as for cholesterol it has been known for nearly 100 years that dietary cholesterol has little effect on blood serum cholesterol levels. ansel keys who was very good at PR and marketing that pushed the idea that eating fat makes you fat and eating more cholesterol increases cholesterol. the science that was used to show it has not shown it to be true without ignoring most of the results. but once the media got a hold of the idea of the keys theories that was the end of facts for the public.
there is a book called good calories, bad calories, that references several thousand research articles that show that dietary cholesterol has little to no effect on cholesterol levels. these studies include hundreds of thousands of people over a span of nearly 100 years. that sounds pretty legit to me. especially when the results are accurately repeated in multiple studies.
so your point is not quite accurate. here is a more accurate one. louie simmons gym, you know the one. the one that has produced some of the strongest powerlifters in the world. guess where he got his knowledge, science. do you know where that science came from? coaches that trained athletes, mainly from eastern block countries decades ago. and they were some of the strongest people in the world. i have learned much from reading articles by louie simmons and getting the same material that he learned from. guys like zatsiorsky and bompa. they produced the science to back and trained the athletes and both proved they were right.
so should i ignore all of what they have learned? should we all ban every book ever written by an expert on fitness? should we bash jim wendler cause he wrote a book and big meatheads dont need no books, they be the devils work. should we all just learn by ourselves in a tiny microcosm without any outside input. everyone proves here that they do not by coming to this forum. to either help or to learn. and they need to read to do that. but i see reading is bad on here. kind of an oxymoronic situation isnt it.
i have seen people at times use the real world does not exist in a sterile environment argument and its a good one. probably one of the best ones i have run across. that is when i use my above example with eastern block coaches, that just happen to be scientists as well. they proved their knowledge not only in a lab but in real world applications.
i try to do the same thing with other science i reference. for example, the reference i made earlier about dr mcgill's research. well he not only is a scientist he helps to rehab the most extreme spinal injuries and many of them are world class athletes. i remembering reading how one olympic lifter, whos name i do not remember, had a back injury. the athlete went on after breaking several vertebrae to compete on the world level again. so he has also shown via science and with training people that his knowledge is very good.
i have learned the hard way that a lot of research is mediocre at best and measures things at times that are only a small part of the whole picture. especially when it comes to exercise. i have a trainer friend that has a masters in kinesiological science and has done some lab work taught me a very valuable lesson. that there is a science and an art form to training. science can tell what mechanisms you will get a response from with certain sets and reps at a certain intensity. it cant tell you how to put it together. that takes experience. he humbled me many times buy showing me that i knew the science but did not know how to put it all together. he also helped me with that aspect of training. he did that instead of calling me names, telling me i was weak, etc. he decided it was better to educate.
so i ask that of people that say i am wrong, educate me. if i am wrong it should be easy to show me. calling me names and calling me weak does not change my knowledge. and i would like to learn more and i know there is a lot more to learn. so please, tell me how i am wrong so i can know and better help others.