out of line. I don't get mad, I don't even engage. They don't matter unless I allow them to.

I remember years ago at work there was a guy, basically a good guy but annoying. He came to my office door with his coffee and started chattering which devolved into some argument attempt with me.
After he failed to get me to engage I calmly told him, "Frank, you're not going to get me upset. From my point of view if I close my eyes right now you cease to exist. Go away". He looked uncomfortable and left - and we were fine after.

Eric managed that OK IMO.
Mike is two weeks out and might be a tempermental guy - I don't know him well enough. Point was obviously to make engaging content and it worked.

 

[FuzzyFella]

At least guys share their (semi) genuine thoughts and daily life these days. The whole "top secret routine/supplement" days weren't fun for anyone but the guys making money off the supposed secrets, and left a lot of people doing harmful things to themselves in the dark. There are more "low dose" threads now than ever. That was heretical 15 years ago.

The downside is a lot more noise. Just takes filtering. A key part of the internet is ignoring things that annoy you, not engaging with them.

 

[alfresco]

This one seems relatively easy, but I just copied and pasted this from chatgpt

1. Muscle mechanics

• During eccentric actions, the cross-bridges in muscle fibers don’t have to actively “pull” as much — instead, they’re being pulled apart by the external force. This makes the process mechanically more efficient.
• Fewer motor units are required to resist lengthening, so the muscle can handle more load.

2. Passive structures contribute

• Connective tissues like titin, tendons, and fascia add elastic resistance when stretched. These passive elements help produce force during eccentric actions, giving you “extra” strength that isn’t available concentrically.

3. Neural factors

• Your nervous system actually “protects” you concentrically by limiting force output to prevent injury. During eccentric contractions, this inhibition is less pronounced, allowing greater force output.

4. Energy efficiency

• Eccentric contractions require less energy (ATP) than concentric ones. Your muscles can sustain higher forces eccentrically without fatiguing as quickly.

That’s why you can lower a heavier weight under control than you can lift — or why negatives (eccentric-focused training) are so effective for strength and hypertrophy.
Do you want me to explain how this difference is used in strength training (like overload techniques), or are you mainly looking for the physiology side?

Muscular friction.

Friction helps you when you’re lower the weight and friction hurts you when you raise the weight.

 

[Thebiggestdumbass]

The idea that someone can say we don't need more science in the sport. How do we know? It is the whole nature of science to discover. He does this on any workout, chemical, etc he doesnt agree with. And he just resolidifies his ignorance

I agree that we need science to progress past typical gym bro physiques but the science based movement has strayed from nutrition optimization into “do these were lateral flaps with a disconnected handle in your hand to create the most motor unit recruitment” and it’s always the small guys preaching this shit.

Trainings the easiest part of building muscle so why complicate it with studies that don’t apply to people who are already very advanced

 

[Aikman56]

Every person in each video is genetically gifted beyond words.

People only glorify the way guys like Branch and Johnny trained because they associate emotion and aggression with somehow being better than calculated and thoughtful.

Branch and Johnny got away with a lot of stupid shit.

Eric would not be better if he trained like the old school guys.

Training has improved. There’s a reasonable middle ground to be had here.

People grow from good long term plans that involve genetics, drugs, food, and recovery. When you walk around in a tshirt or get on stage, you get zero bonus points for “being hardcore”. People only see if you have muscle or if you don’t.

I love this post so much. I want to take it out for dinner!

 

[Aikman56]

Forest for the trees type deal.

It’s not about the split or special diets. It’s a multi factorial, complicated marriage.

Train close to failure with an emphasis on progress. Train so that you’re constantly striving for more, yet you’re able to recover. Upper/lower, PPL, bro split, DC, Fortitude… doesn’t matter.

Eat enough to grow, then be in a deficit enough to lose fat.

We needed the old ways to understand that there are new ways. We need to improve by experimenting with new ideas. Throw out the bad and keep the good.

Why do we value the bro split over Arnold’s high volume approach from his encyclopedia? Guys got more jacked from the bro split. Why is the science based approach good? Guys got more jacked, less injured, and recovered a bit smarter.

Every sport has only gotten better with improved science. Is there any area of sports performance that hasn’t? Did the old ways waste time and cause more harm?

I see kids in my gym who sling around weight and kids who are clearly copying the newest instagram/tik tok trends. None of them grow because they probably have no strategy.

Bodybuilding is analogous to building a mountain with layers of paint. Pick any way you like. If you’re growing, staying injury free, and get better year by year… your strategy is probably working.

Even if you look at Mike and Eric’s individual progress… haven’t both put on substantial amounts of muscle in the last 5 years? On the other hand, Branch didn’t gain a ton of muscle. He became a better bodybuilder, but he looked relatively similar year by year. Same with Jackson. They both maxed out and sort of stayed there until their bodies couldn’t maintain anymore. I’d guess Branch and Jackson (more Branch than Jackson) relied on a heavier PED load than Mike and Eric.

But at the end of the day, they’re all S-tier athletes… and each individual did as much as they could with what they had.

I love this post so much. I want to cheat on the previous post with this post, run away with it, elope and make a little logical bodybuilding theory babies.

 

[Aikman56]

With all due respect I find the first sentence absurd. So people not running into traffic or jumping off buildings is science based? I think all someone needs to not get injured is common sense and good judgment.

I'll counter your questions with my own. Do you consider bro science, science?

And I disagree with your 3 statements. If I want to maximize training, diet, and drug use i should not learn science...aka consuming youtube content, reading studies, or whatever time efficient method you suggest that would make such a time consuming task easier. I would hire someone reputable that has coached top level physique guys and just follow directions.

Now if you want to use semantics to say bro science, trying new things is science, we are essentially shoving everything under the umbrella of science so then the debate should be reworded to should we be tweaking variables based on studies on untrained people, 8 weeks long, that are extremely flawed as noted by researchers themselves and mocked by researchers outside the field of "exercise science ".

Not trying to stick my nose into an argument/discussion, but I look at it this way. By the strictest definition of “the scientific method“ anything that we do with relation to trial and error in pursuit of proving or disproving hypothesis is “science“. So pretty much any type of training methodology utilized long enough to see whether it works or not is “science based“.

Now I’m going to step back and watch the explosions as the world burns down around me…

 

[Aikman56]

You just contradicted yourself again. Hiring a coach is hiring someone that does know the science…

I don’t know about that when… Seems like everyone that places 5th in a local NPC show follows up their first competitive thrashing with “Now taking on clients. Link in bio or DM me.“

 

[astrosfan123]

there is not one thing more gay in the fitness community than someone making content saying "science based". Absolutely nothing comes close lol

 

[PRorER]

I don’t know about that when… Seems like everyone that places 5th in a local NPC show follows up their first competitive thrashing with “Now taking on clients. Link in bio or DM me.“

When I say Coach the first thing I think is someone like Hany, Justin Harris, etc. I forgot everyone is a coach these days lol

 

[Heath82]

When I say Coach the first thing I think is someone like Hany, Justin Harris, etc. I forgot everyone is a coach these days lol

We have a coach here that PROMISES a pro card

 

[Aikman56]

there is not one thing more gay in the fitness community than someone making content saying "science based". Absolutely nothing comes close lol

I’m going to have to disagree with you… I think G4P is probably a little more gay than saying “science based”…
Just a little.
It’s in the name.

 

[qbkilla]

Not trying to stick my nose into an argument/discussion, but I look at it this way. By the strictest definition of “the scientific method“ anything that we do with relation to trial and error in pursuit of proving or disproving hypothesis is “science“. So pretty much any type of training methodology utilized long enough to see whether it works or not is “science based“.

Now I’m going to step back and watch the explosions as the world burns down around me…

Your not wrong. Likewise a 120 lb kid who does 50 pushups every morning before class could be labeled a bodybuilder. But just like no one here would call him a bodybuilder, although technically he is, no one really calls common sense "science ".

This is why I keep asking people if they find the studies we often hear about as having value...or if they have led to better training than 20 years ago. In my opinion, when most people think "exercise science ' or "evidence based training ' they are referring to people who use studies done by researchers as a means to guide their training rather than "bro science " or basic common sense.

 

[Big Dave Smith]

I’m going to have to disagree with you… I think G4P is probably a little more gay than saying “science based”…
Just a little.
It’s in the name.

I disagree. Those guys are getting paid.

What about the ones enjoying it for free? That’s as gay as it gets.

“Not that there’s anything wrong with that.”

 

[tenny]

gyms nowadays are tiktok studios. even drones flying round recording.

 

[alfresco]

gyms nowadays are tiktok studios. even drones flying round recording.

Thank gawd I belong to a geriatric social club with a gym attached.

 

[astrosfan123]

hey yall, science says sleep 7-8 hours, i slept 8 hours last night. Im a science based sleeper. See how gay that sounds haha.

 

[FuzzyFella]

hey yall, science says sleep 7-8 hours, i slept 8 hours last night. Im a science based sleeper. See how gay that sounds haha.

Let me try...

"I'm a science based pimp out here"

I think you just gotta think more creatively