Broscience

jonnythan

the science that tells us that eating fast food is horrible for our bodies.

Got a link to the study that says a flour tortilla that has some ground beef, lettuce, and processed cheese in it is "horrible for our bodies"?

Loftearmen

A good example of a widely misinterpreted study is the one performed by the ACSM in the mid 90's that determined that pyruvate drastically increases testosterone levels. Well..... at least that's how everyone interpreted it. What the actual study showed was that pyruvate slightly increased testosterone levels in post-menopausal women; however, if you read a recap of the study in a magazine they failed to mention who the test subjects were.

Misinterpretation of studies by people who don't understand the scientific method is probably one of the leading causes of misinformation out there, in my opinion. If you don't have an education in some sort of applicable field (biology, biochemistry, physiology, kinesiology, etc....) you probably don't understand most of the scientific literature you are reading and should seek the input of someone who does before you go off coming to your own conclusions. We see this a lot in my work. People come in and say "I have multiple sclerosis, I know it. I read that siht on webMD" and then after we do the electroneurodiagnostic studies we find that they have something basic and easy to treat like carpal tunnel syndrome.

Mcgrawhaha

look, it comes down to each person finding and doing what works for them. when people find out what i do, they have all sorts of *kitten* to talk, but you know what, ive lost 60 pounds in 5 months, i feel awesome, and im looking much better! every day i see a new thread on why we are all going to fail if we dont do it this way or why doing it that way is going to kill us, and you know what, its all complete bullsh!t. i am a special snowflake, my mommy said i was special all my life, i believe she meant a special snowflake. not one body functions 100% the same as anothers body. what works for one may not work for another. its simple, find what workd and run with it.

Mcgrawhaha

the science that tells us that eating fast food is horrible for our bodies.

Got a link to the study that says a flour tortilla that has some ground beef, lettuce, and processed cheese in it is "horrible for our bodies"?

i had fast food yesterday. it was so good!

Matt_Wild

I absolutely do question claims that have zero evidence, especially if they're given as recommendations contrary to someone's goals.

That was discussed previously in this thread - can we let it drop?

I would thoroughly agree if in the previous thread the info I was giving made a runner/cyclist advice to stop training for her races as bad information. Clearly in my part I had not read the original post well enough if that was the case.

My information was given for the general populace who generally are not runners nor cyclist that race.

FWIW I have NEVER said I am bigger, listen to me. EVER.

I do however have a list of people who follow my advice and have achieved the finals in every single competition they have entered.

I'm far from perfect and I'm sure every now and again I'll pop out some poor advice, usually perhaps down to misunderstanding the original posters needs. I'm human, it happens.

970Mikaela1

"You want studies? *kitten* you, i have scars and blood and vomit." Jim Wendler

I think it's hilarious when some person who is skinny and weak wants to tell me how i'm lifting wrong or when some obese person tries to tell ripped people how they're going about their cutting incorrectly based on some bs they read in men's health about bosu balls or green tea or some other "broscience". Some people just can't think for themselves.

totally agree.. I find the people who look like i would like and do what they do. Must be doing it right to look like they do. Shall good old fashioned hard work.

degan2011

just for fun:

"January 8, 2013 Urban Word of the Day
Broscience is the predominant brand of reasoning in bodybuilding circles where the anecdotal reports of jacked dudes are considered more credible than scientific research.
Broscience in action:

"Bro, you gotta slam 40-60 grams of waxy maize plus 20 grams of BCAA within 7 seconds of finishing your last set of squat rack curls. Otherwise, you'll go straight catabolic.""

jonnythan

"You want studies? *kitten* you, i have scars and blood and vomit." Jim Wendler

I think it's hilarious when some person who is skinny and weak wants to tell me how i'm lifting wrong or when some obese person tries to tell ripped people how they're going about their cutting incorrectly based on some bs they read in men's health about bosu balls or green tea or some other "broscience". Some people just can't think for themselves.

totally agree.. I find the people who look like i would like and do what they do. Must be doing it right to look like they do. Shall good old fashioned hard work.

And what do you do when there are 10,000 people who look how you want to look, and they all say something different?

sheila219

like Walter implied I cant believe that someone can make $5611 in 4 weeks on the computer. did you read this web site jump15.com

mmapags

Matt, one the onne hand I see your point. Lot's of brosciece accusations flying around and lot's of questionable study info posted.

On the other hand, what is the best way to combat the myriad of myths that get posted as fact on here 100x per day? While studies might no be perfect, there are certainly a step in the right directions from "the trainer at the gym said" or "I read in ladies home journal" or something from a Liverstrong article or Wikipedia.

How much foolishness and time wasting nonsense goes up here every day? And if not studies, how would you propose countering it?

Is it a step in the right direction?

I see supplement companies do it all the time on small scale studies and also the same here - is there really a difference?

In the same vein, should we all be following the "The China Study" since it was a vast and detailed study over 20-30 years with various outlined benefits, simply because it is a study showing consuming plants over animals suggests overall improved health and life expectancy?

Just because something is a study doesn't mean discerment goes out the window. The flaws in The China Studyhave been well documented. But you never really gave your opinion on what you feel the best way to combat the myth and misinformation would be if not with reasonable scientice data. What do you think is best?

bcattoes

I completely agree with the OP. Studies are wonderful things, but you can't just look at one study as the one and only or final word on a subject. Or assume that a study "debunks" a previous study or conclusions just because it produced different results or the conclusions drawn were different.

sullus

just for fun:

"January 8, 2013 Urban Word of the Day
Broscience is the predominant brand of reasoning in bodybuilding circles where the anecdotal reports of jacked dudes are considered more credible than scientific research.
Broscience in action:

"Bro, you gotta slam 40-60 grams of waxy maize plus 20 grams of BCAA within 7 seconds of finishing your last set of squat rack curls. Otherwise, you'll go straight catabolic.""

Also from Urbandictionary.com:

Unsubstantiated Nutritional and Human physiological claims. Broscience does not ALWAYS go hand in hand with being wrong, its just that its simply UNSUBTANIATED.

Most Jacked guys claim some of these facts to be true since it "worked for them" when they fail to realize that just because it works for them, it will not always tailor to the common majority. Supplement companies tend to perpetuated Broscience so people will keep believing these myths so companies can make products that accomodate these claims so they in turn make $$. Always read, always question. If your not enjoying yourself throughout your training career your probably doing something wrong.
"If you don't eat every 2-4 hours you'll risk being catabolic at some parts of the day, bro. Vince Delmonte said you need to eat every 2-4 hours!"

That is Broscience man. Human beings would not have survived and thrived the way we do today had our dietary needs been that demanding. It's best you ignore everything Vince Delmonte says.

bostonwolf

the science that tells us that eating fast food is horrible for our bodies.

Got a link to the study that says a flour tortilla that has some ground beef, lettuce, and processed cheese in it is "horrible for our bodies"?

1. If you think that's all you are eating when you chow down at Taco Bell, you truly are a fool
2. If you need a link to confirm common sense:

http://www.obesity-info.com/2012/04/fast-food-is-bad.html
http://healthyeating.sfgate.com/happens-eat-many-sweets-fast-foods-4074.html
http://www.livestrong.com/article/507158-what-are-the-consequences-of-eating-too-much-fast-food/

Check the reference links at the bottom of these pages for the studies cited.

jonnythan

1. If you think that's all you are eating when you chow down at Taco Bell, you truly are a fool

Beef, Water, Seasoning [Cellulose, Chili Pepper, Onion Powder, Salt, Oats (Contains Wheat), Maltodextrin (Corn, Potato, Tapioca), Soy Lecithin, Tomato Powder, Sugar, Soybean Oil, Sea Salt, Yeast Extract (Contains Gluten), Spices, Garlic Powder, Citric Acid, Caramel Color, Disodium Inosinate, Disodium Guanylate, Potassium Chloride, Cocoa Powder Processed with Alkali, Natural And Artificial Flavors, Trehalose, Modified Corn Starch, Inactivated Yeast, Lactic Acid, Torula Yeast, Natural Smoke Flavor], Salt, Sodium Phosphate, Less Than 2% Beef Broth, Potassium Phosphate, Potassium Lactate. CONTAINS: SOYBEANS, WHEAT

Which one of these ingredients is the one that is destroying my body?

bostonwolf

"You want studies? *kitten* you, i have scars and blood and vomit." Jim Wendler

I think it's hilarious when some person who is skinny and weak wants to tell me how i'm lifting wrong or when some obese person tries to tell ripped people how they're going about their cutting incorrectly based on some bs they read in men's health about bosu balls or green tea or some other "broscience". Some people just can't think for themselves.

totally agree.. I find the people who look like i would like and do what they do. Must be doing it right to look like they do. Shall good old fashioned hard work.

And what do you do when there are 10,000 people who look how you want to look, and they all say something different?

I try to see where the commonalities lies (because in that sample size they would HAVE to exist) and then apply them to myself to see if they work.

Like any other intelligence person who cares about their health.

bostonwolf

the science that tells us that eating fast food is horrible for our bodies.

Got a link to the study that says a flour tortilla that has some ground beef, lettuce, and processed cheese in it is "horrible for our bodies"?

i had fast food yesterday. it was so good!

I had fast food this weekend as well, but I don't lie to myself about what kind of crap I'm eating and how good or bad it is for me.

Matt_Wild

Just because something is a study doesn't mean discerment goes out the window. The flaws in The China Studyhave been well documented. But you never really gave your opinion on what you feel the best way to combat the myth and misinformation would be if not with reasonable scientice data. What do you think is best?

The solution is in the question.

Both sources of information should be considered. Scientific and empirical and then perhaps draw conclusions for oneself, rather than shout someone down because they cannot explain fully why their methods work - it certainly doesn't make it wrong AND certainly taking data from studies and applying it with some logic based on who you are and what you are applying it against.

Comparing a frail old man or some layabout 20 somethings to any person who has trained for years with a different build and thus nutritional needs is clearly daft.

Even basic keto dieting for example will adjust blood glucose levels/insulin release etc and overall bodily composition - when you add in the variables of increased lean mass, reduce cholesterol in the blood, are we really applying like with like?

I would suggest possibly no.

jonnythan

the science that tells us that eating fast food is horrible for our bodies.

Got a link to the study that says a flour tortilla that has some ground beef, lettuce, and processed cheese in it is "horrible for our bodies"?

1. If you think that's all you are eating when you chow down at Taco Bell, you truly are a fool
2. If you need a link to confirm common sense:

http://www.obesity-info.com/2012/04/fast-food-is-bad.html
http://healthyeating.sfgate.com/happens-eat-many-sweets-fast-foods-4074.html
http://www.livestrong.com/article/507158-what-are-the-consequences-of-eating-too-much-fast-food/

Check the reference links at the bottom of these pages for the studies cited.

Oh, and here's a fun one. Here's an ingredient list:
100% Pure USDA Inspected Beef; No Fillers, No Extenders.
Prepared with Grill Seasoning (Salt, Black Pepper).

Is that the ingredient list for a hamburger you make at home, or a hamburger from McDonald's?

I'll give you time if you want to go check it out yourself.

DavPul

You have a link for your evidence. I have a 500 pound squat for mine. The link wins.

Got it, thanks.

A lot of guys have achieved a 500-pound squat. Squatting 500 doesn't mean you're a special snowflake or that all of your opinions are true.

George Burns lived to 100, and he smoked like a chimney. The broscience equivalent would be him, at 99, saying "everyone should smoke and drink all day. You have a link to all your science about smoking and drinking, I have the fact that I lived to be 99 years old. The science wins. Got it."

I've been at the gym for the last hour so forgive the barrage of late to the party responses I'm probably about to post.

Lifting a lot of weight, gaining a lot of size, or placing in a fitness or physique competition isn't magic. It doesn't happen overnight and it's not something that a person is born with.

The guy that squats 500 had to put time in, tried various routines, tried various nutrition solutions, and either read or was taught all of the available science of the day. In your pretend world, you think a 500 lb squat is like a 36 inch vertical leap; that it's just genetic. Sorry, but I learned how to do mine the hard way.

Meanwhile, the skinny guy with a bunch of links saved on his browser feels free to question everything I've accomplished in life even tho he has absolutely no experience in the game. I'm sorry, but back when I was doing this, there were no links, there was barely an internet, and only a handful of people had email. I don't have any saved up links to offer you. Just experience.

jonnythan

In your pretend world, you think a 500 lb squat is like a 36 inch vertical leap; that it's just genetic.

... Huh? What on earth are you talking about?

Meanwhile, the skinny guy with a bunch of links saved on his browser feels free to question everything I've accomplished in life even tho he has absolutely no experience in the game. I'm sorry, but back when I was doing this, there were no links, there was barely an internet, and only a handful of people had email. I don't have any saved up links to offer you. Just experience.

Who in the world are you talking about? Who is questioning anything you've accomplished?

Loftearmen

I just read this on T-Nation (another Jim Wendler quote)

"Scientific studies prove me correct!" There's a general rule in this industry that you should use whatever scientific study supports your way of thinking and disregard any other study that proves the opposite, citing quackery.

Alwyn Cosgrove once said that if you took a lifter and had him perform a 1RM in the bench press, and then later the same day had him perform a full bench press workout complete with assistance lifts followed by having him test his 1RM again, the said lifter would test lower. Thus, you've just proven that weight training makes you weaker.

So take each study you read with a huge amount of skepticism and understand that humans always have an agenda.

bostonwolf

1. I don't eat hamburgers at home after reading Fast Food Nation and will only do it in a restaurant if I know they grind their own meat.

2. You are flailing badly here. The entire premise for your "battle" with Matt is flawed and he has apologized for any confusion.
All you are doing now it trying to avoid having to admit that you were wrong.

And if you think all the chemical additives to your Taco Bell lunches are good for you, have at it. Most of the rest of us opt to eat food that is a bit more closer to its natural state. I'll be eagerly awaiting your new book on how the Fast Food diet is the key to your healthy lifestyle. I'm sure you'll have plenty of "science" to back it up.

Mcgrawhaha

the science that tells us that eating fast food is horrible for our bodies.

Got a link to the study that says a flour tortilla that has some ground beef, lettuce, and processed cheese in it is "horrible for our bodies"?

i had fast food yesterday. it was so good!

I had fast food this weekend as well, but I don't lie to myself about what kind of crap I'm eating and how good or bad it is for me.

i get that, but lets be honest. unlest your amish eating off your own farm, pretty much everything we eat is crap. fruits and veggies are gown with chemicals to make them ripen faster for sale, poisons sprayed all over them to detour bugs, meat is full of hormones... there is nothing pure and natural anymore unless your growing it or raising it yourself. wether i eat a fast food burrito or a homemade burrito, chances are, im going to eventually die of cancer or in a car accident. untill then... all i can do cross my fingers and watch my calories..

Loftearmen

the science that tells us that eating fast food is horrible for our bodies.

Got a link to the study that says a flour tortilla that has some ground beef, lettuce, and processed cheese in it is "horrible for our bodies"?

1. If you think that's all you are eating when you chow down at Taco Bell, you truly are a fool
2. If you need a link to confirm common sense:

http://www.obesity-info.com/2012/04/fast-food-is-bad.html
http://healthyeating.sfgate.com/happens-eat-many-sweets-fast-foods-4074.html
http://www.livestrong.com/article/507158-what-are-the-consequences-of-eating-too-much-fast-food/

Check the reference links at the bottom of these pages for the studies cited.

Oh, and here's a fun one. Here's an ingredient list:
100% Pure USDA Inspected Beef; No Fillers, No Extenders.
Prepared with Grill Seasoning (Salt, Black Pepper).

Is that the ingredient list for a hamburger you make at home, or a hamburger from McDonald's?

I'll give you time if you want to go check it out yourself.

Sometimes it seems like you (and many other people on internet forums) just want to argue for the sake of arguing.

jonnythan

All you are doing now it trying to avoid having to admit that you were wrong.

Wrong about.. what?

And if you think all the chemical additives to your Taco Bell lunches are good for you, have at it.

I'm giving you the opportunity here. Which of the additives are the ones that are destroying my body?

T1mH

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

Watch a ship go over the horizon. Notice how it disappears from the bottom first, then the top? First question proven.

Watch the sun set. Then watch it rise the next day. Second question proven.

Try again.

Making your observations match your theory, that's broscience dude!



The earth is not round.... It's an ellipsoid.

Azdak

There can be a dynamic conflict between academic knowledge and experiential knowledge, but the two should be looked at as complimentary, not as being in conflict.

One who relies solely on academics runs the risk of declaiming in great detail on a subject while contradictory reality is standing two feet in front of him. The one "trained" only via experience can be a shallow dilettante, with a base of "thintelligence" that results in, again, being unable to cope with the reality that exists in front of his face.

A think a truly well-rounded professional has to be open to both sides.

There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,
Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.

For example, while I think that, for practical reasons, a mix of cardio and resistance exercise is the best overall approach for the average person who wants to lose weight, and while that viewpoint is supported by the guidelines published by organizations such as the ACSM, I would never make the claim that one MUST do cardio in order to successfully lose fat. Obviously, there are a large number of people who have proven beyond a doubt that it is possible to achieve long-term success with resistance training and diet. The other side of the coin is those who assert such ridiculous nonsense such as "too much cardio will make you fat".

Research studies must be evaluated in two ways. One is on the quality of the study itself. A poor study means little, no matter what the conclusions. The other is in the applicability of the study to both real like and to the body of knowledge itself. Studies are building blocks, or pieces to a puzzle. Rarely is any study truly definitive--since sample sizes tend to be small and numerous variables have to be controlled, the change of the study variable has to be evaluated in the larger context. It often takes numerous studies to not only validate an idea but to build enough data that we can generalize the conclusions to a larger population. It is wrong to conclude that a study, or that a body of research, is "pointless" because it doesn't answer all questions, because it disagrees with other research, or because it is not applicable to every individual. That's not the fault of research--blame whoever designed our bodies.

It takes a certain depth of knowledge to evaluate a study or to place the results in the proper context. This is where an academic background can be useful. It is entirely possible for "self-taught" individuals to also achieve that depth of knowledge, but the danger of the self-taught individual is always that they circumscribe the borders of their "study" through self-selection and so their studies--while often in depth--serve more to reinforce existing dogma rather than to enlarge perspective.

As someone with a scientific background, I'll admit I take a certain umbrage when I read statements such as "research can be made to say anything you want" that are made in such a way as to dismiss all research or to dismiss any evidence that contradicts the person's preexisting beliefs. When I read a statement like that, my first response is "well, then you don't know how to read or understand the literature".

I have a similar reaction when I read statements like "I don't pay attention to any of that science stuff--everybody has to find out what works for themselves". While it is true that there is no "one size fits all" answer for everyone, there are also some basic scientific fundamentals that ARE applicable to everyone. Ignoring them leads to people wasting a lot of time chasing unicorns and fairy dust--and gives undeserved credibility to "celebrity fitness experts" and multi-level marketing companies.

One of the big problems with evaluating research -- and I find this is made often by the researchers themselves -- is to make "macro" assumptions from "micro" results. Or to inaccurately extrapolate the results from one study to the population as a whole. To look at a small-scale biochemical reaction and assume that has an overall effect on the body without ever testing to see if that is the case.

Two of the most obvious current examples are "fat-burning" exercise and the idea that "cardio burns muscle". In both cases, assumptions were made based on acute instances of substrate utilization during exercise that are not true when one looks at overall metabolism. (And in both cases, an in-depth academic knowledge of exercise physiology allowed one to know that both of those ideas could not be true, either based on past research or on just how the body works).

So yes, academic knowledge is good, because trial-and-error experience can be misleading. And experience is good, because reality explains a lot. I am highly in favor of both.

DavPul

"Broscience" is the bunk you hear from guys in the gym, often lifters or trainers, that has no evidentiary basis or is counter to established evidence. They heard it from someone, accepted it as true, and have simply believed it ever since. Or it's an idea they came up with themselves and makes sense to them.

You have a link for your evidence. I have a 500 pound squat for mine. The link wins.

Got it, thanks.

If you followed the studies you would be squatting 510 pounds. You are only hurting yourself.

I love this. Like I've said repeatedly but no one seems to be able to put it together in their head, I was able to do whatever I was able to do because I HAVE done all the research. I'll bet I've read more than you will read on the subject. Just because I don't wish to post a link or believe everything that can be linked to doesn't make me a low I.Q. meathead. I assure you, I'm a high I.Q. meathead.

I'm not sure why the linkheads on this site wish to create this false dichotomy where if you've done it, you didn't read it. but if you've read it, it's the same as having done it. I've read it, I've done it. I can give you my best advice on how to do it, or I can post links that most people won't read and even fewer will understand.

jonnythan

I'm not sure why the linkheads on this site wish to create this false dichotomy where if you've done it, you didn't read it. but if you've read it, it's the same as having done it. I've read it, I've done it. I can give you my best advice on how to do it, or I can post links that most people won't read and even fewer will understand.

I don't think anyone has done that, least of all me. You're either confusing me with someone or just imagining I said a lot of things I didn't say.

bostonwolf

All you are doing now it trying to avoid having to admit that you were wrong.

Wrong about.. what?

And if you think all the chemical additives to your Taco Bell lunches are good for you, have at it.

I'm giving you the opportunity here. Which of the additives are the ones that are destroying my body?

About Matt telling a cyclist to quit cycling. That was the entire genesis of this, was it not?

You would only be giving an opportunity if you were willing to admit you were fallable. You aren't. You're a 30 something know-it-all. I know the type, I was 30 once too. Hopefully you are like the rest of us and will get cured of it as you mature.

You asked for links regarding the health consequences of fast food. I provided at least a dozen. You then drill down to another more specific point and ask more "proof" which you would then similarly disregard.

Enjoy your burritos. I'd rather use this site to gain some new insights and knowledge rather than to engage folks like you who offer nothing of value.