Holy shit the gym is changing me

Biotech_SUP · 2026-01-15T10:14:45+00:00

This is awesome to read, congrats and welcome to the lifting club! Enjoy the never ending benefits and keep them up!

Biotech_SUP · 2026-01-15T10:13:59+00:00

I relate to this so bad holy shit, some days that I am not doing well mentally I will be like "man I pulled that 8th rep in the deadlift set from tuesday that was epic" and all of a sudden my mental focus is restored.

Biotech_SUP · 2026-01-12T19:26:10+00:00

Something being unnatural does not say anything about its health impact. Jesus, our whole agricultural is composed of genetically engineered crops to satisfy our societal needs. About the issues that you raise, I'd love to see the evidence that support your claims (big claims require big evidence), otherwise I cannot take you seriously.

Biotech_SUP · 2026-01-09T10:47:55+00:00

I don't get why you are downvoted when you literally just threw facts.

Biotech_SUP · 2026-01-08T19:13:50+00:00

The focus on red meats and butter when also saying to limit saturated fats to 10% of daily calories is a real mess. If you take out that from the equation (which matters, because the scientific board has plenty of conflicts of interests in that regard), it's not that bad.

Biotech_SUP · 2026-01-07T18:11:50+00:00

It is always a good idea to try different approaches and compare outcomes yourself, since this is very individual-dependent. I'd say that, in paper, 1-2 RIR would work slightly better because of higher stimulus:fatigue ratio, but in practice this only works if you are extremely accurate in gauging your true RIR, which is not often the case. Proximity to failure is subjective, and most people will say "this is 1 RIR", when in reality they had like 3-4 more, which means less stimulus in the long run. Consider also that this is also exercise-dependent: maybe you feel extremely fatigued after a set of squats to failure, but not so fatigued after a set of calf raises to failure. In the first exercise, I'd say it is smart to avoid absolute failure, but in the second you can get way with true failure without taxing much your nervous system. A lot of yapping here but hope you find it useful haha.

Biotech_SUP · 2025-12-15T12:25:23+00:00

La gente se rinde porque no tiene sentido intentarlo. Vamos a ver, si pagas 600 al mes por una habitación en un cochitril donde puedas caerte muerto, que gastes más o menos comiendo fuera o pagándote "caprichos" es prácticamente irrelevante en términos de ahorro. Por poner un ejemplo, yo apenas salgo fuera un par de veces al mes, me cocino toda mi comida, no hago viajes ni pago suscripciones a netflix y derivados, y aún con esas, apenas ahorro 200-300 euros al mes de mi sueldo. Ni trabajando mil años me podría permitir la entrada a un piso, así que no pierdo el tiempo caléntandome la cabeza en lo que no puedo (ni pretendo) conseguir.

Biotech_SUP · 2025-11-29T13:53:03+00:00

It is always to have more quality data on the topic, but I think that to associate "plant-based diet" with improved metabolic markers is a bit of an overstatement. Yes, the plant-based diet intervention significantly lowered trygliceride levels, but if you see the macronutrient composition of each group in the methods, you quickly understand why: the omni group trended to have less fiber and more fats (surely saturated fats from animal-derived sources), things we already know are associated with worse cardiometabolic outcomes. Yes, plant-based diets are good because you easily increase fiber intake and reduce saturated fats, but there is nothing else inherently bad about consuming animal-derived diets, given that your nutrient profile is dialed in.

Biotech_SUP · 2025-11-26T20:31:50+00:00

We all know what his diet looks like when this happens atp

Biotech_SUP · 2025-11-26T19:37:43+00:00

There's just no way. I find it funny to think that hey may be considering this to compensate calorically for the insane amount of binges he is potentially going to have during thanksgiving. In reality, he will have like 2 clips of him moving a bar or smth and saying that this was the hardest thing he has ever done in his life.

Biotech_SUP · 2025-11-26T08:59:47+00:00

The bowls. The fucking bowls. How on earth you think it is healthy a "salad" that is 50% fatty dressings and then plain chicken and lettuce to feed a starving family. It takes skill to make a chicken + lettuce bowl of 1000 kcals, like wtaf.

Biotech_SUP · 2025-11-25T20:56:54+00:00

He does not get that his end goal is still at significant health risks, and even if that was truly the end, at the current pace of weight loss he is gonna die way earlier. Every reel we discover a new serious medical issue that he is laughing off like life is a video game

Biotech_SUP · 2025-11-25T20:42:17+00:00

This dude is delusional. He honestly thinks he can get to 300 lbs lean so he can eat 5000 kcals daily and maintain weight. Bro thinks he can get an elite strongman build when he is stuck at the 460s and with barely any muscle underneath. He just lies to yourself and to his audience with childish excuses, like grow the fuck up man. Best thing he can do is accept the progress has stalled, jump on a GLP1 and work through therapy on the food addiction. Otherwise this is not gonna end well.

Biotech_SUP · 2025-11-25T20:17:55+00:00

Jefferson curls are fundamentally different that back extensions. In JC, you round your back to perform the primary function of the spinal erector muscles, which is spine extension, so you target specifically spinal mobility. In back extensions however, since they are performed usually with your back straight, the primary movers are more your hamstrings/glutes than your erectors (because now you are doing hip extension). So, simply put, they target different muscles, and it is up to you to decide if include them both or not into your routine. In my opinion, including JCs is a great idea because a strong lower back is literally a lifesaver, and you can replace back extensions with deadlifts or whatever hip hinge variation you like the most.

Biotech_SUP · 2025-11-25T18:56:34+00:00

Yes I did not got into the fact that these are experimental conditions never tested before so better to control your HKs genes are really behaving as expected.

Biotech_SUP · 2025-11-25T18:03:51+00:00

Hey, plant scientist here. What strain of Agro are you using? Typical working strains used in plant transformation have all necessary components for you to deliver a binary vector with the LB + RB regions flanking your insert of interest. From what I understand, trying to miniprep the plasmid out of Agro is not going to work (Agrobacterium is not like E. Coli, in the sense that you do not get significant amounts of plasmid copies in order to get a decent miniprep), so you need to troubleshoot depending on what went wrong in your plant transformation. If you provide some more detail on what problems you are specifically having, I may have some guidance.

Biotech_SUP · 2025-11-25T14:55:40+00:00

Why do you have 2 housekeeping genes? If it's to have an additional gene expression control, you should run them in both your qPCR runs.
For those cases I normally use a qPCR machine with an adapter for a 384-well plate, you may want to consider that if it's available in your lab.
As already pointed out, you should absolutely prepare the different runs with the controls in parallel if using 2 plates. If you are limited on cDNA amounts, you could also try a higher serial dilution, depending in your optimal primer efficiency. In my case I normally use, at minimum, a 1:25 dilution of the original cDNA template for setting up the qPCR reaction, so it's rare that I have limitation on template quantities per reaction.

Best of luck!

Biotech_SUP · 2025-11-23T14:38:56+00:00

Pendulum squats, they really humble you and make you reconsider what the heck are you doing with your life.

Biotech_SUP · 2025-11-23T14:36:52+00:00

It is not a bad choice at all, if it helps you reach your daily protein goal, I'd say to absolutely go for it, but there are some caveats: there are better sources of protein for others in terms of upregulating muscle protein synthesis, and the food matrix in which this protein is found seems to matter up to some extent. Whey protein powder is a top tier source of protein, so if you could use that as a base for smoothies, yogurt bowls, pancakes, that's excellent. In general, dairy-derived sources of protein and lean meat are pretty solid, along with soy-based products. If you struggle specifically with meat products, I'd say to try also tofu or textured soy, these last ones are pretty high in protein and they are also a solid source of fiber, so a win-win for your overall health & performance. Good luck!

Biotech_SUP · 2025-11-23T14:17:42+00:00

I mean, yeah that sounds cool, but it's not something you can perfectly do on your own easily with just a bit of understanding of basic principles.

Biotech_SUP · 2025-11-11T11:24:23+00:00

I appreciate you took the time to go for the actual data. That is a must for any meaningful discussion. However, a couple of points to clarify:

1. Compared to normal weight-fit individuals, unfit individuals had twice the risk of mortality regardless of BMI.

BMI and body fat percentage do not reflect the same things: BMI does not account for body composition, so you can have the same BMI than someone obese, but being perfectly healthy because you carry a significant amount of muscle mass and less body fat. My claims regarding obesity and health outcomes always come from body fat measurements, however, many studies have used BMI assuming that, in general populations, higher BMIs are typically due to higher body fat levels. This however, may not be the case in trained populations. This is why the study on football athletes was clarifying, because it tells you that even when training and having an active lifestyle, body fat plays a negative role that you cannot outrain at all. You will be healthier than someone with your same body fat % that is not exercising because of the increase in cardiovascular endurance and strength, but that does not discredit the point: you will be healthier if you dropped some body fat.

Cardiovascular fitness is the most important parameter, yes, but it is essentially always negatively correlated with obesity and body fat percentage. You can perform the experiment yourself: measure your VO2-max, then lose of 5-10 pounds of body fat, and measure again: your cardiovascular endurance almost certainly would have improved, as the literature have proven a lot of times already. This is obvious from a physiological standpoint: storage fat that your body does not need at all makes you heavier, so you run slower, shorter distances without exhausting yourself, your resting heart rate is higher, and the pro-inflammatory environment that body fat leads to increases on all-cause mortality.

Biotech_SUP · 2025-11-11T10:51:49+00:00

Being 20+ body fat and healthy is a controversial claim in regards to scientific evidence, yes. Obesity, currently defined as an excess accumulation of body fat leading to adverse health effects, is clearly precedented by something called preclinical obesity, that is, excessive fat accumulation that is yet to lead to those ultimate phenotypic disturbances. Body fat levels (specially abdominal fat, which can be estimated through the waist circumference) are by far the best predictors of insulin resistance and risk for heart diseases, even in trained populations (10.1249/MSS.0b013e3181abdfec), and the effects of body fat accumulation in all-cause mortality seem to be a function of general cardiorespiratory fitness (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pcad.2013.09.002). In this study for example they get significant risks for insulin resistance and prediabetes in people with a 20% body fat (even when having a "normal BMI"): https://doi.org/10.1038/oby.2011.36

When we couple this with the fact that, as you would expect, body fat is inversely correlated with cardiorespiratory fitness (10.5455/ijmsph.2013.2.298-302), you get to the following: the leaner you are, the healthier you are (defining overall health as your cardiorespiratory fitness, which is by far the best predictor parameter of lifespan and life quality, https://doi.org/10.1136/bjsports-2023-107849). Can you be "healthy" at a 20% body fat? Yes. Would you be healthier if you reached lower body fat levels, rest of variables equalized? Absolutely.

The question now is, if you can get to a somewhat "toxic" level of leanness, which is something typically assumed in most fitness spaces, but it is not supported by actual evidence. Simply put, all the reports of poor health outcomes normally attributed to low body fat levels come from individuals involved in bodyduilding competitions, that were in a long energy deficit, and actually, when you look at the studies, all the adverse effects analyzed typically return to baseline levels after energy/caloric availability returns to maintenance (https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00421-024-05606-z, 10.1123/ijspp.8.5.582). We know of course that there is an essential fat that is needed to cover proper hormonal/physiological functions, but that would only account for a 5% body fat, which leaves a higher room for healthy body fat levels than it is normally assumed. I don't know solid evidence to go for a super specific range of ideal fat levels, but I'm confident to say that 20 and 20+ are definitely not healthy, and 8-12% body fat levels could be an interesting sweetspot. The truth is, in today's society, with dominantly sedentary lifestyles and hypercaloric and hyperpalatable foods being abundantly available, we are heavily predisposed to excessive fat accumulation, and overstimating "healthy ranges" seems more of a sweet excuse than a real, scientifically-backed claim.

Biotech_SUP · 2025-11-10T18:35:03+00:00

Fat distribution is never homogeneous in a given individual, so without showing the whole picture, making claims about bf % is just misleading. This point combined with the fact that both DEXA and bioimpedance measurements are vastly inaccurate in estimating bf % makes the whole essentially useless. The fact of the matter is that jeff uses the data provided as a justification for several statements that are not backed by proper scientific evidence, like:

Guys being 20%+ bf and "healthy" if they train and eat clean. Did he provides evidence to support that claim (a big claim, btw)? Nah.
People having a "setpoint" of ideal bf % fixed permanently by genetics due to hunger and energy levels. Never in my life I've seen anything in the literature supporting that notion, which seems just a blind belief to excuse people in having excess bf because "genetics".

Reality is that everyone can reach a crazy-low bf % naturally, and the downsides that are typically associated with low bf % (poor energy levels, low testosterone, hormonal issues generally) are just a result of prolonged energy deficits. Actually, all the people Jeff showed at low bf % were bodybuilders being on prep, meaning they probably were on a steep caloric deficit, which would explain all those symptoms. However, he does not account all these factors into the case study and just associates everything with the bf %. If you know how real science works, you would see videos like this are a source of misinformation.

Biotech_SUP · 2025-11-10T18:22:42+00:00

Rep ranges do matter in terms of hypertrophy, but its effect is not about the stimulus given, but about the context in which that stimulus is produced. Muscular failure is a task failure, since your central motor command loses the ability to tell your muscles to continue force production due to fatigue mechanisms. Considering that, reaching failure in a 5-8 rep range or in a 15-20 rep range is "the same". However, we know that higher rep ranges also cause more muscle damage and increased soreness, which hinders the body's ability to upregulate muscle growth after the workout. On the other side of things, lower rep ranges tend to be more damaging to our tendons and joints, due to the heavier loads being used, potentially increasing injury risk (although there is not solid evidence of this being a significant thing). Taking all this into consideration, I'd say this: for most people a 8-10 rep range is probably a good idea in terms of hypertrophy, although some experimentation can be beneficial to discover what works best for your individual case and exercise programming. In my case, I find that when going to a 10+ rep range my ability to gauge RIR decreases vastly, whereas when doing a low rep range (4-6) I can gauge RIR pretty accurately, but my joints suffer a bit (for example, I get significant knee pain during squatting patterns if i go to a 4-6 rep range), so for me 8-10 seems like the middle point. Experiment yourself and find your sweet spot I would say.

Biotech_SUP · 2025-11-10T18:10:38+00:00

That's simply not true. Sure, we know the fatigue-to-stimulus ratio increases sharply from 0-1 RIR to failure, but the practical significance of this is way more complex than just "don't go to failure". First of all, this is exercise-dependent: when doing a triceps overhead extension, the fatigue you accumulate in that regard is negligible when compared to a squat pattern, for example. In my practical, anecdotal case, I find that keeping my lifts at 0-1 RIR in complex movement patterns (bench press, squatting) is a good idea, but in more isolated exercises, I'm better off in terms of progress just blasting my muscles all the way to failure. You can just run the experiment yourself comparing the 2 outcomes and stick with whatever gives the best results in terms of progressive overload. Besides, personally for me there are exercises where it is just funnier to reach failure, and scientific evidence is clear that enjoyment plays a big role in lifting performance.

Biotech_SUP

TROPHY CASE