It would be interesting to see what wins "science based" fitness (most of which is small sample size nonsense) has over bro science. My impression was "soreness doesn't matter" and "prioritize going close to failure" both fall in this category
Using Jeff Nippard as an example because he's a great source of advice despite this, I'm calling "science based" (quotes on purpose) stuff like citing this n=26 study as evidence about how to structure calorie intake https://youtu.be/8HVdLMnr40M?t=151
Whereas bro science = conventional wisdom among people who work out a lot (which seems like a better evidentiary base than nutrition research)
Got it. I come down on team bro science, but my position is nuanced.
And it's weird because there are many people with degrees in exercise science who also tend to side more with bro-science. Where would you place a Greg Nuckols or a Mike Israetel?
It would be interesting to see what wins "science based" fitness (most of which is small sample size nonsense) has over bro science. My impression was "soreness doesn't matter" and "prioritize going close to failure" both fall in this category
Interesting, what's the distinction between "science-based" and "bro science" in your mind?
Using Jeff Nippard as an example because he's a great source of advice despite this, I'm calling "science based" (quotes on purpose) stuff like citing this n=26 study as evidence about how to structure calorie intake https://youtu.be/8HVdLMnr40M?t=151
Whereas bro science = conventional wisdom among people who work out a lot (which seems like a better evidentiary base than nutrition research)
Got it. I come down on team bro science, but my position is nuanced.
And it's weird because there are many people with degrees in exercise science who also tend to side more with bro-science. Where would you place a Greg Nuckols or a Mike Israetel?