Is bro science unironically better for gains than science based lifting?
>>76656363Just compare science-based nerds and people who actually lift, and it's obvious.
>>76656363broo BROOOO LOOOK AT HER THIGHHS IM HORNY AS FUCK
>>76656368This is a serious matter
>>76656363YesNot that it's better in absolute (I have no idea actually), but guys who take the bro science route are:more passionate and enthusiastic about working outless scared of "risky" behavior (barbell use, heavy weights, etc..)Two things which end up in a third one: INTENSITYAnd unless you're a freak of nature, or on drugs, intensity is the ONLY way to get results
>>76656363They're both full of such an insane amount of shit. There's a really broad spectrum of what works well enough for hypertrophy. The hierarchy for both usually puts loading and loading increases at the top so that much is right and everything else you can ignore them on.
The best thing for gains is actually doing something regularly with actual effort
>>76656363if bro science works better it's not bro science.practical > theoretical always.
Science faggots spam meme excersices with no progress. Fuck even SS is better than science faggots
>>76656363Obviously no. Bro lifters are all dyels or if roiding their bodies are deformed.But don't ever trust science based fitness influencers tho. They're trying to sell a product
>>76656417Because it's not science. They're the equivalent of carnivore diet cultists that spam dubious "studies" thinking it proves their point
>>76656363>>76656419Like how many of the supposed "s0iyance" lifters are even into TENS-EMS therapy and drink post-workout cherry juice? Like zero of them, oh right, they don't even ack-shilly read.
>>76656363"health" "science" exists to ruin you. it is propaganda. lies.
Mostly, yeah.Science doesn't describe the world accurately anyways
>>76656384>And unless you're a freak of nature, or on drugs, intensity is the ONLY way to get resultsVOLUME VOLUME VOLUME
>>76656363Science by definition is better.Only imbecilic rightwingers think otherwise.
>>76656363>Is bro science unironically better for gains than science based lifting?If you're smart, because you can adjust what you do based on results, and the science knowledge base just isn't good enough. Just use study results to HELP guide your training, don't let them control it.
>>76657016Sure buddy, air curl your imaginary waifu for a thousand reps, you'll get huge arms
>>76656363Elaborate on what "science" based lifting is.
>>76657491Trying to figure out how to do the least amount of work possibleOften leads to strange and convoluted exercises, no gains, and ironically a lot more time spent working
>>76657491My penis in and out of your mom for 4 sets of 30 reps and 3 sets of 10 myoreps
>>76656363full on bro science is even more retarded than science science. Use a mix of both based on the results you get
>>76656363Depends on what you mean by "bro science" and "science based lifting". - Do 10-20 sets per muscle per week. - Hit each muscle at least twice per week.- Include exercises that target each muscle you want to grow.- Go to failure on as many sets as possible. - Try to stick to the 5-8 rep range.- Progressive overload.- Get enough protein (0.7g/lb).- Hit your calorie target (+200-500 bulking, -500-1000 cutting). - Get 7-9 hrs of sleep. - Creatine. - Machine exercises with high stability are probably better. This is what will get you gains, whether that's considered "bro sciene" or "science based lifting", idgaf.
>>76656363bro science, being holistic in nature is better suited for complicated subjects like lifting or diet
>>76656363Never ask a Marmo supremacist the shade of his elf concubine
>>76656363>Is bro science unironically better for gains than science based lifting?In my xp? Absolutely. Nothing science based ever worked for me, form calorie counting to volume, intensity or exercise selection via EMG.Bro Science otoh always at least kinda works. Spot reduction, low fat diets, increasing test by increasing muscle mass, increasing mass by increasing volume, reducing ROM, working angles for a different look, ALL of this shit works at least up to a certain point.
>>76656363Eh, correlation. Lower testosterone men likely put more cognitive effort into training because of slowed progress and more obsessive need to adapt to a world full of men who are nore assertively successful.
>>76656363The best broscience has ever done is plagiarize and misquote lyle mcdonald.The best science based lifting has ever done is plagiarize and misquote lyle mcdonald.Just go with Lyle.
>>76656363yes, desu i think counting reps is just a waste of mental accounting ability, just go till you feel like you're at your second last rep
Well, the people biggest people in the gym are always the people following bro-science, while the science autists never really end up looking good. When I first got here 15 years ago or something, it was the same, but I used to think "I'm sure that's just because that's the way it worked in the past. But now, we have more knowledge and a different approach, so it's just a matter of time before us science nerds overtake the bro's and become way bigger faster!". But..., that's 15 years ago, and that didn't happen. The bro's still look bigger/better, while the nerds still look like shit.
>>76656363As a nerd, we'd have to define "Bro science" and "Science"If Bro science is: Lift hardScience: You dont need to lift hard, just use time under tension in this angle, with 5 pound dumbbells, and you'll grow just as wellthen bro science is better ofcIf Bro science: Yeah dude just bench press as heavy as you can bro, you'll have a big chest if you hit your anabolic window within 30 seconds of the last set. Science: You should bench press at different angles, add some fly movements, focus on using the pecs rather than the arms, and eat enough protein through the day. Then it's obvious that science is better.Then science is better
>>76656363bro science is literally going to the gym and finding out what works for you and talking with other gymgoers and hearing what they've found out works for themit's testing shit out rather than infinite theory and planning
>>76657996How do I talk to people at the gym?
>>76656363I mean broscience is decades of experience from people who have dedicated their lives to it and who've actually done that shit and tried it all. Think of trades back in the day where knowledge and experience has been passed over from generation to generation. They didn't always know WHY something worked or was done exactly a certain way they just knew from experience.
>>76658062>knowledge and experience has been passed over from generation to generationI would not trust some trade worker to do a job if they didn't know the basics of their craft. Who the fuck is hiring some guy who didn't study to build a 2nd story porch for their house? That has lawsuits written all over it.Also there are dyels in the gym who use bro science and get nowhere for decades.
>>76658058think to yourself what to say to them, then go to them and say it i'm shy and autistic and no one ever seemed bothered by me, so i think any gym person is just happy to talk about lifts and diets and fitness
>>76658072>there are dyels in the gym who use bro science and get nowhere for decadesbut you obviously don't ask them. you ask the big guys doing big lifts.
>>76658080>still doesn't understandIm trying to tell you that its not all bro science you absolute dunce. You pick up the tricks of the trade here and there but you still need to know the basics of why things work
Im following a bro split and i think i noticed good gains. My main focus is fat loss though so lts noob gains. But im definetly more toned and i like tje split im following alot. 5days a week one time for each muscle group
>>76656363elf feet in my mouth
>>76656384truth nuke
yes
