✓ Member
This is so true. What everyone reads are the conclusions, almost never the actual study or experiement details and results. The conclusions are just the opinion of that particular scientist of the results of the study. I would be willing to bet that if you asked ten different scientists, that are "experts" in the area of the study, to draw a conclusion from the results, you would get twelve different answers.Originally Posted by Crom
I'm also an engineer. I've seen almost zero correlation between degree level and actual knowledge and understanding. What I've seen from a lot of phD's, is that they had a professor that essentially gave them their degree for being a research assistant/paper writer/funding helper. They did not get it from actual deep understanding of a particular topic. Yet everyone seems to think that phD is some awe inspiring feat that declares "expert" to anything the person states.
Member
I am also a big fan of Crichton's philosophy of science more than his novels. If you are not already aware of his lecture "Aliens caused Global Warming", it shows great insight into the problems of "science".
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/07/...hael-crichton/
I have some experience modeling complex thermodynamic systems, I can attest that his reasoning is spot-on!
Member
I stand by my position that the sort of Ex Phys that readers of this board are most interested in is most subjected to the problems I stated. None of what you said really refuted that.
So thats the solution to the problem you described: you can solve this obstacle both methodologically and statistically. You just dont look at one study, but a series of studies to derive that there is an inverted U-curve of training volume and results, although its natural that things will never be so clear cut as a mathematical proof. Living beings and so on...
So thats what looking at the big picture looks like: Dose-response relationship between weekly resistance training volume and increases in muscle mass: A systematic review and meta-analysis. - PubMed - NCBI
As for the comment on my hypothetical study, we already know this from applying the general principals of GAS. A bunch of junk performance data doesnt really do anything to reinforce our belief in such a general concept, no matter how large the pile of junk is. And as for the meta-analysis, the key to a good one is the proper selection of studies. I would argue that any well constructed meta-analysis in this sort of realm would end up having 0 studies to incorporate.
Member
Let's set the expectations in heaven and try to achieve them no matter what!
Member
I think I hear in one of your vides you state [most things in this world are fucked]. I could leave it at that. I kinda think if everyone approached things in life like they do with the SS program. Most places would go out of business. People buy ediculous things everyday based on false promisies or statements. Ill, go out of my way to say the teaching profession is not doing so well. Most children don't learn very much and most teachers are overwhelmed, distracted with their phone, worried about the football game, or just lazy. I wish the few good teachers I can remember learning from became the majority.
Member
No, no! You completely misunderstand the purpose of meta-analysis. Everyone seems to think that meta-analysis is a way to combine multiple similar studies in a heavily researched topic into one large study that may be impractical to do by itself, but can increase power over the individual studies to make a stronger case for the question asked. This is just not true. Take acupuncture, for instance. You may have a lot of studies that separately seem to show that it doesn't work (especially if you look closely at the Methods section - but who does that?). But we know that it works, because, I mean, it's really old. And it's not Western. And I really want it to be true. So obviously those studies are wrong. But the neat thing is that you can collect a lot of poorly designed studies about acupuncture (they produce them virtually monthly) or about any topic and then put them in a meta-analysis that asks a different question that the original studies were not even designed to address, but you get a result that indicates that it's really beneficial for pretty much everyone, and the NIH should devote more funding to it.
Member
This^^^
As an engineer, I can heartily concur with the above statement. It is quite funny working with PhD's on projects (I'm in R&D) when the question inevitably comes up "So, where did you get you degree?". Uhhh...Uncle Sam's "University of Hard Knocks". Without knowing whether someone has a piece of paper or not, science is demonstrated by logical questioning, theory and deduction through a rigorous process. A process. Nothing more, nothing less. Common Sense by another name. It's the same whether you're figuring out how to change a tire for the first time without instruction, or considering permutations to a given equation with a change to two variables from an array of options. I think a lot of times, people confuse intelligence with "science".
<chuckle> My twin brother (who actually is a "scientist" and has a PhD in Chemical Physics) and I often have some laughs when this topic comes up. His belief is similar to the above, "About 80% of PhD's are morons who just persisted long enough to get the piece of paper. Very few of them actually understand what they are "learning". Want anecdotal evidence? Tell me why less than 5% of PhD's ever patent in their field? The number is much higher with people with Bachelor's degrees, even when you consider the ratio of Bachelor degrees to PhD's."
...And yes, I'm the dumb (identical) twin.
Member
Thats what the four-group-design is for.
Thats what randomization, grouping and investigating group and individual data aka "experiment" is for.Further, various people will decondition at different rates due to demographics, activity levels, genes, etc. This is without respect to the actual programming involved. Essentially, the number of variables involved in this comparison is quite large compared to the one being controlled (sets x reps). This doesn't even touch on the idea that taking time off between training blocks means quite different things to different folks.
Starting Strength Coach
There is a quite glaring problem with this approach.
Member
I was thinking the trajectory of progress for the phase one 5s and 3s and the phase two 5s and 3s would be interesting to observe.
It would only be two groups, but four groups of data. But scientifically, I can see how the deconditioning period would introduce an unnecessary layer of variance even if the trial is random.
So maybe take out the deconditioning period, and observe the second phase for interest. And have the groups split into 4- with one from each continuing on their current programming. If one group progresses faster than the others in that phase in a statistically significant way, I think that would be scientifically significant. Same for the first phase, honestly. But the real core issue brought up is the relationship between rep volume and strength - repeated submaximal loads and one rep maximums. I think what is called for before progress like that can continue is a faithful and confident average derivation of, say, 5rm and 3rm. Does one exist with any real integrity?
Posting Permissions
