Evidence based fitness gurus remind me of PUAs. They are both targeting a very specific population of men - the men who are "enlightened", who think they are not bluepilled anymore and now they are going to use scientific methods and psychology to approach and seduce women or on the other side men who know about fake natties and steroids, but they are going to get big and jacked by using science. It's funny, Greg The Bullshitter Nuckols even has a site called Stronger By Science.

What's even funnier is that 99% of evidence based gurus are either former or current juicers. Or intermittent. But they are all about science and scientific methods of training and they are going to help you reach your goals, just subscribe to their newsletter or buy their programs. As I said they are targeting the smarter part of fitness population but in the end it's all bullshit.

Let me ask you one thing - how did Eugen Sandow and Bobby Pandour build their physiques? No hormones, no calorie and macronutrient counting, no scientific methods of training and yet they look better than most gym members today. What does that tell you? Building muscle and losing fat is not a rocket science. But evidence based gurus want to make a science out of it. Why? Because then they have something to sell you.

Now another question - how do you think pro bodybuilders get to the Olympia stage? I mean, you may like them or not, but they are the best of the best when it comes to dieting and building muscles. Do they use scientific methods? "But they are on drugs!" Yes, and that's the point, you should focus on things that have a big impact on human body, not on some non important shit. And I had delusional guys who said to me "But they would be bigger if they use science!". Really? I mean, yeah, not using scientific training is why they can't grow anymore... I remember in Generation Iron there was a plot with Ben Pakulski and Branch Warren, Pakulski was like optimal range of motion, optimal exercises, blah blah blah and Warren trained like a moron. Guess who won... Now, I am not defending pro bodybuilders because they have their own bro stories which they use to cover the fact that they built their bodies with good genetics and drugs and not with some special training techniques, but they are just an example of why all that science shit doesn't matter. And if you want to prep for Mr. Olympia, would you hire some science based guru or Chris Aceto?

Let me be clear, I am not saying that scientific studies are useless. Thanks to them we know that a lot of supplements are garbage, although science was also used to support those products at the same time, and we know a thing or two about training and nutrition, but they are not something that people should be obsessed over. And we have exactly that - people in evidence based fitness forums and facebook groups are jacking off on scientific studies and arguing about things that aren't gonna make a difference in the end.

Just to give you a few examples, let's say you see a study that says whey protein causes bigger elevation in MPS than meat. Ok, so what? So now you are somehow going to be bigger because of that? Or my favorite one - MPS is elevated only 48h after training so you should hit your muscles more often. Ok, and how is that going to help you if your body, joints and CNS can't handle hitting the same muscle group every 48h? Or some study says that 15 sets per muscle group per week is better than 10. And what if you can barely handle 10 let alone 15? The funny thing is when the bros say you should find what works for you everyone is lashing out at them - no, we have science, you are not special - but actually they are right. Some people respond better to lower volumes, some to higher, although from my experience those who respond better to higher respond pretty good to lower volumes too. On the other hand, there are people who respond only to lower volumes and higher volumes are detrimental to them. I guess it's again genetics. So how about you just try different volumes and see what happens? You don't need science for that. And another thing is obsession with what's optimal. Is this optimal, that's not optimal... Do you know what's optimal? To have rich parents, so you don't have to work or stress yourself about anything and to just eat, train and sleep. We normal people don't have that, so what's the point obsessing over it?

But because evidence based people don't see the forest for the trees, they convince themselves that all that shit is somehow important and their gurus make profit. "Stay on the cutting-edge of strength, hypertrophy, and nutrition research" - 30$ per month. I am laughing. How about you save that money and buy some testosterone, you know, the thing that really matters? Or if you don't wanna go that way then just stay natural, but don't give money to these scammers.

What's the best strategy for healthy eating without it turning into an obsession?

I would love to see this discussion split into men and women!

Just my thoughts. :


https://imgur.com/a/LRqh4CL

Hi, I'm a long time reader of the site, first time poster on the forum. 

Is there already a thread dedicated to laughing at old guys who are built like the Incredible Hulk and consider themselves natty because they are on "just enough TRT" to get them to their "natural level"? As a true natty ectomorph who is bitter and skinny fat (but I repeat myself) and pushing 50, I would like to engage in mocking those guys behind their back. Among other things, doing it openly on social media usually ends up getting me banned. 

I looked around a bit and didn't see a thread specifically dedicated to this. Thanks.

Solitary Fitness by Charles Bronson

https://archive.org/details/BronsonSolit...s/mode/2up

Site is legal and you can read scanned book material for free

Lots of excellent, original, and somewhat bizarre and strange ideas for simple, yet effective workouts without or with minimal space and equipment
Lots of isometrics - which is curious
Try some routines from the book, some of them are very intense - you will be fried

Is it safe to say that no women will ever love you the way you want to be loved? If so what's the solution? Just accept it and move on? The same acceptance that I'll never get the body if I stay natty forever?

Hey all,

I'm interested in improving on the following lifts: deadlift (~400lb 1rm), weighted pullup (bw+90lb 1rm), weighted dip (bw+~105lb 4rm), bench press, overhead press. Do you think it's a better idea to try to train all of them simultaneously or to pick 2-3 to progress on then swap them out for different ones? I'm a big fan of high-frequency programs like the ones from Pavel but for the last few years have been doing more bodybuilding style training.

Thanks.

I realize after lifting 85%+ of my 1RM deadlift most of the time for the last few years that I was beating up my body and hindering and preventing progress. Luckily no injuries. I realize now this was a stupid approach. I am working now on a new training program that will have me lifting lighter weights (~70% 1RM) mostly with wave cycling so that I will only go for the heavy weights about once every 3-4 months. It will also incorporate deloads and with the wave cycles.

The question is do you think deloads are necessary for the easier upper body lifts: bench press/weighted pull-ups/dips/overhead press? By deload I mean like a full week at a really easy weight (60% or so) or even a week off. I don't feel that those stress my CNS nearly as much as deadlifts but still my inclination is to incorporate de-loading anyway.

Is a double bodyweight squat a realistic 1RM target for a natural? I've seen this benchmark mentioned several times as a way to maximise standing jump, but it seems fairly ambitious to me. My PR is around 1.65BW for 5 reps, although I haven't maxed out on squats in a long time.

70 y/o with 55 years of bodybuilding experience

Stage form:


Spontaneous, ''out of shape'':


With The Governator: