Experience vs. Science

[TedB]

Hello Mark,

First of all: Thanks for all you do!

In your experience, when did people start focussing rather excessively on the science of training rather than hard-earned experience?
Whenever I listen to you talk, I realize that you are old-school, meaning you walked the walk before you talked the talk. Your advice is obviously scientifically sound, but you do not try to over-complicate things just for sake of over-complication.

Hope this makes sense, as I know English as a second language only.

All the best,
Ted

[Mark Rippetoe]

People like complicated shit. They perceive it as more valuable than simple shit. Complicated means that complexity can substitute for the hard work that simple shit demands. Complicated exercise science shit became available over the past 30 years with the advent of several new journals developed as publication avenues for exercise "science" departments that grew out of PE departments. In theory, this should have helped, but most of the programs that graduate Exercise Physiology majors lack the academic rigor necessary to generate graduate students of the caliber necessary to support useful research. And useful research must always be directed by experience with the material so that the question being investigated actually makes sense. The proliferation of programs like this guarantees a dearth of experienced people, i.e. people who actually train in the discipline they are investigating, to lead the programs. In our field, there are very few ExPhys department heads that do productive barbell training. This lack of experienced leadership generates the mess we have now in place of useful science, which we have discussed on this board for years. People who worship peer-reviewed journal-published papers as the gold-standard of knowledge in a field are now calling their clinical practice "evidence-based." Sad, because if the literature is shit, your practice will be shit. But it WILL be "scientific."

Practical Programming for Strength Training was written specifically to address this issue. But the silliness persists: http://startingstrength.com/resource...ad.php?t=35591

[TedB]

Thank you for the quick yet detailed reply, Mark.

[spacediver]

Mark, I imagine you come across peer reviewed articles making claims about the squat that run completely counter to your own experience. And I imagine a thought that often goes through your head is something like:

"Did those idiots even know how to get their subjects to squat properly?"

Have you ever been approached by a researcher who is actually seriously interested in studying the squat?

[Mark Rippetoe]

Since Lon has moved to Scotland, never once have I been asked by a researcher any question regarding training.

[SBegetis]

As an Exercise Science Undergraduate Student, I've noticed a lot of the emphasis of the research has been solely on the cardiorespiratory. In lecture when professors refer to resistance training, a lot of them refer to it as "bodybuilding." One Graduate Assistant actually made the bold statement that a long distance runner may need more protein post-exercise than the resistance trainer because "bodybuilding is more about isolating muscles." Right, because the man who just deadlifted 500 pounds isn't going to need as much protein as the cross country athlete (SARCASM). Then I have professors warning against the valsalva maneuver in the hypertensive and elderly, or that weight training increases the afterload on the heart and is dangerous (the former I can understand where they're coming from even though you have Rip have never dealt with that, and the latter I can't consider dangerous: you get a stonger heart.)

Last year when I was only squatting 225x3x5 weighing 183 I generated 1450 watts in the Wingate Test on a Lower body Ergometer for anaerobic power. A year later, weighing 202 lbs and squatting 315x3x5, I generated 1780 in that same Wingate Test. Note that this test is tested on the players at the NHL combine, and yet a simple yet dedicated person squatting twice a week the past year and a half is generating more power than rookieNHL hockey players.

Another example: I weighed 183 for my first VO2 max test for aerobic capacity squatting that 225x3x5. I only got as high as 54.8 ml*kg/min. A semester later, squatting 275x3x5, I got my highest Vo2 Max of 60 ml weighting 195 lbs. Not only did my absolute Vo2 max go up, but it also went up for every kilogram of body weight. The added bodyweight and power from the squatting and deadlifting has made me high up in normative data. And yet on this board I am a scrub compared to the stronger bigger lifters.

My point is that I can attest that deep low bar squatting and regular barbell training will make you a better athlete. Even my mile run might have gone down slightly. What upsets me is when I see college athletes here half-squatting because they don't know any better. I'm the deepest squatter in my weight room, and the mass and weight gain shows when I'm taking a weight and going deeper and out lifting the shallow squatters.

If I pursue a masters degree, I want to PROVE from a "scientific standpoint" that below parallel squatting is how athletes should be trained. If you wanna decrease the injury rate of the athlete, DECREASE THE WEIGHT OFF THE BAR that they CLEARLY CANT TAKE BELOW PARALLEL. What pisses me off the most is how many college strength coaches and college athletes truly believe that as long as they're vertical yet shallow, they're safe so it's okay.

[Jonathon Sullivan]

If I pursue a masters degree, I want to PROVE from a "scientific standpoint" that below parallel squatting is how athletes should be trained.

Start softening up the IRB now.

[tertius]

Start softening up the IRB now.

Good god, yes. Human subjects research. Argh.

[elVarouza]

As a scientist-in-training (PhD student) I'd like to ask people to be cautious about what we're calling "science".

A lot of the articles that get posted on here are not scientific. Here are some things to remember:

1. Science is based from experience. For example, if you have a theory that half squats make you stronger than full squats, but people who full squat are stronger, you must change your theory because it's wrong. If you disregard direct evidence to the contrary that's not science. That's stupid.

2. Results must be somehow quantifiable and reproducible. Again going back to half squats, if your paper says "subjects performed half squats" with no further explanation, that's meaningless. What defines a half squat? Were different variables controlled for, like stance width, toe angle, anthropometry, etc? Were some of the subjects athletes while others were couch potatoes? Questions like these must be addressed for something to be scientific.

3. Where something is published has no bearing on the quality of the research per se. Sure, some journals only accept what they define as cutting-edge, important research. Ultimately, the research must only be judged on its own merits. It doesn't matter if the paper is peer-reviewed or in Nature or Science if it's crap research. The only thing that matters is whether or not the research makes sense and is scientifically sound.

Short version: with most of the stuff being talked about on this board it's not an issue of science vs. experience. It usually appears to be an issue of crap research and "science" vs. experience.

[vhalros]

The term "cargo cult science" comes to mind.