Bro-science, or book-science?

[Pseudonym]

Who do you get your training and diet advice from?

Do you prefer to listen to the voice of experience who's been training for years? Or the guy who's got a degree?

[Rebel101]

Definitely not the guy that has the degree!

[HarryB]

What I look for is someone who has a good track record and experience coupled with some education. I'd rate a good track record and experience working with people over just a degree though. If someone is able to explain something to me in a way that makes sense to me and doesn't have a "cos I said" approach, then I'm much more likely to take what they say on board.

[nate225]

I prefer a mix of theoretical knowledge and time in the trenches. A proven track record is a must.

My Coach will be the guy with 20" arms tearing through his lab coat!

[maccaz]

best to pick a bit of both, easy enough to tell if someone/something is credible or not..

 

just common sense really, some unsuccessful weightlifter doing youtube videos about advanced training principles with graphs etc and in depth analysis or whatever is not worth my time listening to imo but someone who actually is strong as f*ck usually has good advice (and often what they have to say way too simple to require graphs etc anyway lol)

[Realtalk]

Someone who has achieved, who has credentials working with people. He or she should be able to show you who they have helped make better. Education is important, knowing and understanding how things work and why they work the way they do is a huge advantage. Someone who is just really big or really strong is often not the best choice. Take mobility as an example: so you are having problems getting deep enough in a squat due to mobility. Lots of people will automatically go straight to the person with the deepest squat and pick his brain. When infact most of the time people who are really good at something are good at it because they've always been good at it. So now you are asking, perhaps paying a guy how to get more mobile when he has never had to do a mobility exercise once in his life. And point of that example applies to almost everything.

So it's tricky.

NZ is a small place so everyone knows the credible people and the wannabes. You find the credible people through word of mouth and the wannabes through social media.

[HarryB]

Someone who has achieved, who has credentials working with people. He or she should be able to show you who they have helped make better. Someone who is just really big or really strong is often not the best choice.

Take mobility as an example: so you are having problems getting deep enough in a squat due to mobility. Lots of people will automatically go straight to the person with the deepest squat and pick his brain. When infact most of the time people who are really good at something are good at it because they've always been good at it. So now you are asking, perhaps paying a guy how to get more mobile when he had never had to do a mobility exercise once in his life.

Absolutely this... take someone who has a track record of WORKING succesfully with people. And don't think the guy with the biggest arms or hugest lifts is a font of information. Most of the time they aren't. They know what works for them and sometimes they just have mad genetics. Ask them for specifics and you'll get a lot of "cos" and "it works for me"

Remember also when thinking about getting coaching for example that a lot of the time they don't give you the full picture. Nothing shits me more than seeing people handing out cookie cutter plans or saying what they did when you know they're leaving out the drugs and generally just lying about what they do anyways. I see so many "diets" that should have an extra section for fat burners and pharmaceutical enhancements. It's false advertising and sadly loads of people fall for it. My thing is look for someone who can explain in a sensible fashion the "whys" and has worked succesfully with others

The best coach is more often than not a failed competitor who spent so much time and energy working out how to be succesful that he has covered everything. Vs the guy who's just good cos of mad genetics and good levers etc etc etc

[Phedder]

Both. The guys I read the most now are the likes of Greg Nuckols, Alex Viada, Mike Israetel. Perfect blend of experience, book smarts, and plain old common sense. They also advocate fairly simple approaches that are backed by both sound science and real life application. 

[GyzzBrah]

Both, but for the book stuff I always had a knack of taking shit way too seriously in my first 2 years lifting. Cbf describing but always gone back and forth with looking at 'advanced' shit to try out and fancy looking programs on symply shredded / bb.com etc. Fucking sucks. 

Then when got into powerlifting got too technical on shit and spent hours on form videos etc / periodisation etc.

 

Like I always sucked at squatting so spent hours looking at technical lifters like candito etc for ages and tried to mimick their forms word for word and only hurt myself and make no progress.

Then I looked at low bar squatting and replicated step by step and all it did was wreck my hips, wrists, sockets, back, knees etc and I had no idea what to do.

 

Then couple of weeks ago I looked at Hamish doing squats and was like shit that looks smooth and hahah now its so easy lol and I come home with my back and hips intact.

[Riccardo]

Agree with Harry and Tom but here's the problem and what most people don't seem to understand, the two aren't mutually exclusive! Anecdote or "bro science" is actually part of the hierarchy of scientific evidence. All science really is, is a rational approach to testing ideas and deciding which ideas are good ones and which are maybe not so good.

My decision making process vaguely mirrors the heirarchy of scientific evidence shown in the picture below. First and foremost I look to my own experiences or the experiences and opinions of those I hold in some sort of regard, an expert opinion as such. Whether it be an opinion based upon science or pure observation, trial and error, whatever! If I generally believe that person knows what they're talking about I'll take on board what they say and critically analyse it.

Firstly I look to see if it even makes sense or is scientifically plausible, sometimes I'll dismiss ideas on face value if I think they're too silly or impractical. If I'm interested enough I'll then look to see if there is any specific research on the subject, if there is then great I can more easily determine if it's something worth trying or not and again the heirarchy of research below shows that RCTs and systematic reviews hold the most weight. However, quite often there is very little if any literature covering a topic, for example, is it better to train chest and biceps or chest and triceps together? I don't think anyone's bothered researching it, so this is where your own experimentation or the expert opinion/anecdote tends to influence the decision to a greater extent. I might decide that training chest and biceps seems like a good idea because I indirectly hit biceps again on a back day and there is some research to suggest a greater training frequency leads to better gains. So it seems plausible although it's not necessary that there be a scientific basis, it might be as simple as a massive bastard told me I should try it, again that anecdotal evidence. So I try it and find that due to my busy work schedule I can only train on certain days and training biceps with chest limits the days in which I can train back so as to not train them in too close a proximity to back. So I've learnt that for me training chest and biceps is impractical. This leads me on to my next point.

The best coach is neither the one with all the experience nor the one with a degree.

The best coach is someone who holds you accountable, keeps you honest, knows your circumstances, your limits and your capabilities. The best coach is a leader and someone that will get you to the end of the road whether it be onstage or on a lifting platform. For some people this may be themselves. If the best coach question was just a function of experience or knowledge then Mr Olympia, or a PhD or a mr Olympia with a PhD would be the best coach in the world. But they aren't. If you wanna know how to get mobile for a big squat then go see someone who knows about that, a coach can't be expected to know everything about everything. Sure it may be useful to know certain things and will certainly help but that's what Google is for.

So we've kinda twisted the original question which was essentially what is the better source of information? In which case we're back at square one. We take the argument on its merits, critically analyse it using the available resources, we implement it into our training or nutrition and measure the results.

So if we are to revisit the question I would have to say the answer is the one who is the least arrogant, can set aside dogma and prejudice and follow the above process in determining whether or not their information is of any value. The problem arises when you have people who refuse to accept any merit in the other camps knowledge base. Worst case scenario, on extreme ends of the spectrum you either you end up implementing completely useless or potentially counterproductive training strategies (bro scientist) or you miss out on important, potentially game changing or essential information (guy with the degree). It's been my experience that the bro scientists usually tend to be the most dogmatic and irrational in their views although there are plenty that are open to a well reasoned argument for or against.

[Riccardo]

[teamfatboy]

Wow, good stuff here...

 

I guess my take on "bro-science" is not what people have learned from empirical sources such as their own experience, or word of mouth from more advanced athletes, so much as it's "Well, I saw this in MD, or Flex, and he got massive gains from".. or "There's this guy in my gym who tells me that supermegasuplement's the only thing I need".  Bro-science can also include book-learning without doing - a read of Mark Rippetoe or Fred Hatfield does not translate into understanding.

 

Speaking only of powerlifting, i know there's room for both experience-based advice and book-based advice, especially as a lifter progresses.  We're none of us blessed with the same skeletal geometry or muscle mass distribution, so in some cases it takes experience-based advice ("try moving your hands in a centimetre or so") to make progress. 

[Dinahlady]

image.jpg

 

I was just thinking of this infographic whilst reading your post haha. 

 

I agree. For results the best coach is the best COACH. I don't even know if it has anything to do with knowledge. 

There is evidence that people (with specific illness e.g. diabetes) with the best health outcomes are the ones where the person has a consistent and quality relationship with their health care provider (one particular doctor or nurse)...  

Why would training/coaching be any different. 

However, from my experience people are often after more than results when they hire a PT..... for example if you are hiring a PT to "learn more" about a particular type/style of training, or for a certain style of nutrition, then I guess your choice should be based on different things....