Broscience

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.

upgetupgetup

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

Well, exactly... it's easy enough to find holes in even the best-controlled studies, and near impossible to work out if practice x was caused result y in the messy real world (or if it was practice x + practices q + w). And given how much more complex the body is than we thought even fifteen years ago (fat is hormonal, there are different kinds, it's not inert tissue you can just suck out with a tube and expect to stay away, etc etc) makes speculating on the actual reasons for effects, without a sound grounding in research, really, idk, just wild I guess. (Not that I have a 'sound grounding' in research, at all.)

No, you can't necessarily extrapolate from one population to another, but a convincing study (even a small one) can offer a good avenue for further exploration.

But the trial and error of successful people should be respected and investigated too.

Matt_Wild

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 agree with this - it happens time and time again.

For me someone who combines both aspects is more likely to get the time from me in terms of understanding their knowledge and perhaps theories.

Yes, you can lift all you want and you may be lucky and get big (if thats your goal) but it doesn't mean your methods were what you think they were in terms of why you gained your size.

However the reverse applies - just because you've read a book/study and think you understand means you can tell everyone else they are wrong.

Sitting in the middle someone who has backgrounds to both is most likely to get more time from me.

bostonwolf

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.

Observation matching hypothesis is broscience?

And to anyone standing on the ground or even observing with scientific intruments, Earth is so close to spherical that in practical terms it does not matter. Technically speaking our orbit round the sun is elliptical too. If viewing it from above the plan of the elliptic, you'd have a lot of trouble telling it wasn't round without taking precise measurements.

K_Serz

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."

Maybe everyone should smoke and drink all day? Just havent received funding yet to perform the study yet to support it. Thats all.

upgetupgetup

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 think the attitude you describe speaks more to psychology than kinesiology or sports science

Agree with everything you've said.

Mr_Excitement

I don't know about anyone else, but I'd watch Bro Science if it was a show on the Science Channel.

jonnythan

You asked for links regarding the health consequences of fast food.

That's not what I asked for. Go back and reread.

jayche

I don't know about anyone else, but I'd watch Bro Science if it was a show on the Science Channel.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OXO2azb3_PE

jonnythan

I agree with this - it happens time and time again.

For me someone who combines both aspects is more likely to get the time from me in terms of understanding their knowledge and perhaps theories.

Yes, you can lift all you want and you may be lucky and get big (if thats your goal) but it doesn't mean your methods were what you think they were in terms of why you gained your size.

However the reverse applies - just because you've read a book/study and think you understand means you can tell everyone else they are wrong.

Sitting in the middle someone who has backgrounds to both is most likely to get more time from me.

I absolutely agree with this, and that's why I read research as well as listen to people who have been there/done that.

Somehow this thread got extremely confused. "Broscience" doesn't mean "wisdom from experienced people." It means "claims that have no evidence or are contrary to evidence."

I don't think a single person in this thread is saying that we should get all our information from Pubmed and completely ignore people with years or decades of experience. That would be stupid beyond belief.

Some of the posters in this thread are fighting a war with an imaginary enemy.

AngryDiet

I have a Masters Degree in Broscientological Studies.