All I care about are results and not evidence or science

[anoopbal]

This is one of the most common arguments against science or an evidence-based approach. How true or how wrong is this statement? Check out this article please: All I care about are results and not evidence or science

[TexasGuy]

Actual, observable results are evidence that X or Y works and that science may or may not be able to explain yet.

Gravity existed long before Newton.

Going upstream against irrefutable truths is stupid but let's be honest, few hard facts, genuine facts, exist in the kinesiology/nutritional world where universal application is concerned. Results exist, however. Like gravity did, before Newton described it. Disregarding actual results because a study doesn't exist to "prove" the result in a lab setting is also stupid.

[Resolve]

Determining how to obtain the best results is science. That's exactly what science is.

[asooneyeonig]

uhm, science shows evidence via results of a fact. so dismissing science and evidence is dismissing results. that statement has to truly be the most oxymoronic statement i have ever heard.

[TexasGuy]

uhm, science shows evidence via results of a fact. so dismissing science and evidence is dismissing results. that statement has to truly be the most oxymoronic statement i have ever heard.

Who is dismissing science and evidence?

[asooneyeonig]

Who is dismissing science and evidence?

good question, who is? i made a factual and an opinionated statement not an accusation.

[TexasGuy]

good question, who is? i made a factual and an opinionated statement not an accusation.

I was just wondering where you were drawing from, for conversations sake.

[TexasGuy]

lol

"Jim Says…
Don't fall for that crap that people are peddling on the message boards, in magazines or on TV.

Get your **** in order, and get your training in order. Start kicking ass, and take out the crap that doesn't matter.

Start doing and believing in the stuff that works, and do it today and forever. You want science and studies? **** you, I've got scars and blood and vomit.

This is a call to arms for some of you. It is for me too. Stop all the things that make you a ***** and steal your energy. Get your life back. - Jim Wendler"

http://www.jimwendler.com/

[napalm]

lol

"Jim Says...
Don't fall for that crap that people are peddling on the message boards, in magazines or on TV.

Get your **** in order, and get your training in order. Start kicking ass, and take out the crap that doesn't matter.

Start doing and believing in the stuff that works, and do it today and forever. You want science and studies? **** you, I've got scars and blood and vomit.

This is a call to arms for some of you. It is for me too. Stop all the things that make you a ***** and steal your energy. Get your life back. - Jim Wendler"

http://www.jimwendler.com/

I make a point to read that quote every day.

Sent from my iPhone using Am.com

[Resolve]

lol

"Jim Says…
Don't fall for that crap that people are peddling on the message boards, in magazines or on TV.

Get your **** in order, and get your training in order. Start kicking ass, and take out the crap that doesn't matter.

Start doing and believing in the stuff that works, and do it today and forever. You want science and studies? **** you, I've got scars and blood and vomit.

This is a call to arms for some of you. It is for me too. Stop all the things that make you a ***** and steal your energy. Get your life back. - Jim Wendler"

http://www.jimwendler.com/

He may not realize it, but that process of 'taking out the crap that doesn't matter', of 'doing...stuff that works', that's science. He's just playing with semantics to make the point that analysis paralysis is an issue for some people.

[TexasGuy]

He may not realize it, but that process of 'taking out the crap that doesn't matter', of 'doing...stuff that works', that's science. He's just playing with semantics to make the point that analysis paralysis is an issue for some people.

I think the overriding issue of this topic is analysis paralysis vs. actual results, documented by science or not.

[JudoJosh]

And yet another reason why crossfit is retarded



Sent from my Samsung Galaxy S™II using Tapatalk 2

[EasyEJL]

This is one of the most common arguments against science or an evidence-based approach. How true or how wrong is this statement? Check out this article please: All I care about are results and not evidence or science

I can put together an ikea table with screws and use a hammer to drive them in instead of a screwdriver. I'll still end up with a table so i'll still get results right?

[Rodja]

And yet another reason why crossfit is retarded


Sent from my Samsung Galaxy S™II using Tapatalk 2

I'm glad this is getting around. I saw Layne repost this and wondered how many people would see it.

[JudoJosh]

I'm glad this is getting around. I saw Layne repost this and wondered how many people would see it.

I saw it in another thread on a different forum followed by a pretty creppy video by Glassman

Sent from my Samsung Galaxy S™II using Tapatalk 2

[Rodja]

I saw it in another thread on a different forum followed by a pretty creppy video by Glassman

Sent from my Samsung Galaxy S™II using Tapatalk 2

The "deadlift" video where he uses a PVC pipe instead of a damn bar?

[JudoJosh]

yup

[Rodja]

There is zero application with that teaching method. They have freaking 5lb bumper plates that he could use so she could get the feeling of the bar in her hands, the actual start/stop point, etc.

[Bigcountry08]

yup

All I saw in that video was a chick with a nice butt getting scammed by a homeless guy into sticking out her butt. By him teaching her how to pick up his homeless man walking stick.

Then he started to circle her, I was waiting for him to attack.

[napalm]

They should put a big photo of glassman on their homepage. I never knew he was that out of shape. Great role model for the company...

Sent from my iPhone using Am.com

[benmayro]

All I saw in that video was a chick with a nice butt getting scammed by a homeless guy into sticking out her butt. By him teaching her how to pick up his homeless man walking stick.

Then he started to circle her, I was waiting for him to attack.

Hahahahahahahhahahahahahhahaha hahahahahhahahahahahahhahah, post of the day

[anoopbal]

Actual, observable results are evidence that X or Y works and that science may or may not be able to explain yet.

Gravity existed long before Newton.

Going upstream against irrefutable truths is stupid but let's be honest, few hard facts, genuine facts, exist in the kinesiology/nutritional world where universal application is concerned. Results exist, however. Like gravity did, before Newton described it. Disregarding actual results because a study doesn't exist to "prove" the result in a lab setting is also stupid.

Sorry for the late reply bro.

It is not as simple as you make out of it. You are using like examples which are crystal clear. Another example is parachute saving lives. Most of that you see around doesn't have that large magnitude of effect. Back in those days, smoking was considered good. We still didn't know smoking was bad until it was shown in studies. The same with women taking HRT. Some take HRT and do great while some 'dont'. How are you goona decide if it is good? This is due to the random variation in every biological phenomenon.

We used blood letting for almost 2000 years to treat every disease. Why? People were dying in 1000's. Could't we see the 'observable results' as evidence for it not to work and stop it after a few years? So 'observable' results doesn't say anything if it works or not.

[TexasGuy]

Sorry for the late reply bro.

Its not as simple as you make out of it. You are using like examples which are crystal clear. Another example is parachute saving lives. Most of that you see around doesn't have that large magnitude of effect. Back in those days, smoking was considered good. We still didn't know smoking was bad until it was shown in studies. The same with women taking HRT. Some take HRT and do great while some 'dont'. How are you goona decide if it is good? This is due to the random variation in every biological phenomenon.

We used blood letting for almost 2000 years to treat every disease. Why? People were dying in 1000's. Could't we see the 'observable results' as evidence for it not to work and stop it after a few years? So 'observable' results doesn't say anything if it works or not.

By your logic, science itself should be disregarded.

It is that simple. Throwing out obviously effective techniques and protocols because there isn't an "official" study saying it works is stupid. While science sometimes is a root cause for a paradigm shift in thought, it is usually playing catch up to existing, observable phenomena and either validates existing paradigms or slightly improves the efficiency of application. This has certainly been the case in gym science.

[anoopbal]

By your logic, science itself should be disregarded.

It is that simple. Throwing out obviously effective techniques and protocols because there isn't an "official" study saying it works is stupid. While science sometimes is a root cause for a paradigm shift in thought, it is usually playing catch up to existing, observable phenomena and either validates existing paradigms or slightly improves the efficiency of application. This has certainly been the case in gym science.

Again, what is your definition "obviously effective"?

Can you name a program which is not "obviously effective"? Go to HIT forum and it is obviously effective. got P90x website, it is obviously effective. Go to Tracy Anderson's method, it is obviously effective. Go to homeapathic doctor, and we will have results to show it is "obviously effective".

And nobody ever said to throw out techniques if it is not shown in a study. Depends on a lot of other factors.

[TexasGuy]

Again, what is your definition "obviously effective"?

Can you name a program which is not "obviously effective"? Go to HIT forum and it is obviously effective. got P90x website, it is obviously effective. Go to Tracy Anderson's method, it is obviously effective. Go to homeapathic doctor, and we will have results to show it is "obviously effective".

And nobody ever said to throw out techniques if it is not shown in a study. Depends on a lot of other factors.

Yes, those programs all obviously allow practioners to achieve the defined goals of the program, and they do so despite a lack of individual scientific studies conclusively saying each program will be effective at delivering its defined goal.

I have a better idea; why don't you clarify the argument you are making so we have a basis for discussion?

[anoopbal]

Yes, those programs all obviously allow practioners to achieve the defined goals of the program, and they do so despite a lack of individual, scientific studies inconclusively saying each program will be effective at delivering its defined goal.

I have a better idea; why don't you clarify the argument you are making so we have a basis for discussion?

Actual, observable results are evidence that X or Y works and that science may or may not be able to explain yet.

1. I wrote back how "observable results" as proof doesn't say anything. I gave examples of smoking, bloodletting, HRT where the results were really observable but we couldn't tell if it was doing us bad. And we thought they were doing good and even great. Onkly well designed RCT's showed that they were clearly bad.

2. Does science has to explain it? No. That was the whole point of the article. We still don't know what is the mechanism behind HRT, but most doctors stopped prescribing it all over the world.

If you agree or disagree, to the 2 above points, let me know.

[TexasGuy]

Actual, observable results are evidence that X or Y works and that science may or may not be able to explain yet.

1. I wrote back how "observable results" as proof doesn't say anything. I gave examples of smoking, bloodletting, HRT where the results were really observable but we couldn't tell if it was doing us bad. And we thought they were doing good and even great. Onkly well designed RCT's showed that they were clearly bad.

2. Does science has to explain it? No. That was the whole point of the article. We still don't know what is the mechanism behind HRT, but most doctors stopped prescribing it all over the world.

If you agree or disagree, to the 2 above points, let me know.

Considering the bolded point above, number one doesn't really make sense. Smoking cigarettes and building biceps are not comparable.

Considering number two, are you defending HRT with your post? This is your thread, Anoop. What is its point?

[anoopbal]

Considering the bolded point above, number one doesn't really make sense. Smoking cigarettes and building biceps are not comparable.

The title of the post is about science and results. I am not specifically talking about "building biceps" which you know it very well. Hence your first reply says " Actual, observable results are evidence that X or Y works and that science may or may not be able to explain yet.

Gravity existed long before Newton."

Or do you think gravity has something to do with building biceps?

Considering number two, are you defending HRT with your post? This is your thread, Anoop. What is its point?

No I wrote it as a reply to you for your specific quote "Actual, observable results are evidence that X or Y works and that science may or may not be able to explain yet."

Evidence based approach do not need to explain or understand the science behind it to use it. It helps, but dont need it.

[TexasGuy]

The title of the post is about science and results. I am not specifically talking about "building biceps" which you know it very well. Hence your first reply says " Actual, observable results are evidence that X or Y works and that science may or may not be able to explain yet.

Gravity existed long before Newton."
Or do you think gravity has something to do with building biceps?



No I wrote it as a reply to you for your specific quote "Actual, observable results are evidence that X or Y works and that science may or may not be able to explain yet."

Evidence based approach do not need to explain or understand the science behind it to use it. It helps, but dont need it.

The context of the forum is training science. Forgive me for assuming the topic would be about the importance of science in strength and hypertrophy contexts. Gravity was used as an example of evidence based knowledge. Unless you care to elaborate, cigarettes don't compare to the law of gravity existing prior to an official definition either. Gravity absolutely pulls things to the earth, this is not an opinion.

I'm afraid I still don't understand the point of your thread. Science is evidence based knowledge. And as an aside, much of science is refuted, revised or tossed completely as new knowledge is realized through testing new hypotheses pulled from observations anyways.

More relevent to my previous commments of science often simply validating known results (gravity), and lending greater efficacy to application in some cases, consider the practice of bloodletting. The old school practice of slicing a vein and bleeding on the floor is obsolete, although blood cleaning through hemodialysis and hemopurifier machines is certainly an effective evolution of such practices, an example of science catching up to preconcieved notions and lending greater efficacy to basically understood practices.

In the context of this discussion forum (strength and hypertrophy), I'm saying that evidence based results don't require specific scientific studies to legitimize them. Are you arguing that or agreeing with me through an oppositional tone?

A lifter will severely limit strength and hypertrohpy tools by waiting for legitimization of every tried and true aspect of bodybuilding training. In fact, I don't think we could conclusively say that any bodybuilding protocols are irrefutably effective at building muscle, yet we sure do have a lot of muscular people walking around and always have.

And I realize what the title of your thread is but again, what point are you making? What was the intent of your original post?

[anoopbal]

More relevent to myprevious commments of science often simply validating known results (gravity),and lending greater efficacy to application in some cases, consider thepractice of bloodletting. The old school practice of slicing a vein andbleeding on the floor is obsolete, although blood cleaning through hemodialysisand hemopurifier machines is certainly an effective evolution of suchpractices, an example of science catching up to preconcieved notions andlending greater efficacy to basically understood practices.

Yep let's stick with this topic . Blood letting was done for low back pain, fever and every known illness because we thought every disease was due to an imbalance of four humors. It didn't have an aorta of science. It is not such "catching up". It is a classic example and often quoted as one of the gross medical mistakes we made in the past.

So it is clearly not science "catching up". And it is a good example, how sometimes results aren't that clear to see. If it were, people would have stopped it after a few years. It went on for 2000 years! Why is that?

In the context of thisdiscussion forum (strength and hypertrophy), I'm saying that evidence basedresults don't require specific scientific studies to legitimize them. Are youarguing that or agreeing with me through an oppositional tone?

What do you mean by'evidence-based results' here?

A lifterwill severely limit strength and hypertrohpy tools by waiting forlegitimization of every tried and true aspect of bodybuilding training. Infact, I don't think we could conclusively say that any bodybuildingprotocols are irrefutably effective at building muscle, yet we sure do have alot of muscular people walking around and always have.

I think I know where you are going. Nobody is ever waiting for a study before they use it.If it were true, no cancer patient would ever be treated bcos we don’t know much about cancer though we spent billions on it, not even 20%.

All we know is lifting weights will increase muscle size. We don't know what volume, frequency, timing of protein frequency of protein intake and all those questions will give us optimal results. We are trying to find the optimal training protocol and not what "works".

And I realize what the title of your thread is but again, what point are you making? What was the intent of your original post?

Did you read the article that was linked Texaslifter? And let's keep the discussion civil. i would be more than happy to elaborate my veiws if I am not coming across clear.

[TexasGuy]

Yep let's stick with this topic . Blood letting was done for low back pain, fever and every known illness because we thought every disease was due to an imbalance of four humors. It didn't have an aorta of science. It is not such "catching up". It is a classic example and often quoted as one of the gross medical mistakes we made in the past.

So it is clearly not science "catching up". And it is a good example, how sometimes results aren't that clear to see. If it were, people would have stopped it after a few years. It went on for 2000 years! Why is that?


What do you mean by'evidence-based results' here?



I think I know where you are going. Nobody is ever waiting for a study before they use it.If it were true, no cancer patient would ever be treated bcos we don’t know much about cancer though we spent billions on it, not even 20%.

All we know is lifting weights will increase muscle size. We don't know what volume, frequency, timing of protein frequency of protein intake and all those questions will give us optimal results. We are trying to find the optimal training protocol and not what "works".



Did you read the article that was linked Texaslifter? And let's keep the discussion civil. i would be more than happy to elaborate my veiws if I am not coming across clear.

Blood letting has been done for reasons ranging from spiritual cleansing to emptying the body of toxic blood, a school of thought blood cleansing machines decended from.

I'd rather stick to the bodybuilding topic though. There is not a conclusive, irrefutable answer for best practice but there certainly are research based indications.

[anoopbal]

Blood letting has been done for reasons ranging from spiritual cleansing to emptying the body of toxic blood, a school of thought blood cleansing machines decended from.

I'd rather stick to the bodybuilding topic though. There is not a conclusive, irrefutable answer for best practice but there certainly are research based indications.

The difference between blood letting and blood cleansing machines is one is based on science and other on NO science.

I hope you read the article. Yep we are not sure about anything. Research just helps to quantify our uncertanities better.

[Pypp]

The context of the forum is training science. Forgive me for assuming the topic would be about the importance of science in strength and hypertrophy contexts. Gravity was used as an example of evidence based knowledge. Unless you care to elaborate, cigarettes don't compare to the law of gravity existing prior to an official definition either. Gravity absolutely pulls things to the earth, this is not an opinion.

I'm afraid I still don't understand the point of your thread. Science is evidence based knowledge. And as an aside, much of science is refuted, revised or tossed completely as new knowledge is realized through testing new hypotheses pulled from observations anyways.

More relevent to my previous commments of science often simply validating known results (gravity), and lending greater efficacy to application in some cases, consider the practice of bloodletting. The old school practice of slicing a vein and bleeding on the floor is obsolete, although blood cleaning through hemodialysis and hemopurifier machines is certainly an effective evolution of such practices, an example of science catching up to preconcieved notions and lending greater efficacy to basically understood practices.

In the context of this discussion forum (strength and hypertrophy), I'm saying that evidence based results don't require specific scientific studies to legitimize them. Are you arguing that or agreeing with me through an oppositional tone?

A lifter will severely limit strength and hypertrohpy tools by waiting for legitimization of every tried and true aspect of bodybuilding training. In fact, I don't think we could conclusively say that any bodybuilding protocols are irrefutably effective at building muscle, yet we sure do have a lot of muscular people walking around and always have.

And I realize what the title of your thread is but again, what point are you making? What was the intent of your original post?

Agreed. Everyone's different, I see great gains and never bench more then 135. Also I do I weight for all my workouts

[asooneyeonig]

Agreed. Everyone's different

i LOVE and hate that statement at the same time. if we truly were all different than why are we all homo sapiens? if we truly all different than why do scientists, doctors, researchers, etc, only study one type of anatomy. if we all have the same anatomy and therefore have the same physiology. therefore the mechanisms for exercise are the same.

now you may ask, how come people get different results. well there are many reasons. not all the variables are the same. and i dont mean we have different mechanisms involved with stimulation and adaptation. what i mean is did both people perform at the exact same intensity level. the exact same volume. the exact same frequency. did they have the exact same work capacity, the exact same recovery abilities, the exact same hormonal levels, the exact same hormone sensitivity levels. probably not. and i know there are other variables that can change the results. and yet, we are still all the same when it comes to the mechanisms of stimulation and adaptation.

a chemist friend put it the best that i have heard on how we appear different. i hope i do him some justice. like the mechanisms in the body the interaction between chemicals are precise and exact. you can mathematically define what comes out of what goes in. what you do need to take into account are the impurities or other chemicals that can effect the results but mat not be known at the start of the equation.

to apply this to the previously mentioned mechanisms we also need to take into account the varying levels of the chemicals involved. they can vary in different people therefore appear to give different results. the results are different but not on a mechanical level. the interaction and specific result still worked. it worked precisely at the level of the chemicals involved.

[Pypp]

i LOVE and hate that statement at the same time. if we truly were all different than why are we all homo sapiens? if we truly all different than why do scientists, doctors, researchers, etc, only study one type of anatomy. if we all have the same anatomy and therefore have the same physiology. therefore the mechanisms for exercise are the same.

now you may ask, how come people get different results. well there are many reasons. not all the variables are the same. and i dont mean we have different mechanisms involved with stimulation and adaptation. what i mean is did both people perform at the exact same intensity level. the exact same volume. the exact same frequency. did they have the exact same work capacity, the exact same recovery abilities, the exact same hormonal levels, the exact same hormone sensitivity levels. probably not. and i know there are other variables that can change the results. and yet, we are still all the same when it comes to the mechanisms of stimulation and adaptation.

a chemist friend put it the best that i have heard on how we appear different. i hope i do him some justice. like the mechanisms in the body the interaction between chemicals are precise and exact. you can mathematically define what comes out of what goes in. what you do need to take into account are the impurities or other chemicals that can effect the results but mat not be known at the start of the equation.

to apply this to the previously mentioned mechanisms we also need to take into account the varying levels of the chemicals involved. they can vary in different people therefore appear to give different results. the results are different but not on a mechanical level. the interaction and specific result still worked. it worked precisely at the level of the chemicals involved.

Aka eat clen and tren hard

Just messing that was a good post man. Almost poetic in the way you wrote it lol

[Celorza]

Aka eat clen and tren hard

Just messing that was a good post man. Almost poetic in the way you wrote it lol

Didn't even need to edit...also what's "clean"?

[asooneyeonig]

Aka eat clen and tren hard

Just messing that was a good post man. Almost poetic in the way you wrote it lol

that statement has had a large impact on my search for better training. from one perspective we are all different. from another we are all the same. i want to know why. i think of it as a hobby anymore, thankfully. that way it doesnt consume my life.

[anoopbal]

that statement has had a large impact on my search for better training. from one perspective we are all different. from another we are all the same. i want to know why. i think of it as a hobby anymore, thankfully. that way it doesnt consume my life.

Good question bro

I would say for most biological process the response or the direction of the response is same, the only thing that changes is the magnitude of the response. For example, everyone will add muscles if they weight train. But the response will be different. Some will grow more and some will not. This is the same reason why smoking was considered okay and good oneday. some died soon, but while some lived till their 80's with no problem. The is called the random variation in biological phenomenon. Most of the follow a normal distribution or abell curve where the majority fall in the middle of the curve.

And the only way ( there are other reasons) to eliminate/minimize this random variation is what? A well-conducted randomized clinical trial. There are other reasons to do a study. And this is why billions are spent on research.