We'll link to stuff like this.
As we're approaching the time of the year where Sully normally presents his year in review (no pressure, Sully) I thought this Medpage article was pretty timely.
http://www.medpagetoday.com/Blogs/Th...eun=g454351d0r
I know you're not keen on links to other sites, but it's a pretty good read on something that might help people understand how to interpret the results of peer reviewed research a bit better.
In short - if the hypothesis didn't seem likely before the study was performed, the fact the results show an effect doesn't mean the effect is real or that the results could be replicated.
We'll link to stuff like this.
I imagine this link
Starting Strength: Video
will pass muster as well. Sully explains how to parse an exercise science paper, beginning at about 8 minutes if you want to skip the discussion of how the annual papers are selected.
This ongoing requirement for the coaches, the compilation of the literature, the examination of it, the process of methodically sifting through the science - such as it is - of the method detailed in Rip's system, hell, even the presence of such a thing as "the science committee" is one of a few glaring things that set this group head and shoulders above the pretenders.
We're witnessing the leading edge of what is going to become a seriously impactful organization.
Interesting article, but it's the "fraud and bias" part that gets me. I guess there is no way to address that mathematically though...
Good article. If anyone wants to dig deeper, I recommend Ben Goldacre's books.
Coupled with the fact that the vast majority of SS coaches are coaching as many hours as I possibly could. Im going to start switching over too Andy's semi-private model just to be able to fit more people into the schedule. I've been turning away one-on-ones for 2 years now because I'm so booked with people wanting the hands-on learning of our method.
It's a good time to be an SSC.