Broscience

Matt_Wild

I often hear the term thrown around here as broscience.

People will often quote a few studies stating what they are saying is true because they have a study showing XYZ shows that ABC happens.

They often feel that this outweighs any other evidence to the contrary and if its not in a study, it actually means nothing.

However a vast majority of these studies are not what one would call relevant to the subject matter in hand. For instance, does uptake of nutrients between someone of 10% body fat correlate with someone of 40% bodyfat? Would the protein synthesis of someone who trains as a bodybuilder/athlete be consistent with a general everyday person, let alone an old man like i have seen with some studies?

Now I like anyone likes studies to base my opinion on, but often I feel people here are too quick to judge an aspect they have very little knowledge on beyond reading a few studies that may or may not have any correlation to the matter they are comparing them to.

Your thoughts?

Iron_Pheonix

Agreed and I often think there's too much focus on minuti and not the important things like adequate sleep/rest/consistent training etc.

I believe it has to be your own journey with your own beliefs. There's too much judgement.

Ramberta

Welcome to the problem with the internet-- people take 1 article and quote it and decide that's the only valid source of information, despite any and all evidence to the contrary (funny because all it takes to contradict it is usually also a single source!)

This happens everywhere, not exclusive to MFP, weight loss, or the coined term "broscience". Unfortunately because every individual can achieve health and success in a different way from everyone else (cuz we're all just special snowflakes like that), it's difficult to establish national guidelines for eating and health beyond the very basics.

Markguns

Bro Science, is that the talk guys throw around at the gym? :laugh: :laugh: :bigsmile:

ironanimal

I think the best way to find what works is through experimentation, trial and error, but I also think these experiments and trials should be undertaken with a solid understanding of WHY you would do X and what, theoretically, should happen.

Broscience as a term is tricky. When the broscience is being spread by somebody that has had success, often there is some reason why their method would work even if they themselves don't have it quite right.

twelfty

imo broscience is thrown about so much that 9 times out of 10 even if someone is saying something with hard evidence it can be contradicted with something else, having got into one of these arguements a few weeks back i've decided that imparting advice can be such a pain in the *kitten* and can stray so far from the original point is to just not give it out

the trouble i find is in particular on here you'll get someone with XYZ goals say losing weight/ amature lifting etc asking a question and get a reply from a hardcore gun pumping body builder (or sometimes a straight lunatic) giving advice from that perspective, when it's not strictly the same advice needed

i think there's so many theories on the internet of getting to the same goal because people are different, so different things work so any point can be proven one way or another, theres like a general overview of eat lots of protein, cut/increase carbs, fat is a bit unknown because of the recent change in what "they" say is good for you, but just not too much

anything you do with when you eat, what you eat to get your macro, what excersize you do, how long you do it, is well open for debate but comes down to what works best for the individual, hence why there's a study for every method that supports it, and equally a study that dismisses it, it just depends what people are on that study

bubbanene

matt or anyone question slightly off topic. What you said about protein.......... does a 50 yr old out of shape(350) need 1lb per LBM? Thats over 200 for me. Is that necessary for someone my age doing bill phillips BFL 3 times a week? Thanks

Cyclink

Considering how many studies are done with poor blinding, poor randomization, small samples, and other really inaccurate methods (usually to get the result that the researchers want to get), even many studies out there require a little closer look before they can be believed.

Matt_Wild

matt or anyone question slightly off topic. What you said about protein.......... does a 50 yr old out of shape(350) need 1lb per LBM? Thats over 200 for me. Is that necessary for someone my age doing bill phillips BFL 3 times a week? Thanks

Not really on topic I'm afraid - TBH I don't coach people of you're age/weight and at a distance it could be risky dependent on any heath conditions etc. Not something I'm overly confident doing.

That said in general, 200g of protein when all said and done is nothing. What would be wrong with it?

Is 200g of carbs any better? Carbs are simply fuel/energy for the body. Maybe it tastes better as carbs often do... but other than that, any thoughts on why it is bad?

EdwarddeVere

My opinion... Speak with your doctor or nutritionist. Never go to the forums for answers.

Deipneus

I often hear the term thrown around here as broscience. People will often quote a few studies stating what they are saying is true because they have a study showing XYZ shows that ABC happens.

Heck, I see claims all the time on here with no underpinning at all. They are just naked assertions with no sources.

Matt_Wild

I often hear the term thrown around here as broscience. People will often quote a few studies stating what they are saying is true because they have a study showing XYZ shows that ABC happens.

Heck, I see claims all the time on here with no underpinning at all. They are just naked assertions with no sources.

So no study showing their thoughts = meaningless?

jimmie65

Heck, I see claims all the time on here with no underpinning at all. They are just naked assertions with no sources.

You mean "I think" or "I've heard" aren't acceptable sources?

Deipneus

So no study showing their thoughts = meaningless?

Thoughts are fine. Offering such as advice can be worse than meaningless.

Matt_Wild

So no study showing their thoughts = meaningless?

Thoughts are fine. Offering such as advice can be worse than meaningless.

But small meaningless study = worth while information?

This is what I'm trying to get at. Simply because a study shows XYZ occurred in a tiny dot of a population, does it really correlate with everyone else?

Deipneus

This is what I'm trying to get at. Simply because a study shows XYZ occurred in a tiny dot of a population, does it really correlate with everyone else?

Not in my book. As bad as that is, I was only pointing out that the tiny, half-formed sliver of substantiation is more than some people offer.

I have no problem with someone trying something and then saying "I have a hypothesis about it" and "it worked for me". What happens is, someone reads something somewhere, acts on it and then goes about trying to proselytize the world and angrily denouncing anyone who doubts their claims.

patentguru

I can only speak for myself. As a 51 year old male, I am seeking to maximize strength (fast twitch upper body and slow twitch lower body) and minimize fat, along with maintaining a flat blood sugar level. With these goals in mind, I would be considered in the bro science category. I have been studying health for over 30 years, and the more I know the less I know. I even have a degree in chemistry, which helps a little.

Articles are fine and they have their place.

For the last 5 years, I focused more on real world results. I am not shy so if I see a guy or gal that is glowing with health, balanced muscle structure, etc. (especially older folks) I pester them with questions as to how they obtained their health. There are the few HGH guys, but the vast majority did some form of carb control- mostly low glycemic carbs, protein, and lifting weights.

Back to articles and arguments- I always ask for the underlying facts to support the conclusions proffered. I will not accept "I know because I have a degree," "this article says", etc. If you cannot put for the facts/reasoning to support your position-don't make it.

meggonkgonk

As always, it's important to remember: Correlation =/= Causation

K_Serz

matt or anyone question slightly off topic. What you said about protein.......... does a 50 yr old out of shape(350) need 1lb per LBM? Thats over 200 for me. Is that necessary for someone my age doing bill phillips BFL 3 times a week? Thanks

It should be 1gm protein of your GOAL weight not current weight. If you were 500 lbs you wouldnt consume 500grams of protein to lose weight.

Heck, I see claims all the time on here with no underpinning at all. They are just naked assertions with no sources.

You mean "I think" or "I've heard" aren't acceptable sources?

I think the Earth is round and I have heard it revolves around the Sun. Still not sure though....looking for valid references.

ilovedeadlifts

But small meaningless study = worth while information?

This is what I'm trying to get at. Simply because a study shows XYZ occurred in a tiny dot of a population, does it really correlate with everyone else?

I saw a debate on this with Pulcinella and that silly "bodybuilder" Ian McCarthy.
He was basically arguing with a real bodybuilder over science and studies, when the bodybuilder had tried xyz and achieved results from it.

I'm typically going to do what works for me, or what I've seen work, instead of changing my training/diet based on a study that was done on middle aged men who don't lift weights.

ArroganceInStep

For right now, well performed scientific studies are the best things available to beginners/newcomers. There's so much out there when it comes to diet and fitness that it can be overwhelming, and there's quite a bit that plays off the general misconceptions held by the public. Newcomers might not realize that the diet such and such a bodybuilder uses works for him because he's working out for 3 hours a day and on a pretty beefy cycle. Likewise they might not realize that the chick in the DVD workout video looks the way she does not just by following the 15 minute a day workout she laid out, but also by eating darn near perfectly, working out a heckuva lot on top of that, and using pharmaceutical assistance. As people get more advanced, they can (and should) start looking more at the specifics of things and tailoring stuff to fit their needs. This might mean looking at what's worked for others and trying it out themselves. However I really do think that initially going with science for general principles should be paramount.