[quote]The Mighty Stu wrote:
My general understanding based on following internet discussions is that something is broscience when it disproves your point but is real science when it affirms your point.[/quote]
^lol that’s great.
My interpretation, especially in the internet age of every keyboard expert being able to pull up various studies, is any rationalization for a training or nutrition approach that despite possibly having some history of anecdotal stories in support of it, isn’t backed by, or is even disproved by, at least a single study that will get touted about constantly so people can argue with each other and thereby make themselves out to appear more knowledgeable.
Yeah but anecdotal evidence has it’s value, right? I think the problem begins when bros try to justify their anecdotal knowledge and findings with irrelevant or otherwise outdated scientific facts.[/quote]
Oh I truly believe that anecdotal evidence has value, especially in the absence of actual scientific study of the subject matter. Vince Gironda, Bill Pearl, Arnold, and the like were fairly astute in paying attention to what seemed to work, and yet none of them had degrees in anything related to physical development nor moonlighted as scientists after a hard day’s work in the gym. If you think about it, except for recent years, I don’t think many of the issues we as gym rats concern ourselves with have been on the high priority list of what needs to be deeply examined by mainstream science.
Sure, muscle growth is relevant to people with wasting diseases and the like (I have one client who suffered for a long time with MS, and packing on LBM has been a serious concern), but I can’t imagine becoming ‘hygoooge’, or getting bodyfat down to single digits, getting big pharma backing expensive studies.
It’s only now that supplement companies, that stand to profit from sales of OTC means of assistance, have taken a financial interest, that I think we’re seeing a shift in quotable research. Also, like you mentioned, outdated research is always going to be a questionable issue. Forget how long ago some studies may have been conducted (and possibly since disproved), but how many times (even on these forums, where I think the majority of posters are fairly intelligent) has someone posted a study to support an argument only to have it dismissed due to limitations, or obvious flaws in its actual design?