It amazes me that people with a couple of years of experience feel qualified to teach others, including the pros

The irony of him not knowing what “steel man” is.

Mile wide but inch deep I think summarises a lot of the understanding we see in the “science” based crowd these days. It’s all sound bites with little substance behind the arguments. Quite visible here.

This went exactly how I thought it would and I’m exhausted.

I dream of having the confidence of a 22 year old, 3 year trainee, that admits he doesn’t verify the sources he references and doesn’t respect the opinion of people with experience

Theory based lifters repeating something they heard someone else say. 2025 is wild

Bring Phil viz next please

>Matt makes a ragebait reel claiming old bodybuilders but basically running their training on instinct alone and a random 120 lbs kid today knows more than them (ignoring how the scientific method also applies to individual experimentation through which you can determine what works)
>N1 pushes back with multiple reasonable rebuttals on why that's not likely true
>Matt instantly backtracks saying it's an interesting topic to discuss, and he'd never say it in front of the actual old bodybuilder.

Call me old-fashioned, but bodybuilding OGs deserve a basic amount of respect, and if you wouldn't say it to their face, you should probably find a different "interesting" topic to discuss.

Omg Kassem. I applaud your patience here.
It’s like a PhD in mathematics sitting with someone who just learnt how to count (and thinks now he understands mathematics).
“EMG isn’t reliable”.
Kassem takes a long breath

“Rabbit hole”

Kassem is such a good educator and thinker. If only we had more people that operated like him. Keep up the great work Kassem, love your content!

Why are with listening to someone with 2 and half years of newbie gains?

2:15 and the guy doesnt even have the physique to say he is "self taught" lol

Engagement tax. Also I am very particular about who I trust in how they interpret research studies. I had graduate training in statistics and even when I was actively studying— a lot of analyses were over my head. Definitely not a skill I have and something I outsource. Appreciate being a lifetime member of MASS, following your content Kas, and as always learning from my personal experience and experiences with clients. Evidence based practice: best available evidence, clinical experience, client preferences 👍🏼👍🏼

1:49:58 resting for 30s before a heavy set of 4 😕

Self taught… this is evident 😅. Clearly that method didn’t work

Giving advice with only 2.5 years of training experience is crazy 😭. I didnt figure out my own preferred training until 5 years in.

Bring yo talks on!

Your question about whether he’s gotten significantly better gains from FB 3x per week vs the chest bis/back tris/legs 6x per week split he was running before kind of highlights this issue of people with barely a few years of training under their belt claiming that they’ve grown more under a certain split. I don’t think that 3 years of lifting is enough time for an early 20s male to plateau (assuming they aren’t too attached to being lean and spending 6+ months of the year in a deficit), so its not a stretch to think they would continue growing regardless of how “optimal” their training is. These high frequency, low volume, lower reps per set splits tend to push people to track the weights they use more closely, and since low rep sets also makes it easier to add weight on the bar compared to adding weight in a higher rep range, they conflate strength increases (which is somewhat enabled by the rep range) with higher rates of growth

On the 40 year thing, I would say that they applied a scientific approach to their own training in a way back then. I could be wrong but I think you’d really only be able to look at a few guys who had a spotlight on them that applied that close to well atleast. But I could be wrong since I’m only 25 years old so I can’t say exactly what the trends were back then and how everyone was training, but I know I can watch a few Charles glass videos and not have any idea where he came up with some of the stuff in his explanations. A lot of the old school guys would change what they did or how they did it, just from hearing it once from Charles or a bigger guy in the gym. So they also weren’t great at applying the scientific process either and were doing a similar thing as the kids now. We have some bad science takeaways that the kids are appealing to and back then we had some bad anecdotal evidence they were appealing to. Atleast back then you could say there was some level of evidence and someone applied the scientific process but I don’t think we can really say it was always accurate and based in poor principles at times. It very well could have been the telephone game in a lot of instances. We are just coming out of the era of “slow negatives on deadlifts for thick lats”, so I wouldn’t say a lot of the guys who repeated that, even the ones with great lats were doing a great job at testing these things out. Some of them got things right by accident and with a subpar explanation and I know you have even gone on record for saying they got where they did, despite their suboptimal training and methodologies. But I do understand where you’re coming from, because the “science based” community is absolutely nuts and is no better in a lot of ways.

I’m glad I watched the yoyaps podcast interview. It was an eye opener. You found the king of misinformation I mean barely informed.  Please sit down with TNF