Judging the guy on the whole of his contributions, I think Isratel has been net-positive for the stuff we all like (lifting, building muscle, etc....).
Lately, a lot of content has become honey for catching flies on the youtube alogorithym, which I find insufferable (his views on AI, or psychology, for example, come across as if being authoritative, when he is not an authority on the topic). I could live without another critique of another lifter's technique as well (does nothing to advance the field).
He did popularize some interesting heuristics (maximum adaptable volume, etc...) that I think have value, if only as heuristics (I actually like heuristics in lifting, since it's literally taking mean results from studies and trying to apply them to an N=1 situations ,where a heuristic and testing it is the best one can hope for as one learns their body. Which is what we've all done here).
Still, there he's polarizing and his contributions are more for the hoi polloi. One either tires of the rhetoric and finds themself more in the "so, just lift hard and that's it? Christ, shut up man!" camp (which is ridiculously true). Or, you find yourself seeking more informed voices (I happen to like Pelland, Trexler, Helms, in these regards, who try a bit harder to add something sensical to the average lifters lifestyle).
Helms & Trexler, for me in particular, do a good job of prioritizing the effect-sizes of hypertrophy and strength tactics. Rather than youtubing their way through whatever trends, they stick to reminding folks about what really works, and how do avoid getting lost in the weeds of trends that don't create a meaningful effect size on hypertrophy or strength for the average lifter to care (even if a study shows "statistical significance").
Holy shit surprise summary for all this bullshit - design your training so that you're doing enough sets for the muscles you want to grow, train really hard when you do those sets, track your progress to ensure you're progressively overloading (by adding a rep or weight or even eventually a set). That's it. The rest is nuanced shit we all monkey around with when we get bored. That "when we get bored" mentality is what's spawned the entire social media universe; the fact that man is mostly powerless to resist the Novelty Bias and the Recency Bias.
As for Lyle, I think he's had some net positives too. But I find his meanderings to be insufferable; I just can't listen to 40 minutes of him attacking someone/thing, to listen for that nugget of insight (and I know its there...I just can't bring myself emotionally to listen to a rant. And yes, I realize the irony that my posts on getbig are long and come across as rants).
