The hosts discuss the rise of antiscience in lifting and the problems it poses. They debate the limitations of science and the importance of exercise science. The chapter explores the historical background and the development of scientific practices. They also discuss the misuse of science for marketing and the misconceptions about applying science in health and fitness.
Exercise science has contributed to the development of concepts like progressive overload and RPE, promoting evidence-based approaches in fitness.
Exercise science has provided general guidelines for lifting, allowing for universally applicable principles like progressive overload and technique.
Science serves to provide evidence-based recommendations but is not meant to offer immediate solutions or individualized programs.
Exercise science has shaped the fitness industry by establishing concepts like progressive overload and periodization for better training and nutrition strategies.
Deep dives
Exercise Science: Understanding its Role and Limitations
Exercise science is a field that has evolved over time, originating from physical education and physiology research. It is not meant to provide universally individualized programs, but rather to offer general guidelines based on research and consensus. The field has contributed to the development of concepts such as progressive overload, periodization, and RPE, which are now commonly used in the fitness industry. Exercise science has also helped debunk myths and misinformation, allowing for a more evidence-based approach to training and nutrition. While there are limitations and challenges, such as the replication crisis, it is important to recognize the value and progress that exercise science has brought to the field.
The Complexities of Lifting: Misconceptions and Clarifications
There is a misconception that lifting is an overly complex and dynamic environment, making it difficult for exercise science to provide accurate recommendations. However, the standardized nature of lifting movements and the knowledge gained through exercise science research have allowed for the development of general guidelines. While individual differences exist, the fundamentals of lifting, such as progressive overload and proper technique, can be universally applied. The field of exercise science has contributed to establishing common knowledge and terminology within the fitness community, helping lifters make informed decisions about their training.
Understanding the Function of Science: Limitations and Expectations
It is crucial to understand the role of science in training and nutrition. Science serves to provide evidence-based recommendations by systematically testing hypotheses and seeking generalizable results. It is not meant to provide individualized programs or offer immediate solutions to specific problems, such as plateaus. Science is a dynamic and self-correcting field that aims to continuously improve knowledge and address limitations. While replication issues and questionable research exist, this does not discredit the entire field of exercise science. Recognizing these challenges allows for better understanding and application of scientific knowledge.
The Influence of Exercise Science in the Fitness Industry
Exercise science has played a significant role in shaping the knowledge and practices within the fitness industry. Concepts such as progressive overload, periodization, and RPE have become widely adopted due to their effectiveness and consistency with scientific principles. The field's contributions have led to a better understanding of training methodologies, injury prevention, and optimal nutrition strategies. The accessibility of research findings and evidence-based practices has empowered both coaches and individuals to make informed decisions about their health and fitness goals.
The importance of understanding science and its limitations
It is crucial to recognize that science is not a magic pill or a solution to all problems. It provides tools and evidence-based strategies that can be helpful, but it does not offer paradigm shifts or definitive answers in every context. It is important for individuals to discern scientific consensus and rely on trusted sources for information rather than falling for sensationalistic claims or alternative paradigms. Science should be used pragmatically and adapted to individual needs and contexts.
The role of science communicators and their impact
Science communicators play a vital role in disseminating scientific information to the public, but it can be a challenging task. Misunderstandings and misinformation can arise when science is presented in a sensationalistic or misleading manner. It is crucial to recognize the efforts made by scientists to improve research methods and transparency, as well as the ongoing debates and discussions within the scientific community about how to effectively communicate research. Consumers should be cautious of communicators who use science to market products or push specific agendas.
The importance of distinguishing consensus from paradigm shifts
People should be cautious when confronted with claims of paradigm shifts or revolutionary concepts in fitness and health. Such claims are rare in science, and most often, they are not supported by reliable evidence. Seeking consensus among experts and recognizing that paradigm shifts take time and multiple lines of evidence are crucial. Applying evidence-based strategies pragmatically and understanding the limitations of research in individual contexts can lead to more informed decision-making.
Emphasizing individual experimentation and context
Applying scientific evidence to personal goals and contexts should prioritize pragmatism over dogmatism. Science provides useful tools and strategies, but it is essential to recognize that not every research finding will directly apply to individual circumstances. Experimentation and trial-and-error within the context of scientific evidence can lead to better outcomes. Consumers should seek trusted sources and prioritize understanding the relative importance of different evidence-based approaches rather than seeking a one-size-fits-all solution.
The trinity is reunited for the first time in 2024, with the Erics joining Omar for what is absolutely a monster episode. We tackle head-on the rise of antiscience in lifting. Currently, attacking exercise or nutrition science in your title or reel is an easy clickbait win for content creators, and you’ll get bonus points via likes, shares, subscriptions, follows and positive comments if you also manage an appeal to what serious lifters “have always known”. Why is this occurring? Is this even a problem? Is it a good thing because those in the exercise and nutrition science ivory towers are so out of touch? If it is a problem, does it lie with science itself, how science communication occurs, or perhaps the expectations put on science? In this episode we discuss all this and more, and it gets spicy!
00:00 Erics… The benefits of living in New Zealand and reading two monster reviews
12:32 Clickbait titles and the anti-exercise science brigade
25:08 The historical perspective
32:26 A monster monster episode: common knowledge of today and where this understanding has come from
45:16 Defining the exercise science field and the origins of sport and exercise science
49:15 The replication crisis
52:06 Science communication and misinformation
1:02:23 Improvements in science: accounting for variables and variation
1:09:21 The gravitation towards short-form content and how science has evolved to address its limitations
1:15:08 The scientist and the consumer: the need for science communication and what needs to be done
1:32:31 The bad actors in science communicators and how scientists apply the research
