Exercise Scientist Critiques Jonathan Majors' Training and Diet

Mike uses Jonathan Majors as both positive and negative example: Majors' 45-lb pull-up was flawless—full stretch, controlled descent—but when he added another 45 to hit 90 lbs, his range shortened dramatically, missing the deep stretch and reducing the growth stimulus. Mike stresses that good technique is foundational; you should only count reps where you fully extend the elbows at the bottom and pull chin to bar. This not only boosts hypertrophy but gives a consistent metric to track progress. The 2.5-lb weekly progression is low-risk and capitalizes on the body's ability to adapt slowly, preventing plateaus and tendon issues. He calls it a 'winner-take-all formula' for back development.

Mike directly addresses the myth that dips are inherently bad for shoulders. He argues that only a small fraction of dips cause issues—namely, when someone uses excessive speed, a range of motion they haven't adapted to, or too much weight too soon. By starting with a shallower depth and slowly increasing it week to week (and only later adding weight), most people can enjoy the dual benefits of massive chest/tricep growth and robust shoulder health. He praises Majors' dip technique as exemplary: deep, slow, controlled. He calls it a 'winner-take-all formula'.

While reviewing Majors' trainer having him do leg raises immediately after pull-ups without releasing the bar, Mike immediately flags the grip issue. He notes that grip strength would be the limiting factor, degrading the quality of both exercises. He suggests simple rest periods between movements or, even better, completely separating them in the training session. He adds that some trainers force these supersets for conditioning, but for maximizing muscle growth and technique, independence is better.

Mike's argument is practical: limited gym time should be invested in exercises that deliver the most aesthetic bang. Delt exercises give you broader shoulders and, as a byproduct, bigger traps. He says he's never seen a person with traps too small for their delts, but he's seen plenty of narrow shoulders that would have benefited from more delt work. He emphasizes that every form of delt training—machine, dumbbell, cable—'beats the living shit out of your traps,' so adding shrugs is 'not a good use of time.'

Mike reacts to Majors' trainer claiming 'if you can perform leg raises like that, you get abs like that.' He agrees that the ab strength is impressive and the underlying muscle would look great, but stresses that under body fat, none of that matters. He says 'eating well is number one. Losing fat is going to reveal your abs.' This reinforces the fundamental principle that you can't out-train a poor diet, especially for a lean aesthetic.

Mike and Scott react in real time: they laugh and note 'it's not his first rodeo with the shit' from the clip, then Mike explicitly says 'Well, then I guess, you know what I'm saying, we using some shit.' He then launches into his steroid talk. The timing is crucial: earlier Mike had said Majors' physique in the pull-up photo didn't 'scream steroid abuse,' but the diet contradiction flips that assessment. The takeaway is not a general witch hunt but a specific indictment that this particular transformation (extreme leanness while ramping food) is almost certainly drug-assisted, probably with Anavar as described later. This connects the Hollywood steroid conversation to a current example.

Mike explains that every kind of delt training heavily recruits the upper traps, so adding direct shrugs merely duplicates what is already being accomplished. He argues that the delts can tolerate a ton of volume and respond well, and that building bigger delts naturally drags trap size along. The rare exception is someone with genuinely undersized traps relative to their delts, but he's never seen it. Therefore, for anyone limited on time, ditching shrugs and piling more volume into delt work is the smarter play. He even goes so far as to say, 'I don't love shrugs' and that it's 'not a good use of time.'