Written by Garett Reid | NSCA, CSCS, CISSN, M.S.E.S.S
Fact checked by Sam Coleman, Co-Founder
FACT CHECKED
So this is a rant.
First and foremost, SET FOR SET is a bodybuilding and fitness company that prides itself on delivering awesome information that’s backed by science while also noting any nuances that may occur. There’s a lot of false information out there and it’s our mission to weed out all the nonsense and give you what’s real.
So we very much are part of the “science-backed” movement going on in the fitness community.
However, has this movement of being “research-backed” gone too far? This has been an ever growing problem in the world of fitness that I have noticed ever since it was coined back in the day.
The Origins of 'Science-Backed' Fitness
In the beginning, this realization that we could use science to improve our workouts was awesome! Depending how old you are, you may not realize that it wasn’t that long ago when the concept of “research backed” didn’t exist.
Throughout the 90’s, you basically got your info from your buddy at the gym or a slew of fitness magazines that were owned and pushed by different supplement companies! Also, you never questioned anything! If someone bigger than you gave you advice, you’d simply follow it.
The Rise of Exercise Science
Exercise science was in its infancy as well as our knowledge. I mean, it was also at this time that eggs were demonized, creatine was said to be a steroid and there was still a bit of fear that lifting weights would make you muscle bound!
Luckily, researchers eventually started to take lifting weights seriously and began to study it from a science viewpoint. Exercise science exploded, as did our understanding of the human body, and these findings would find its way into the weight room. This trend grew and grew until it reached the point we’re at now.
The Youtube Era and Its Impact
And then Youtube stepped into the equation. Youtube was great because it was the first time regular people could easily go online and get fitness information from people all around the world. Unfortunately, in the beginning, much of the content was just people giving their opinions and trying to sell you something.
To combat this, the “research-backed” movement fought back. Content creators began making a point to give information that was backed up by science. No longer did people simply give their opinions. If you said something, you would have research to back it up. Obviously this existed on a spectrum but you get the point.
Amazing.
But then something happened. Everyone watching these fitness videos became experts and scientists (in their own head). Regular viewers began to give their interpretation of a study they once saw once but would share it as fact.
When given advice, you’re met with the question, “Do you have a study to back that up?” which is then inevitably followed up by, “I want to see it. Where’s the research?!”
You get the idea.
The increase in research isn’t a bad thing at all. Some companies, such as SET FOR SET, have been able to use exercise science to provide solid information so that you can see better results.
However, for all the “good sites” there’s dozens of people who are using “research” incorrectly. Want an example? I got you!
Earlier this week, a guy posted a study on pre-sleep protein in a Facebook group.
Pre-sleep protein has a lot of research to back its use so it’s solid information.
However, a lady randomly asked “What about the heart problem?” People repeatedly asked her what she was talking about and she claimed eating food at night causes heart problems.
She posted a few different studies and articles to back her up so I checked them out. One article specifically spoke of eating a large quantity of junk food throughout the night, not 200 calories of clean casein.
In the other article, the author literally states that while there are a couple of studies suggesting this might be an issue, it’s most likely not a problem, especially for active individuals. So she basically just read the title of the article.
I pointed this out and she continued insisting it was bad because she saw another study. She then asked me “Where’s your study that says it doesn’t cause problems?”
You see where this is going.
The Problem with Over-Reliance on Research
In this case, the problem is that individuals have latched onto an idea they think is backed by research yet misinterpreted the findings. They also cling to individual studies that appeal to them yet they rarely read the study anyways nor consider that one study doesn’t prove anything. Either way, they can be easily misled.
Another problem is those who demand to see a study before they do an exercise or follow a program to prove it works. In their minds, if there’s no study, it doesn’t help. Or if they can’t see a study, it must not be effective. You can easily see the flaw in this.
The Value of Practical Experience
Remember when I stated that back in the 90s, people were just getting advice from their buddies? Well, guess what—they were getting jacked! The entire Golden Age of bodybuilding lasted from the 60s to the 80s, even though exercise science was hardly a thing!
There are plenty of examples that show bodybuilders were following methods that were later found to be legit in the lab, such as the mind-muscle connection.
The point is that a study doesn’t validate a response seen in the gym. If coaches have been seeing a certain exercise or rep scheme continuously produce awesome results, why need a study!?
I can tell you that I definitely do things that research would suggest I don’t. Why?
Well, because I see measurable results, and it works for me. At the same time, if I have a client who is doing something that goes against research, yet they enjoy it and it works for them, I won’t tell them to stop!
We need to realize that while exercise science has exploded, there is still plenty we don’t know and our understandings are constantly changing. In that same breath, there’s always the individuality that must be considered.
If you ever looked at a study, I mean really look at one and examine the findings, you’ll see that the results have a great amount of variation. So while there may be a trend towards a specific finding, it’s never 100%.
Heck, I’ve seen studies where a particular workout helped burn more fat than another. However, when I looked at the details, I noticed that some of the people actually gained fat. The point is that research in exercise science only shows trends. Something to consider.
Yet another issue is those who use science incorrectly to mislead people and make money. A prime example: EPOC (Excess Post-Exercise Oxygen Consumption, aka the afterburn effect)! I’m sure you’ve seen a gym or trainer saying “we’ve found a secret fat burner…” or “my program is based on the latest research…”
First, EPOC has always existed. Even when we didn’t have a name for it, people still saw the effects of it if they trained hard, you just didn’t know it. All we did with research was discover it existed and put a name on it.
The claims of its effectiveness are wildly exaggerated. This is very common. Research is completely misused as a means to sell something. And since we live in a world now where people “love science”, people love to hear it!
Conclusion: Finding the Middle Ground
My main point is that quality training uses a combination of research backed studies as well as experience which is then mixed in with personal preferences. Everything you do doesn’t need to be backed up by science nor does it need to; this is assuming you have some rationale for doing it.
At the same time, don’t buy into everything that says it’s backed by science. The term has been hijacked and thrown around so much, it barely even means anything anymore. Plus, you can use an exercise even if there's no science to back up its use! If it works, it works!
And most importantly, just be consistent with your training. Keep getting to the gym and training hard!
Garett Reid
Author