Follow the Science Follow the Science

starting strength gym
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 13

Thread: Follow the Science

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    North Texas
    Posts
    49,190

    Default Follow the Science

    • starting strength seminar august 2022
    • starting strength seminar october 2022
    • starting strength seminar december 2022
    Remember this bullshit paper? Neither load nor systemic hormones determine resistance training-mediated hypertrophy or strength gains in resistance-trained young men - PMC

    Remember Stuart Phillips, the PI of this "study"? Same guy: Eleven papers corrected after nutrition prof fails to disclose patent, company ties – Retraction Watch

    Eight journals have corrected a total of eleven papers after one of the authors failed to list potential financial conflicts of interest. Two additional journals have also told Retraction Watch that they plan to issue corrections, which will bring the total to 13 or more.

    Stuart Phillips is a professor and director of the Centre for Nutrition, Exercise, and Health Research at McMaster University in Hamilton, Ontario. The corrected studies — which now reflect Phillips’ links to companies or patents — are all related to his research on nutritional supplements and exercise.

    One journal, Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise, issued a single correction for four studies authored by Phillips:

    Dr. Stuart M. Phillips is listed as an inventor on patent (Canadian) 3052324 issued to Exerkine, and a patent (US) 16/182891 pending to Exerkine (but reports no financial gains). Dr. Phillips reports personal fees from Enhanced Recovery (donated to charity), equity from Exerkine (all proceeds donated to charity), outside the submitted work.

    Exerkine is a biotechnology company in Ontario developing therapies for aging, according to its website. Enhanced Recovery is a sports drink containing whey protein, collagen and leucine.

    Together, the corrected articles have been cited at least 72 times, according to Clarivate Analytics’ Web of Science. A study in PLOS ONE — “A whey protein-based multi-ingredient nutritional supplement stimulates gains in lean body mass and strength in healthy older men: A randomized controlled trial” — has been cited 41 times.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Dec 2017
    Location
    America
    Posts
    273

    Default

    With everything going right now..

    “For me the world has always been more of a puppet show. But when one looks behind the curtain and traces the strings upward he finds they terminate in the hands of yet other puppets, themselves with their own strings which trace upward in turn, and so on. In my own life I saw these strings whose origins were endless enact the deaths of great men in violence and madness. Enact the ruin of a nation.”

    Cormac McCarthy in All the Pretty Horses

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Jul 2019
    Posts
    1,960

    Default

    Personal anecdotes are more trustworthy than "peer-reviewed" research at this point.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Dec 2015
    Location
    Boston, MA
    Posts
    632

    Default

    Nice find Rip. Very enjoyable to read this little tidbit, certainly shows how the whole paper mill process works.
    He would be the type to scoff at your book because you are not an academic.

    Thought you would enjoy this from his bio from the university’s website:
    “He was named to Clarivate’s Highly Cited Award in 2018-2021 as one of the top 1% of all cited researchers in physiology and nutrition. He has more than 50,000 citations and an h-index of 121; Stuart M Phillips‬ - ‪Google Scholar

    Literally the very most highly cited researcher in the field. Nothing to see here folks.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Nov 2021
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    62

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by CommanderFun View Post
    Personal anecdotes are more trustworthy than "peer-reviewed" research at this point.
    A person I know objected to the program as I was explaining it to them—that anything that is not evidence-based and peer-reviewed can’t be proven to work and that a program without accreditation from a national institution of experts immediately raises “red flags.”

    That all the successful cases are mere anecdotes, even a million of them!

    It wasn’t a pleasant dinner…

    tl;dr: not everyone shares this point of view

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    North Texas
    Posts
    49,190

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by TommyGun View Post
    Nice find Rip. Very enjoyable to read this little tidbit, certainly shows how the whole paper mill process works.
    He would be the type to scoff at your book because you are not an academic.
    Santana found it. And he's an academic. Kinda.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Jul 2019
    Posts
    1,960

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by John Fioravanti View Post
    tl;dr: not everyone shares this point of view
    Yeah, stupid and deluded people don't. The scientific research apparatus has had a growing corruption problem for decades, and no one's really made strides even halting it much less reversing it. Integrity doesn't make as much money as corruption can.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Jul 2019
    Posts
    552

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by John Fioravanti View Post
    A person I know objected to the program as I was explaining it to them—that anything that is not evidence-based and peer-reviewed can’t be proven to work and that a program without accreditation from a national institution of experts immediately raises “red flags.”

    That all the successful cases are mere anecdotes, even a million of them!

    It wasn’t a pleasant dinner…

    tl;dr: not everyone shares this point of view
    I can understand the need for scientific rigor and the “a million anecdotes aren’t evidence” mantra when it comes to what we accept as a body of knowledge.

    This is especially true when it comes to suspicious claims that aren’t easily repeatable or well understood. I’d demand that level of rigor for a lot of things…

    But SS is highly repeatable, and perhaps one of the most easily reproducible scientific experiments out there. It is literally one of the few things you can hear about at dinner one night, and begin running your own experiment the very next day. I was skeptical when I first heard about it, but I ran my own experiment, and was proven wrong. That’s basic science 101…

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Dec 2015
    Location
    Boston, MA
    Posts
    632

    Default

    I’ll stop after leaving everyone with this. (Full disclosure: maybe I'm just bitter about my paper not making through an absurd peer review board.)

    Read the title of this paper. What full range of motion compound exercise would be used for this study he authored?
    Surely squats or deadlifts….after all this is a funded study with multiple authors at a prestigious academic institution which is published in a reputable journal.

    Low-Load High Volume Resistance Exercise Stimulates Muscle Protein Synthesis More Than High-Load Low Volume Resistance Exercise in Young Men | PLOS ONE
    “Low load high resistance exercise stimulates muscle protein synthesis more than
    High load low volume resistance exercise in young men”

    Of course the answer is unilateral leg extensions. (OK I’m finished. I feel better now.)

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Jul 2019
    Posts
    1,960

    Default

    starting strength coach development program
    Quote Originally Posted by Frank_B View Post
    I can understand the need for scientific rigor and the “a million anecdotes aren’t evidence” mantra when it comes to what we accept as a body of knowledge.

    This is especially true when it comes to suspicious claims that aren’t easily repeatable or well understood. I’d demand that level of rigor for a lot of things…

    But SS is highly repeatable, and perhaps one of the most easily reproducible scientific experiments out there. It is literally one of the few things you can hear about at dinner one night, and begin running your own experiment the very next day. I was skeptical when I first heard about it, but I ran my own experiment, and was proven wrong. That’s basic science 101…
    There is in fact common knowledge that is accepted and based entirely on a wealth of anecdotes. Sticking your bare hand in a fire burns your hand. We did not need an elaborately crafted mengele-esque experiment where people were forced to barbeque their hands under controlled conditions to determine this. We've used the scientific method to understand WHY it burns our hands, but we did not need it to know that it does.

    Science ignoring a wealth of anecdotal evidence seems more anti-science than anything to me. If there is a wealth of anecdotes that cannot be explained by the current body of scientific knowledge, that means science needs to be investigating the fuck out of the phenomenon, not waving it away.

    But this is part of how they use science to craft narratives and push agendas. "No studies have shown X." Well, has anyone even tried running one? How about anyone who doesn't stand to have their own interests significantly impacted by whether X is true or not?

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •