Why We Need an Evidence-Based Approach in the Fitness Field - AnabolicMinds.com

Why We Need an Evidence-Based Approach in the Fitness Field

  1. anoopbal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    192
    Rep Power
    13081

    Reputation

    Why We Need an Evidence-Based Approach in the Fitness Field


    This article is probably the most important article I ever wrote. If you ever wondered why all this talk about science and evidence, read this please.

    Why We Need an Evidence-Based Approach in the Fitness Field


  2. indysoccer16's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Age
    27
    Posts
    397
    Rep Power
    1067

    Reputation

    agreed, there is to much bad bro-science around.

    But one bad thing about science is that no one is the same so you have a lot of variables which makes it hard to say this is the right or wrong way. It can help lead most people in the right direction though, no doubt
  3. anoopbal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    192
    Rep Power
    13081

    Reputation

    Quote Originally Posted by indysoccer16 View Post
    agreed, there is to much bad bro-science around.

    But one bad thing about science is that no one is the same so you have a lot of variables which makes it hard to say this is the right or wrong way. It can help lead most people in the right direction though, no doubt
    Thanks bro!

    There are a lot of bad things about science, but we don't have better alternative.

    I am not sure your exact question. But one reason to random allocation evolved is to take care of confounding variables. By randomly allocating people into different groups, you are essentially eliminating the variables. T

    If you are asking is there a place for experience and clinical intuition in evidence based approach. Sure there is. No client or patient will be the exact same as the study population. Each client or patient will have their own unique needs, expectation, risk factors and such. So evidence-based approach uses both studies, trainer/clinical expertise and experience, and client preferences. So you need both the science and the art. It becomes a problem when you solely rely on either one of them.
    •   
       

  4. asooneyeonig's Avatar
    Stats
    5'10"  200 lbs.
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Age
    40
    Posts
    1,196
    Rep Power
    101790

    Reputation Reputation Reputation

    Quote Originally Posted by indysoccer16 View Post
    But one bad thing about science is that no one is the same so you have a lot of variables which makes it hard to say this is the right or wrong way.
    i've never really understood this statement. does it mean that we are not all homo sapiens?

    when i studied anatomy and physiology when i starting off as a trainer i did not have to study a different one for every person i met. it was one book on each. the same anatomy, therefore the same physiology. so how are we all different?

    do you mean different in that we are at different fitness levels so the results may seem to be different even though the mechanisms are identical? do you mean different in that we may have different levels of the various muscle fiber types? do you mean different in that we can have varying levels of hormones or sensitivity levels of those hormones?

    cause to me the mechanisms are the same. so learn the anatomy and physiology and you are golden. the art comes into knowing how to apply the science. but that is my opinion. and we all know what opinions are like. :P
    you can call me "ozzie" for short.
  5. mattsams89's Avatar
    Stats
    6'1"  187 lbs.
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    84
    Rep Power
    219

    Reputation

    Add genetics to that list. And really, they're the basis for many of the factors you stated. Our genetics will affect a wide variety of variables (our fiber composition, sensitivity to certain anabolic hormones, production of hormones, ability for hypertrophy, bone structure, training capacity, etc.). In the grand scheme of things, people respond the same way to training certain ways, but training used for advanced athletes would likely be too great a stimulus for less experienced trainees, while training for the Average Joe is not adequate for an elite athlete. And even at the elite level, people display vastly different responses to training due to genetic differences. Thus, while the overarching training plan is similar across individuals within a certain category, implementation takes on an individualized aspect that one must account/adjust for when training. Hence the art of training.

    I will say, however, that continual evaluation of a training protocol is how it is validated/rejected (returning to the science of training). If a superior method is created and validated, less superior methods should be discarded in favor of the superior method. I think that's where we go wrong in this country. Something sounds good and trendy (my boss calls this the Kia effect), but it's un-validated and no one really bothers to do the research on it to determine if it is superior. So we hop from training program to training program, hoping something will work. All the while, validated methods are out there, but they don't sound as trendy or exciting as...well, I won't mention any names.

    As an aside, the Kia effect: You're at a car dealership where a Kia and a Mercedes (both brand new; it's a metaphor, stay with me) are the same price. The dealer hands you both pamphlets, and you read each one. "Oh," you say, "this Mercedes has all these features. Looks pretty nice." But then you look at the Kia pamphlet with the trendy hamsters on the front. There are all kinds of colors and it seems flashy and attention grabbing. "Man," you say, "this looks really cool. I want to test drive this." All the while, the salesman is standing dumbfounded with the Mercedes keys in his hand, originally thinking there was no way on God's green earth you would want the Kia. Yet you test drive it and buy it, thinking it's great. Only, a few weeks down the road, it gets boring, so you trade it in for another car...and another...and another...and...

    Sound familiar?
  6. anoopbal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    192
    Rep Power
    13081

    Reputation

    One of the hallmarks of RCT - the gold standard study for testing treatments- is randomization.

    Randomization is done to make sure the groups are the same before the study. Randomization controls for both known variables and unknown variables. We have no clue how certain drugs will react and how certain factors can change the efficacy of new drugs. But the randomization ensures this variability is eliminated. Almost all researchers don't even bother reading if the intervention study is not randomized. This is the basis of surveys - using a sample that represents the whole population.

    If we know age, race, sex and such can affect the treatment, the randomization is stratified.

    Genetics will certainly change the response to training. But we have no sure way to know if that person is genetically gifted or not. So it is always best to start with a program that worked for the majority. And even if we identify the genetics, I am no aware of anything that might work better for someone with less genetics. The training of elite and beginners are good examples of how we should look at the population studied before we apply the results.
  

  
 

Similar Forum Threads

  1. Water Based and Oil Based Winny?
    By FAMOUSX1 in forum Anabolics
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: 06-07-2009, 11:51 PM
  2. High School Track and Field
    By zieglmv9 in forum Training Forum
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 10-23-2008, 11:32 AM
  3. Water based vs Oil Based winny.
    By JBlaze in forum Anabolics
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 04-01-2007, 07:22 PM
  4. Replies: 6
    Last Post: 01-03-2006, 02:23 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Log in
Log in