Venting on Medical Studies

[Marenghi]

...

Im pretty sure you havent read any of the four links I gave, because then you would understand why your example wasnt a counter example.

And why strength is specific.

[57bergstrm]

Im pretty sure you havent read any of the four links I gave, because then you would understand why your example wasnt a counter example.

And why strength is specific.

Sport and form is specific, strength is general and useful under any situation.

[Marenghi]

Ill simply repeat myself and recommend the links I gave for reading.

[johnnys]

Im pretty sure you havent read any of the four links I gave, because then you would understand why your example wasnt a counter example.

And why strength is specific.

You’re wrong about both, and that strength is specific. How much do you bench, girlfriend?

[Marenghi]

All right, one last try before you slide into complete ad hominem: You can state your motto as long as you wish, but how do you justify your claim in the face of evidence to the contrary after reading the articles? Because you were shown a dozen of different empirically demonstrated mechanisms there how strength can be specific.

[BPJ]

Also, don't eat eggs, and be sure to replace that nasty artery-clogging butter with this hydrogenated vegetable oil substance that was designed by scientists. And follow the science-approved food-pyramid.

Science is great, and has brought us a lot of really nice things. But there is a huge difference between science as a system/process and science as a guild/career. Credentials can simply be a sign that you did your time, and won't rock the boat rather than a sign that you are super smart or enlightened.

It is funny how science is the one thing you aren't allowed to be skeptical about in polite society. I remember when that was called fundamentalism.

[jfsully]

It is funny how science is the one thing you aren't allowed to be skeptical about in polite society. I remember when that was called fundamentalism.

To be “skeptical about science” as a general method for seeking truth is just foolish. To be skeptical about the specific work of specific scientists is quite wise, and is in fact part of how science works.

[Marenghi]

To be “skeptical about science” as a general method for seeking truth is just foolish. To be skeptical about the specific work of specific scientists is quite wise, and is in fact part of how science works.

This!

BPJ, maybe by accident, made a very good point illustrating the difference: The saturated fat example is mentioned often as proof that "science changes its opinion every couple of years completely to the contrary" (another supposed example of that is "Newtonian gravity was eradicated by Quantum Theory" - no, it wasnt. Apples still keep being attracted to Earths center of mass.).

Actually, the saturated fat example demonstrates quite well BPJs second part of the argument that titles, career paths etc have little meaning.

Instead, it is the empirical evidence gained in studies that (disproves) hypotheses. Because it was mostly theorizing with or without models, and simple medical authority, partyl based on traditionalism, that led to the avoidance recommendations on eggs. Not actual studies done on humans.

The medical associations finally changed their guidelines on grounds of empirical evidence by studies (that showed nutritional cholesterol has little influence on cholesterol levels in most people).

In medicine, it has been a long, hard way to establish evidence based practice, an ongoing struggle against various interests of associations, companies and individual high-influence/authority surgeons.

Generating, critizicing and again generating better evidence is a cornerstone of any evidence-based approach in any field of science.

Fleeing back to authority-based claims, subjective anecdotes, flat-out dismissing scientific evidence because of disdain for the academic system or simply magical, religious thinking or pure traditionalism, is not.

[Cheesepuff]

All right, one last try before you slide into complete ad hominem: You can state your motto as long as you wish, but how do you justify your claim in the face of evidence to the contrary after reading the articles? Because you were shown a dozen of different empirically demonstrated mechanisms there how strength can be specific.

Reading those links, while not a complete waste of time, discusses a much broader topic when referring to "strength training", than we normally mean here. Within the context of what he was talking about, I saw little problem. But applying that to the structural loading model is a very different thing.

You can argue successfully that leg extensions are specific. Many will accept that this is "strength training". I no longer accept this definition. So the difference is semantic.

What is true for a leg extension, may not be true of a Squat or Deadlift as defined here. These are very general adaptations. Can other things be specific, sure.

[Marenghi]

What? Of course a squat or deadlift is affected by the same parameters - you cant have read or understood the articles.

For example, read again about the different central and peripheral neurological adaptations as well as as the different structural changes in the muscles that happen with different velocities are true for any exercise, be it squat of leg extensions or deadlift. This has nothing to do which exercise you prefer in a program.

I think youre confusing a point johnnys made that leg extensions are dumb vs the point that strength is specific.