My opinion is very simple. The split doesn’t matter unless it’s retarded. I don’t see why you’re so hung up on it.
And I would like the beginner to understand that things like this do not matter in light of the bigger picture for reasons given in my previous post.[/quote]
Obvously I’m not the guy you were talking to. But, your point is well taken; the minutiae doesn’t really matter as long as goals are met an progress is trackable. It seems however based on the stated desires of the OP in terms of training, he wanted to depart from a muscle-mag style bodybuilding routine. The Kingbeef thread seems to be just that.
My opinion is very simple. The split doesn’t matter unless it’s retarded. I don’t see why you’re so hung up on it.
And I would like the beginner to understand that things like this do not matter in light of the bigger picture for reasons given in my previous post.[/quote]
Obvously I’m not the guy you were talking to. But, your point is well taken; the minutiae doesn’t really matter as long as goals are met an progress is trackable. It seems however based on the stated desires of the OP in terms of training, he wanted to depart from a muscle-mag style bodybuilding routine. The Kingbeef thread seems to be just that.
[/quote]
I don’t think you understood his post. He thought 5x5 without isolations was broscience.
My opinion is very simple. The split doesn’t matter unless it’s retarded. I don’t see why you’re so hung up on it.
And I would like the beginner to understand that things like this do not matter in light of the bigger picture for reasons given in my previous post.[/quote]
Obvously I’m not the guy you were talking to. But, your point is well taken; the minutiae doesn’t really matter as long as goals are met an progress is trackable. It seems however based on the stated desires of the OP in terms of training, he wanted to depart from a muscle-mag style bodybuilding routine. The Kingbeef thread seems to be just that.
[/quote]
I don’t think you understood his post. He thought 5x5 without isolations was broscience.
[/quote]
I figured he meant that 5x5 was the alternative he found to bro science, yet was worried that it would leave particular areas lacking.
EDIT: It sucks that tone gets lost over the internet, it would surely help clarify things.
My opinion is very simple. The split doesn’t matter unless it’s retarded. I don’t see why you’re so hung up on it.
And I would like the beginner to understand that things like this do not matter in light of the bigger picture for reasons given in my previous post.[/quote]
Obvously I’m not the guy you were talking to. But, your point is well taken; the minutiae doesn’t really matter as long as goals are met an progress is trackable. It seems however based on the stated desires of the OP in terms of training, he wanted to depart from a muscle-mag style bodybuilding routine. The Kingbeef thread seems to be just that.
[/quote]
I don’t think you understood his post. He thought 5x5 without isolations was broscience.
[/quote]
I figured he meant that 5x5 was the alternative he found to bro science, yet was worried that it would leave particular areas lacking.
EDIT: It sucks that tone gets lost over the internet, it would surely help clarify things.
[/quote]
Erm… it looked pretty clear to me.
[quote]CaptainGymRat wrote:
Ah see, now I had no idea that pull ups were counted as an upper body compound. Here’s what I was told:
Bench Press
Squats
Dead lifts
Barbell row (Which I thought just helped the lower to mid areas of your back)
Literally that… I figured something was wrong when the guy referred to it as the big 5… Which now that I write that out… is so ridiculous it hurts.
[/quote]
But look at it this way. If all the bros in his gym are doing the same thing and not progressing, what does that tell you?
My opinion is very simple. The split doesn’t matter unless it’s retarded. I don’t see why you’re so hung up on it.
And I would like the beginner to understand that things like this do not matter in light of the bigger picture for reasons given in my previous post.[/quote]
Obvously I’m not the guy you were talking to. But, your point is well taken; the minutiae doesn’t really matter as long as goals are met an progress is trackable. It seems however based on the stated desires of the OP in terms of training, he wanted to depart from a muscle-mag style bodybuilding routine. The Kingbeef thread seems to be just that.
[/quote]
I don’t think you understood his post. He thought 5x5 without isolations was broscience.
[/quote]
I figured he meant that 5x5 was the alternative he found to bro science, yet was worried that it would leave particular areas lacking.
EDIT: It sucks that tone gets lost over the internet, it would surely help clarify things.
[/quote]
Erm… it looked pretty clear to me.
[/quote]
I thought so as well. Unless the OP weighs in we’ll have to agree to disagree.
[quote]Yogi wrote:
the more experienced I become, the more stock I put in broscience[/quote]
Absolutely this.[/quote]
x3
As long as results back it up.[/quote]
What actually is broscience? Because people seem to mean different things by it. When I first joined these forums, what people typically meant by broscience was bro-splits, permabulking and eating every 2 hours and followers of bro-science would be mocked for curling in the squat rack and skipping leg day. Nowadays “bro-science” seems to have moved away from that and just implies learning from what the big guys in the gym do and say.
My feeling is that as more people are respecting “bro-science”, the definition of it has moved so that it meets their own vision of training rather than their views moving towards “bro-science”.
[quote]Yogi wrote:
the more experienced I become, the more stock I put in broscience[/quote]
Absolutely this.[/quote]
x3
As long as results back it up.[/quote]
What actually is broscience? Because people seem to mean different things by it. When I first joined these forums, what people typically meant by broscience was bro-splits, permabulking and eating every 2 hours and followers of bro-science would be mocked for curling in the squat rack and skipping leg day. Nowadays “bro-science” seems to have moved away from that and just implies learning from what the big guys in the gym do and say.
My feeling is that as more people are respecting “bro-science”, the definition of it has moved so that it meets their own vision of training rather than their views moving towards “bro-science”.[/quote]
Broscience is anything that’s not backed by pseudoscience.
Typically, the former is applied based on results, though actual causation may be difficult to confirm, while the latter assumes results from application.
[quote]Yogi wrote:
the more experienced I become, the more stock I put in broscience[/quote]
Absolutely this.[/quote]
x3
As long as results back it up.[/quote]
What actually is broscience? Because people seem to mean different things by it. When I first joined these forums, what people typically meant by broscience was bro-splits, permabulking and eating every 2 hours and followers of bro-science would be mocked for curling in the squat rack and skipping leg day. Nowadays “bro-science” seems to have moved away from that and just implies learning from what the big guys in the gym do and say.
My feeling is that as more people are respecting “bro-science”, the definition of it has moved so that it meets their own vision of training rather than their views moving towards “bro-science”.[/quote]
Broscience is anything that’s not backed by pseudoscience.
Typically, the former is applied based on results, though actual causation may be difficult to confirm, while the latter assumes results from application.[/quote]
So forming an opinion based on the best evidence available to you, then testing that opinion in the best way possible (in this case by applying it to your own training). When I was at uni, this was the very definition of the scientific method.
[quote]Yogi wrote:
the more experienced I become, the more stock I put in broscience[/quote]
Absolutely this.[/quote]
x3
As long as results back it up.[/quote]
What actually is broscience? Because people seem to mean different things by it. When I first joined these forums, what people typically meant by broscience was bro-splits, permabulking and eating every 2 hours and followers of bro-science would be mocked for curling in the squat rack and skipping leg day. Nowadays “bro-science” seems to have moved away from that and just implies learning from what the big guys in the gym do and say.
My feeling is that as more people are respecting “bro-science”, the definition of it has moved so that it meets their own vision of training rather than their views moving towards “bro-science”.[/quote]
I guess I’m the outlier. I’ve always thought of it as info that was good for the original context in which it was used, but that context was lost long ago. And now we’ve got info such as “Training a muscle more than 1x/week is overtraining!” or “any cardiovascular activity will kill your gainz!” etc, etc.
[quote]dt79 wrote:
Broscience is anything that’s not backed by pseudoscience.
Typically, the former is applied based on results, though actual causation may be difficult to confirm, while the latter assumes results from application.[/quote]
Sounds like a pretty sciencey definition of broscience. Still sounds about right though.
The thing is, though, I think we’re gradually seeing snippets of broscience becoming backed by “real” science. That’s not necessarily a bad thing if it get folks lifting in the right direction.
The Case for Broscience: https://www.t-nation.com/training/case-for-broscience
5 Things We Can Learn from Arnold:
6 Lessons from the Master Blaster (validating some of the classic “Weider Principles”):
I do agree that the definition of bro-science has changed, but from my observation, it seemed that it was more the beginner trainees that were adapting the term versus the experienced guys.
Bro-science seemed like it used to refer to attempting to justify observed occurrences with scientific explanations.
Example: Whenever I squat heavy, my whole body gets bigger and stronger (observation). This must be because, when you squat, your body release HGH and creates testosterone, so it’s like natural steroids (mangled scientific explanation, now bro-science).
Example 2: Whenever I eat every 2 hours, I seem to lose more fat than when I eat 3 big meals a day (observation). This must be because, when I eat every 2 hours, I am increasing my body’s metabolic rate (mangled scientific explanation, no bro-science).
It seemed like we eventually learned to quit trying to justify the observances with science and simply appreciate the fact that these things happened at all. HOWEVER, as the younger generation began to cling to scientific studies about training (while conveniently ignoring the generally poor manner in which many of these studies were conducted), it soon became that anything WITHOUT a scientific backing was bro-science, regardless of if the statement was true or not.
[quote]dt79 wrote:
My opinion is very simple. The split doesn’t matter unless it’s retarded. I don’t see why you’re so hung up on it.
And I would like the beginner to understand that things like this do not matter in light of the bigger picture for reasons given in my previous post.[/quote]
Haha ok. I’m not hung up on it, I’m just arguing. You are probably right, the split doesn’t really matter. I guess I’m just biased against a routine with 3 different calf raise variations and zero deadlifts.
[quote]T3hPwnisher wrote:
I do agree that the definition of bro-science has changed, but from my observation, it seemed that it was more the beginner trainees that were adapting the term versus the experienced guys.
Bro-science seemed like it used to refer to attempting to justify observed occurrences with scientific explanations.
Example: Whenever I squat heavy, my whole body gets bigger and stronger (observation). This must be because, when you squat, your body release HGH and creates testosterone, so it’s like natural steroids (mangled scientific explanation, now bro-science).
Example 2: Whenever I eat every 2 hours, I seem to lose more fat than when I eat 3 big meals a day (observation). This must be because, when I eat every 2 hours, I am increasing my body’s metabolic rate (mangled scientific explanation, no bro-science).
[/quote]
THIS is exactly what I could call it. But it’s not what people are referring to. They are talking about long held beliefs from older bodybuilders which had the wrong rationale but the right idea, which, of course, did eventually lead to results. Then they tried to modify these methods with pseudoscience, which should be called TRUE BROSCIENCE in actuality.
E.g,
Low reps for bulking, high reps for cutting to create definition
Wrong: Rep range does not define muscle shape to any appreciable extent
Right: Lower vs higher metabolic effects
True Broscience: Limit strength training during cuts to preserve “strength”(yeah try it when you reach single digit bodyfat levels in a caloric deficit and see what happens if you’re lifting fucking heavy).
Targeting different parts of a muscle
Wrong: Inner chest. outer chest
Right: Upper and lower heads
True Broscience: Pec major and minor
[quote]T3hPwnisher wrote:
I really don’t feel like the deadlift is a necessary lift for most trainees.[/quote]
Well, no lift is necessary, right? I credit the deadlift with most of my back development and virtually all of my trap development.
And it’s fun. Way more fun than calf raises.
[/quote]
How is your back development?
I disagree with the statement that no lifts are necessary, as it depends on the goal of the trainee. A powerlifter, strongman or crossfitter will need to deadlift. Other trainees though? No. I feel like there are better choices for back development.
As for fun, I don’t think lifting weights is fun. I’d much rather eat pizza and play video games, haha.
Sometimes the bros know what’s going on, they just don’t have the cool jargon of the physical therapists. Every true bro knows some back stuff works the area right under your arms. Some back stuff works the muscles, lower down, like on your ribs. Everyone used to call it upper lats vs lower lats. Now they call your “upper lat” your teres minor or something. If you say upper lat today, people think you’re crazy.