I'm sure there are other videos detailing the incident in greater detail. If you're interested in this incredibly childish temper tantrum by Mike van Wyck and his ballwashers, I'd encourage you to search for as much information about the situation as you can.
There are several details I would like to add on
1. Van Wyck was a pro bodybuilder, apparently, and one detail I keep hearing is that he got 13th place out of 15 at some pro bodybuilding event.
2. Van Wyck is apparently a fake tough guy who avoids fights when people willingly challenge him:
3. I can see why Nippard's response would be triggering to Van Wyck:
a. Nippard brings up his relative abundance of natty achievements. If Van Wyck's best result was really 13th place, he's been mogged.
b. Nippard brings up steroids and genetics. Van Wyck is obviously on steroids. At some level he knows his gains have come from it. Given that his point essentially boils down to "ME BIG, YOU SMALL. YOU NOT KNOW HOW TO LIFT.", this is a heavy blow.
c. Nippard brings up the fact that pro bodybuilders have coaches who have worse physiques than them. As above, this is a heavy blow against Van Wyck's main point.
This is not to say that it somehow justifies the attack. But it does go some way in explaining it
4. the shirt Van Wyck is wearing in the last vid is psychological projection. Someone smarter than him (Nippard) bested him in thinking and he got offended.
The approach towards physical training by people like Jeff Nippard should obviously be championed, not dismissed, let alone hated
On one hand, the state of sports science has its problems: untrained test subjects (who often use the wrong technique), small sample sizes, short study durations etc. There's also the factor that the "meta" in training has been a certain way, so introducing a new technique like lengthened partials will lead to a novel stimulus.
The other problem, in my opinion, is the rhetoric in the space. Some "Science based" influencers will exaggerate the effect of the study in their language. I've seen people promoting lengthened partials saying things like "HAVE YOUR GAINS GHOSTED YOU!?" when the studies themselves only state that theyre only equally good or slightly better than exercising normally - so it's an exaggeration at best!
However:
a. Unlike some other influencers I respect like Alex Bromley or Alex Leonidas, Van Wyck brings up precisely fuck-all of that.
b. Nippard's rhetoric is much more toned down, so the 2nd point does not apply to him.
c. Some knowledge of biomechanics, etc is necessary and encouraged - you would get laughed at if you thought overhead press was a biceps exercise, but yet if you nerd out like Ben Yanes or Nippard do, you're bad or something. What's a good line to draw? How much knowledge is too much?
d. Generalizing the above point: Only the fitness community discourages refining your technique past a point. Every other field encourages it. Why?
