The Problem with Science Based Training

[@kalenburns9780]

This was an excellent video Daire proving once more your abilities to cut to the heart of the argument. This was a pleasure to listen to

[@FlerbyDerb]

Deeply envious of that view for lifting.

[@joelgoring1252]

Absolutely insane, wtf

[@watgoatse]

Hard to imagine a more ideal setting

[@Kobe005]

OLD INTRO IS BACK WHAT A GLORIOUS START TO THE MONTH

[@johnsandberg1945]

My mentor Charles Poliquin used to always say sports science is sport history. He would say if I only did things that were in peer reviewed journals I would be 2 to 3 Olympics behind. This was coming from a guy who reviewed the literature constantly.

[@efthimiosmaheras4585]

My thoughts on this topic as a fucking social scientist is that this conflict is mostly economics based. Internet fitness is a finite pie. The argument is mostly about coaches and influencers trying to pigeon hole themselves and carve out a niche and a brand in a competitive market where the product is not going to be revolutionized so much anymore that innovation is going to play such a big difference in who dominates the market...

[@balbibou]

funny part is that top athletes probably ignore/don't care about science based stuff. They focus mostly on : performance and mindset. They have coachs for everything else.

[@bread.banana.]

Now I understand what you meant by "needing to see the actual program" in regards to DUP vs Block Periodization. Thanks lads.

[@DrAJ_LatinAmerica]

Very well said it 👏. Kids today, like my son (guys 45 yrs old and younger), are still trying to figure out how Vasily Alekseyev got so strong without Google, studies or fancy cell phone apps. Or how Sergio Oliva created (arguably) one of the best physiques in body building (better than Arnold in my opinion) using mostly free weights, crude supplements, and very rudimentary understanding of steroids. YES, the door must always be left open.

[@Waferwafermagiccracker]

One of the best critique video on the folly of science based influencers.

[@Kyle111]

Did expect Sutherland quotes. I just found out about him a few months ago. Smart guy

[@MrAlidor]

Clear and concise. 👌

[@juhofyrsten7946]

Awesome vide, this kind of stuff is rare and im really grateful that i have found your channel.

[@sikastrength]

Glad you enjoy it!

[@LatimusChadimus]

Since science is defined as the study of, let's just say that science-based coaching is much more important than science-based performance. Statistics are pretty much a science and it's better to run over the numbers coaching outcomes versus individualistic performance outcomes. Like I said for a good amount of time: Bros don't study science, science studies the Bros

[@Gojimaru]

The problem is that science doesn't study the right bros and statistics (most of it) is veeeery skewed.

[@christopherroberts2500]

I'm a dyed-in-the-wool hardhead, in that I often believe I can do things better myself, through good old fashioned, honest-to-God trial and error. I'm also smart enough, however, to know when I'm out of my depth, and will justifiably call in the experts and defer to those who have the hard skills or knowledge I do not possess. That said, it often is just a case of 'it's just lifting weights, man.' People will argue to death, for instance, that the dynamic start is flawed for x, y, and z reason, with no further nuance. They''ll scream and shout this to anyone and everyone who will listen, while the guy who DOES roll his bar in slowly surpasses them in the snatch/clean and jerk/deadlift. Then they'll simply say 'he's just genetically built for it,' or 'he's just good at such-and-such a lift.' There is a strong intuitive component to all of this that the 'science-based' cathedral dwellers simply can't open their minds to.

[@PLxFTW]

The people you describe don't sound much like "science based" rather just assholes that latch onto whatever random though and go with it. The Dr Mikes and Jeff Nippards rarely make sweeping generalization and always reference what recent literature is saying. The point I'm making is you described dogmatic people and attached science based to them, but the prominent voices aren't dogmatic at all.

[@christopherroberts2500]

@@PLxFTW Indeed, though many will take that title and not follow through with what it really means. Ultimately, so many of us are given to biases, no matter what label we overall choose to describe ourselves. Results will always take precedence. Is anyone going to contradict the somewhat 'bro level' advice of someone with a 900kg total? Plenty will fall in line from that alone.

[@franciscovencedor1785]

Sorry lad, i don't listen to half squatters.

[@lukebernie04]

A degree in exercise science and a masters in sports psychology and you don't want to listen. Mate, I don't have the time or the crayons to explain to you how dumb your comment is.

[@sikastrength]

I THINK he's joking 😳 😅

[@lukebernie04]

@@sikastrength sorry, the internet ptsd took over. After my tour in clarences comment section, I havent been the same

[@froggy3496]

​@@lukebernie04is that the guy who fell off and is skinny now?

[@rumblewithmrbumble]

​@@froggy3496Saying he "fell off" is nonsense

[@Yupppi]

I saw the thumbnail/title and thought to myself "Sika's going controversial". I actually thought this would discuss the hypertrophy science (due to the thumbnail people and the title). I haven't heard science based training that much outside hypertrophy. Good talk in this video. This is why I usually prefer long form content where you get nuance over popularity contest. This is also why I enjoy Sika Strength content, the philosophy of trying to give accurate and useful information over trying to reach the best numbers (on youtube, different thing under the barbell). One of the considerations for applying science is always: science talks about averages and general phenomenons, it doesn't talk about individual responses. You can be a doctor in sports science and do research and as science communicator you acknowledge that, telling people how to apply science but also all the knowledge acquired as them being an athlete and coach as well. Sometimes even having a degree in nutrition as well. If you're a scientist and your answer is that only one way gets you to the goal, you're being intellectually dishonest about your expertise. Referring to guys like Eric Helms or Eric Trexler who happily talk about how you can't construct the perfect plan from science, that it requires domains that science doesn't ask or answer to, or can't even study. And like Fitz pointed out, science studies what is. Athletes and coaches do something, researchers want to look up on their methods and try to find which are effective on average and which are not, as well as how and why they are effective. And you have to understand that nobody's the imaginary average, you almost always have to adjust somehow to individual responses. Lately there was a fascinating meta-analysis though, by a group that Data Driven Strength guys were a part of. Trying to eek out those volume effects on both hypertrophy and strength, and frequency as well. Does it demonstrate how to directly apply the results to a perfect training program? Not by any chance, but it gives good tools to programming in different contexts, knowing that "even this little can have an effect on someone, and more is more but not just multiplying the results" and then make an educated decision based on what you know about the athlete in question and their circumstances. Yet those guys also talk about how they sometimes program or do something totally different to the basic science template because they want to or notice it working well for the case. In fact you're a really bad scientist if you try to force a dogma through, especially for application. Your job as a scientist is to acknowledge the limits of your knowledge and to be open to possibilities and interpretations that aren't outright impossible. As well as knowing that science doesn't answer that question of what to do on tuesday at the gym.

[@ac91dir24]

expressive and masterful

[@tylermasi289]

What a simply lovely shed

[@chc84]

Good to see you training again. Who is the different dog at the start?

[@TheImmenseFence]

Incredible video. It's funny how many response videos there are about science based training, whilst saying so little

[@thegoldfish123]

Excellent analysis

[@BuJammy]

I've taken a bit of a risk, and just moved over from being a clinical psychologist in to the world of sports psychology. Any recommended reading that wouldn't usually show up on the core or "further reading" or works that had a significant impact on you? (OPEN TO ALL, INTERESTED IN EVERYONE'S INPUT).

[@yukkuri_lifter]

The fear of uncertainty stems from one's neglect of nuance.

[@genova8148]

Finally I'm the first comment. My life is complete now.

[@LatimusChadimus]

🏆

[@chc84]

Where will you go from here?

[@padraig1994]

Ngl I never thought you had 180x9 in you 😂

[@cnristopher]

I muted the video and only observed the lifting

[@sikastrength]

Worthwhile viewing

[@andrew98115wl]

Good doggie! ❤

[@baseballstream174]

I got throat-punched after opening this video

[@occupiedaustralia9952]

Did you get kicked out of the house ?

[@JAGValiant]

*Instagram comments be like: "WHY IS HE SQUATTING OUTSIDE THE RACK?!"

[@Pletzmutz]

What I find annoying as well is that the term "science" is only applied to people working in an academic context. A coach who makes systematic observations, shares and compares them with other coaches is doing the same basic things, just in a less bureaucratic (and probably more effective) way.

[@sergeantmatcscs]

Outstanding gentlemen

[@dfitz5384]

Let the hate... BEGIN

[@zachboskovich6616]

Sika cult.

[@jeffsanchezfit4219]

tldr?

[@sikastrength]

Science is nice but you need understand it's not everything and a lot of sport science studies suck

[@anjulaherath5181]

I have to say I was very distracted miring your squats

[@zsahe21]

!!!!!

[@TDace25]

Hoarseee comment algo.

[@coulliebleu3422]

Clickbait Daire face

[@mat.9862]

One day this rack will fall...

[@LatimusChadimus]

Ayyyyyyyyyy

[@BMCSW]

So? Um. Work hard, study hard? Reset research, experiment and visit everyone’s gym and follow them around. World travel is the key to? Um. How many years? Um; schools? 😂😂😂

[@CeroAshura]

The problem with the well-worn path argument is that it's definitely not the "science based lifting" that is most tread.

[@LukeSeed]

You are mistaken. People can and will form cults/tribes around any microscopic difference. We are a species of tribalness; to deny this leads to as many problems as the tribalness does.

[@Egg-nigma]

The problem is with Jeff nipple that hes 4 foot and has to shout louder so people at normal height can hear him 😂😂

[@Black-Circle]

Science based nonsense. They have you over training and worrying about other nonsense that isn’t lifting to failure with compound lifts

[@Horus-Lupercal]

5 IQ take. L.

[@Black-Circle]

@@Horus-Lupercal if you actually read the science which you haven't there is no difference between 1 and 3 sets for an excercise. so yes these clowns are telling you to do 10-20 sets a week. Your IQ level is minus zero,. go educate yourself clown

[@BRUHMOMENT1972]

Sorry liberal, science isn’t real. Jk