In Defense of "Bro Science"
LoneWolfRunner
Posts: 1,160 Member
I have been somewhat amused with the abundance of those on MFP who revel in spoofing other posters about so called "bro science" to put down any theory that allegedly has been debunked by modern science. Most of the commentators ridiculing "bro science" insinuate (and sometimes outright proclaim) that they have attained the epitome of nutritional and dietary knowledge and that their corner on the truth has rendered all else as unworkable, scoffable myth. While I acknowledge and understand that "science" has a useful place in diet and nutrition, I also think it is rash to adhere to every new scientific doctrine as the new and final truth. Science is a slippery thing and I have seen it used to justify some rather specious claims.
In the mid to late 1980s, I owned and operated a gym/fitness center in western Pennsylvania and me and my weightlifting buddies thrived on this much maligned "bro science". At that time, the leading "scientific" journals we had to rely upon was Iron Man magazine and Joe Weider's Muscle and Fitness. We followed their diets, their nutritional advice, their workout routines and swallowed handfuls of their supplements. It was the heyday of "bro science".
We memorized every line in Pumping Iron, we believed in starvation mode and in good and bad food. We never counted calories, had no idea there was any such thing as macros (and if we had we would have mocked it as being girly). When we bulked up, we pounded pounds of skinless broiled chicken breasts, baked potatoes, whole grain bread, cans and cans and cans of tuna, crates of eggs and bags of brown rice. When we cut, we eliminated fats, salt, sugar and carbs. We drank all kinds of protein powders, carbohydrate boosters, put yohimbe bark extract under our tongues, took herbal testosterone boosters, amino acids in "pharmaceutical grade" powder form and anything else Arnold, Lou and Franco told us too.
And guess what? It worked. And not just for me and my training partners. Over the years, I had dozens of overweight members wanting to get into shape and dozens of skinny little twerps who no longer wanted sand kicked in their face come into my gym. And I preached my gospel of "bro science" to them and told them if they would get all the junk and crap out of their diet and stop slamming Big Macs and pie and would come in regularly and pump some iron, they could achieve their goals. And they did.
So while I believe that new information and knowledge is important, I also believe that "bro science" still has a place because it keeps things simple and it works, even if the "science" behind is being temporarily debunked.
And just for fun, here are some old pictures from those days when I was much younger and still had my hair and was totally immersed in my "bro science"... lol... I was a whopping 149 pounds in these pics...
In the mid to late 1980s, I owned and operated a gym/fitness center in western Pennsylvania and me and my weightlifting buddies thrived on this much maligned "bro science". At that time, the leading "scientific" journals we had to rely upon was Iron Man magazine and Joe Weider's Muscle and Fitness. We followed their diets, their nutritional advice, their workout routines and swallowed handfuls of their supplements. It was the heyday of "bro science".
We memorized every line in Pumping Iron, we believed in starvation mode and in good and bad food. We never counted calories, had no idea there was any such thing as macros (and if we had we would have mocked it as being girly). When we bulked up, we pounded pounds of skinless broiled chicken breasts, baked potatoes, whole grain bread, cans and cans and cans of tuna, crates of eggs and bags of brown rice. When we cut, we eliminated fats, salt, sugar and carbs. We drank all kinds of protein powders, carbohydrate boosters, put yohimbe bark extract under our tongues, took herbal testosterone boosters, amino acids in "pharmaceutical grade" powder form and anything else Arnold, Lou and Franco told us too.
And guess what? It worked. And not just for me and my training partners. Over the years, I had dozens of overweight members wanting to get into shape and dozens of skinny little twerps who no longer wanted sand kicked in their face come into my gym. And I preached my gospel of "bro science" to them and told them if they would get all the junk and crap out of their diet and stop slamming Big Macs and pie and would come in regularly and pump some iron, they could achieve their goals. And they did.
So while I believe that new information and knowledge is important, I also believe that "bro science" still has a place because it keeps things simple and it works, even if the "science" behind is being temporarily debunked.
And just for fun, here are some old pictures from those days when I was much younger and still had my hair and was totally immersed in my "bro science"... lol... I was a whopping 149 pounds in these pics...
0
Replies
-
This content has been removed.
-
-
LoneWolfRunner wrote: »And guess what? It worked.
No doubt.
But you know how it is with religion...you can't just do the right thing, you have to do it for the right reasons and kiss the right ring, or you're a heathen anyway.
:drinker:
0 -
0 -
LoneWolfRunner wrote: »When we bulked up, we pounded pounds of skinless broiled chicken breasts, baked potatoes, whole grain bread, cans and cans and cans of tuna, crates of eggs and bags of brown rice. When we cut, we eliminated fats, salt, sugar and carbs. We drank all kinds of protein powders, carbohydrate boosters, put yohimbe bark extract under our tongues, took herbal testosterone boosters, amino acids in "pharmaceutical grade" powder form and anything else Arnold, Lou and Franco told us too.LoneWolfRunner wrote: »I also believe that "bro science" still has a place because it keeps things simple and it works, even if the "science" behind is being temporarily debunked.
Say what now?0 -
PaulaWallaDingDong wrote: »LoneWolfRunner wrote: »When we bulked up, we pounded pounds of skinless broiled chicken breasts, baked potatoes, whole grain bread, cans and cans and cans of tuna, crates of eggs and bags of brown rice. When we cut, we eliminated fats, salt, sugar and carbs. We drank all kinds of protein powders, carbohydrate boosters, put yohimbe bark extract under our tongues, took herbal testosterone boosters, amino acids in "pharmaceutical grade" powder form and anything else Arnold, Lou and Franco told us too.LoneWolfRunner wrote: »I also believe that "bro science" still has a place because it keeps things simple and it works, even if the "science" behind is being temporarily debunked.
Say what now?
Exactly what I was going to say.
Eating less than you burn and watching your macros is a thousand times easier than your "simple". IMO.0 -
TheVirgoddess wrote: »PaulaWallaDingDong wrote: »LoneWolfRunner wrote: »When we bulked up, we pounded pounds of skinless broiled chicken breasts, baked potatoes, whole grain bread, cans and cans and cans of tuna, crates of eggs and bags of brown rice. When we cut, we eliminated fats, salt, sugar and carbs. We drank all kinds of protein powders, carbohydrate boosters, put yohimbe bark extract under our tongues, took herbal testosterone boosters, amino acids in "pharmaceutical grade" powder form and anything else Arnold, Lou and Franco told us too.LoneWolfRunner wrote: »I also believe that "bro science" still has a place because it keeps things simple and it works, even if the "science" behind is being temporarily debunked.
Say what now?
Exactly what I was going to say.
Eating less than you burn and watching your macros is a thousand times easier than your "simple". IMO.
Then why do so many MFPers fail?
0 -
TheVirgoddess wrote: »PaulaWallaDingDong wrote: »LoneWolfRunner wrote: »When we bulked up, we pounded pounds of skinless broiled chicken breasts, baked potatoes, whole grain bread, cans and cans and cans of tuna, crates of eggs and bags of brown rice. When we cut, we eliminated fats, salt, sugar and carbs. We drank all kinds of protein powders, carbohydrate boosters, put yohimbe bark extract under our tongues, took herbal testosterone boosters, amino acids in "pharmaceutical grade" powder form and anything else Arnold, Lou and Franco told us too.LoneWolfRunner wrote: »I also believe that "bro science" still has a place because it keeps things simple and it works, even if the "science" behind is being temporarily debunked.
Say what now?
Exactly what I was going to say.
Eating less than you burn and watching your macros is a thousand times easier than your "simple". IMO.
Then why do so many MFPers fail?
The same reason so many people not on MFP fail - because they don't want it enough.0 -
Anyone that puts time in the gym, gets enough rest, is well disciplined and eats decently can achieve a competitor's status. Like the OP I spent lots of time in the gym, gulped protein, did an insane amount of sets and reps and built a decent physique. But I don't doubt that anyone who puts in the work can't do the same even if they don't follow "broscience" techniques.
Personally when I dumped the supplements (which I was spending lots on), and just kept my protein up along with a small surplus and trained hard, I kept building. This was when I started researching more and actually learning about physiology and how it actually worked.
Nowadays, I bite my lip when some of my peers still adhere to it, but hey that's their philosophy and it's none of my business in what they want to believe.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
0 -
TheVirgoddess wrote: »TheVirgoddess wrote: »PaulaWallaDingDong wrote: »LoneWolfRunner wrote: »When we bulked up, we pounded pounds of skinless broiled chicken breasts, baked potatoes, whole grain bread, cans and cans and cans of tuna, crates of eggs and bags of brown rice. When we cut, we eliminated fats, salt, sugar and carbs. We drank all kinds of protein powders, carbohydrate boosters, put yohimbe bark extract under our tongues, took herbal testosterone boosters, amino acids in "pharmaceutical grade" powder form and anything else Arnold, Lou and Franco told us too.LoneWolfRunner wrote: »I also believe that "bro science" still has a place because it keeps things simple and it works, even if the "science" behind is being temporarily debunked.
Say what now?
Exactly what I was going to say.
Eating less than you burn and watching your macros is a thousand times easier than your "simple". IMO.
Then why do so many MFPers fail?
The same reason so many people not on MFP fail - because they don't want it enough.
Well, if they're going to fail at something that is "a thousand times easier", I guess there's just no hope for them to ever reach success.0 -
I don't really understand your position. When I write a technical paper, I don't discuss outdated techniques and algorithms that worked well at the time. I reference the latest science that has been demonstrated to be superior to the old techniques, and I try to find ways to improve upon the latest and greatest.0
-
TheVirgoddess wrote: »TheVirgoddess wrote: »PaulaWallaDingDong wrote: »LoneWolfRunner wrote: »When we bulked up, we pounded pounds of skinless broiled chicken breasts, baked potatoes, whole grain bread, cans and cans and cans of tuna, crates of eggs and bags of brown rice. When we cut, we eliminated fats, salt, sugar and carbs. We drank all kinds of protein powders, carbohydrate boosters, put yohimbe bark extract under our tongues, took herbal testosterone boosters, amino acids in "pharmaceutical grade" powder form and anything else Arnold, Lou and Franco told us too.LoneWolfRunner wrote: »I also believe that "bro science" still has a place because it keeps things simple and it works, even if the "science" behind is being temporarily debunked.
Say what now?
Exactly what I was going to say.
Eating less than you burn and watching your macros is a thousand times easier than your "simple". IMO.
Then why do so many MFPers fail?
The same reason so many people not on MFP fail - because they don't want it enough.
Well, if they're going to fail at something that is "a thousand times easier", I guess there's just no hope for them to ever reach success.
We're going to do this, are we?
You're presented with two options.
The first:pounded pounds of skinless broiled chicken breasts, baked potatoes, whole grain bread, cans and cans and cans of tuna, crates of eggs and bags of brown rice
we eliminated fats, salt, sugar and carbs
We drank all kinds of protein powders, carbohydrate boosters
put yohimbe bark extract under our tongues
took herbal testosterone boosters
amino acids in "pharmaceutical grade" powder form
anything else Arnold, Lou and Franco told us too
The second:Count your calories/macros
Remain in a deficit to lose, surplus to gain.
Which one is simpler?
If someone see success with the first - yay. They should do it - they should do whatever works for them. But let's not be ridiculous.
And if people are failing with the second - it's the fault of the formula? Because when I stopped losing weight, it was my fault.
Just to be clear, I'm speaking of weight loss only.0 -
I get it OP and I think there's a real message in your post. "Bro science" as I think you're using it and in my attempt to try and translate it into modern lingo, is basically crowd-sourced, experiential information; the same as lots of human knowledge. Some of it is correct; some of it is flat out wrong; some of it is "correct" but not for the reasons ostensibly behind it. Just another way that the collective "we" gain knowledge (even if some of it is mistaken).
But when I see the term "bro science" these days, I think of it as a term used to mean "misguided, incorrect, but popularly-held beliefs."0 -
It worked so well that you are posting pictures from 30 years ago rather than current ones. Seems legit.0
-
TheVirgoddess wrote: »PaulaWallaDingDong wrote: »LoneWolfRunner wrote: »When we bulked up, we pounded pounds of skinless broiled chicken breasts, baked potatoes, whole grain bread, cans and cans and cans of tuna, crates of eggs and bags of brown rice. When we cut, we eliminated fats, salt, sugar and carbs. We drank all kinds of protein powders, carbohydrate boosters, put yohimbe bark extract under our tongues, took herbal testosterone boosters, amino acids in "pharmaceutical grade" powder form and anything else Arnold, Lou and Franco told us too.LoneWolfRunner wrote: »I also believe that "bro science" still has a place because it keeps things simple and it works, even if the "science" behind is being temporarily debunked.
Say what now?
Exactly what I was going to say.
Eating less than you burn and watching your macros is a thousand times easier than your "simple". IMO.
Then why do so many MFPers fail?
It's pretty obvious reading the 1200 calorie/not losing threads. They're looking for reasons to fail (proves that being overweight isn't your own fault!), or are too stubborn to realize or admit they're over-complicating it or being lackadaisical. They'll fail at everything else they try for the same reasons. It has nothing to do with how simple the concept is.0 -
TheVirgoddess wrote: »TheVirgoddess wrote: »TheVirgoddess wrote: »PaulaWallaDingDong wrote: »LoneWolfRunner wrote: »When we bulked up, we pounded pounds of skinless broiled chicken breasts, baked potatoes, whole grain bread, cans and cans and cans of tuna, crates of eggs and bags of brown rice. When we cut, we eliminated fats, salt, sugar and carbs. We drank all kinds of protein powders, carbohydrate boosters, put yohimbe bark extract under our tongues, took herbal testosterone boosters, amino acids in "pharmaceutical grade" powder form and anything else Arnold, Lou and Franco told us too.LoneWolfRunner wrote: »I also believe that "bro science" still has a place because it keeps things simple and it works, even if the "science" behind is being temporarily debunked.
Say what now?
Exactly what I was going to say.
Eating less than you burn and watching your macros is a thousand times easier than your "simple". IMO.
Then why do so many MFPers fail?
The same reason so many people not on MFP fail - because they don't want it enough.
Well, if they're going to fail at something that is "a thousand times easier", I guess there's just no hope for them to ever reach success.
We're going to do this, are we?
You're presented with two options.
The first:pounded pounds of skinless broiled chicken breasts, baked potatoes, whole grain bread, cans and cans and cans of tuna, crates of eggs and bags of brown rice
we eliminated fats, salt, sugar and carbs
We drank all kinds of protein powders, carbohydrate boosters
put yohimbe bark extract under our tongues
took herbal testosterone boosters
amino acids in "pharmaceutical grade" powder form
anything else Arnold, Lou and Franco told us too
The second:Count your calories/macros
Remain in a deficit to lose, surplus to gain.
Which one is simpler?
Depends on the person.
More to the point...most are failing at the second option anyway, so it really makes no tangible difference - simplicity (the original selling point) just doesn't matter much.
0 -
This content has been removed.
-
your physical appearance is not necessarily related to your internal functions - a very important point to remember in the name of bro science.0
-
But when I see the term "bro science" these days, I think of it as a term used to mean "misguided, incorrect, but popularly-held beliefs."
This ^
Even the USDA is responsible for bro science, remember the food triangle or try and get a straight answer from your doctor on egg consumption.
0 -
Lol... too many delayed responses to a whiskey post... I don't even remember why I posted it... probably to play with all the scientists here.
0 -
LoneWolfRunner wrote: »Lol... too many delayed responses to a whiskey post... I don't even remember why I posted it... probably to play with all the scientists here.
An honest troll. Well, that's something different I guess.0 -
I wasn't necessarily "trolling"... I think I was weary of all the self-professed experts... but who knows? My original post was done at 1:42 a.m. and I can guarantee that I was too effing lit on Jameson to formulate the intent, ability or desire to "troll".
I keep things simple. I work hard, I lift hard, I run hard and I drink hard.
I'm actually surprised I didn't have more typos in my original post... it was almost coherent... lol0 -
-
Sounds like a great life and you had fun sometimes thats what its all about.. Thanks for sharing0
-
There's two broad categories of bro advice. There's the "can't hurt", and "risky". I'll play around with the "can't hurt" category all the time.
I drink Biosteel 10 cal supplements in my water, knowing it doesn't make a difference. I checked with my dietitian and she said, "can't hurt", which I interpreted to mean, "If you want to waste your money that way, have at 'er"
The same with tea over coffee, stevia over aspartame, whole wheat over white, organic vitamins over pharma, or one vegetarian dinner a week. It's a preference thing and neither swing will hurt the dieter.
When dieters range over in to abstention because of outdated or unproven bro science, I take exception. This can lead to unintended consequences. Don't eat enough fat and risk gall bladder problems. Don't eat enough protein and risk damage to muscles, nails, and hair. Don't drink enough water and risk kidney stones.0 -
LoneWolfRunner wrote: » I wasn't necessarily "trolling"... I think I was weary of all the self-professed experts... but who knows? My original post was done at 1:42 a.m. and I can guarantee that I was too effing lit on Jameson to formulate the intent, ability or desire to "troll".
I keep things simple. I work hard, I lift hard, I run hard and I drink hard.
I'm actually surprised I didn't have more typos in my original post... it was almost coherent... lol
My trainers were old school. Ran their own business for years. They kept up with all the science but you know what? Most clients who aren't inclined to count calories pretty much like and succeed on the old school simplicity. So they are flexible with it and glad to be able to dip into a pot of a variety of approaches. Some clients like the macro breakdown, some just want to be told what to focus on predominately without having to worry about an exact percentage or calorie. It works too. For me in the beginning it helped.
Their main strategy is more behavioural approach so variety of adherence strategies matters. Some thrive on X, some Y. Probably the biggest change is the supplements. They aren't the must haves as such anymore. I think it just "depends". They've trained the suburban house wife (me), Everest climbers and athletes - all different courses of actions and requirements.
So for me, the only time I baulk at someone's advice is when they're adamant that ONLY this is the best course of action and they try and ground it in science that doesn't exist or isn't necessarily the whole picture for one person.
Glad you lost the mullet lol.
0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.3K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 424 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions