starting strength gym
Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 29

Thread: Venting on Medical Studies

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Location
    Chicago Burbs, IL
    Posts
    1,525

    Default Venting on Medical Studies

    • starting strength seminar april 2024
    • starting strength seminar jume 2024
    • starting strength seminar august 2024
    Your Walking Speed May Be Tied To Your Dementia Risk, Warn Researchers - Study Finds

    In Brain Studies Exercise Studies Health Studies

    Slow Walking speed linked to Dementia Risk.

    Slower walking speed in the elderly may be explained by loss of muscle strength and mass | Physiological Society

    Slower walking speed may be explained by loss of muscle strength and mass.

    Wow, can't these PhD's connect dots?

    N=1
    My walking speed has increased when I gained muscle mass. Who would have guessed that?

    Science is hard!
    Well, whatever you do AVOID HEAVY WEIGHTS, because then you might not need all these medications!

    Question: How do you not just scream when you see this stuff.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jan 2018
    Location
    Tucson, Arizona, USA
    Posts
    72

    Default

    My wife is a scientist at the local university. It's interesting to get her take on so many of these kinds of studies. She's way more optimistic and tolerant (naive?) than I am. I see so many published studies as being products of the diploma mill. They have to do it, but that doesn't mean it's good.

    If it's one thing I learned from Durk Pearson and Sandy Shaw, it's that you have to look at the funding source(s) behind the research.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Jul 2016
    Location
    Memphis, TN
    Posts
    58

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Cheesepuff View Post
    How do you not just scream when you see this stuff.
    Because Dunning-Kruger. When you see someone smart doing something you think is stupid, you're likely making a judgment based on insufficient information.

    misterponytail's wife, the scientist, understands that, which is why she's more tolerant. Non-scientists are probably not competent to pass judgment on the merit of any particular research, which is why you have such luminaries as Sarah Palin snickering about fruit fly research.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Posts
    50

    Default

    I'll posit two alternatives:

    1) If you see someone smart doing something you think is stupid, maybe they actually aren't that smart
    2) If you see someone smart doing something you think is stupid, maybe they really are smart, but their interests and objectives aren't actually what you think they are

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Oct 2017
    Posts
    67

    Default

    I think the OP's point is the conclusions derived in the two example studies seem INCREDIBLY obvious, but maybe just to us. So much as to render the need for study and article pointless, and to question why these very intelligent and educated "experts" don't come out and recommend the "obvious" solutions to problems like reduced muscle mass/strength in old age. I think it's just not obvious to them since most probably never touched a weight before, and doing pointless, obvious studies is easy.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    May 2016
    Posts
    357

    Default

    Its both: Yes, out of the tens of thousands of medical studies published every year, even if only a small %age is crap, you will have hundreds of them to showcase "how bad science is and how stupid those scientists who never have seen a barbell/have had hypertension/have been dieting in their life". Yes, masters thesis want to be written, and PhDs´ as well.

    And misterponytail is also spot on with Dunning-Kruger.

    The thing is: We often can reason by "common sense" what a study confirms. But often, our common sense is not that void of implicit knowledge we have gathered from science. Take the case of CVD: Today, it seems so obvious that applying stress to a muscle as the heart muscle generates adaptation and can lower blood pressure chronically as end result. But how would the common sense of an average medieval man have gone about that? He didnt know about the heart being a muscle, hell, he wouldnt have had a concept of "blood pressure". CVD or stroke would have been just that: A stroke by god as a punishment for your sinful life (not confessing, that is).

    And take one of the greatest common sense explanations in the history of mankind: It is so obvious, can experience it twice a day with your own eyes: how the sun goes round the earth. Centuries and millions of people witnessed that very simple fact. Well, until an Italian Signore proved otherwise.

    Its one cornerstone of science to empirically (dis)prove even the most "obvious" hypothesis to render it likely - or unlikely.

    Lastly, one example of lacking background information (call it Dunning-Kruger, if youre harsher) in sports science: A pretty common theme is to dismiss the exercise selection of a study: "Omg, they dont know anything about strength training - how could they use leg extensions and biceps curls when you have low bar back squats and chin-ups!!!". Well, there is very good reason to use them depending on your study objective: If you want to study the variability of strength or hypertrophy, or want to test different nutrition practises (different sources of protein, protein timing etc), leg extensions and bicep curls have an advantage: They diminish factors you want to get rid off, like coordination.

    Also, strength is specific, that means if you have experienced high bar squatters, they will perform better on high bar squatts, same with low bar and front squatters, respectively. When you investigate beginners, technique variability is even greater. But it doesnt interest you how quick someone learns or is familiar with a specific exercise - when what you want to know is how different protein sources work. In come standardized, easy to perform maximally (even in beginners) exercises like leg extensions.

    ------------------

    When you dont have some background knowledge in sports science, and dont wanna fool yourself (for whatever implicit or explicit reasons) that scientists are all morons, big pharma is corrupting every study, and you couldve checked everything out yourself with common sense as in the "walking depends on muscle mass"-studies, because there are only those kind of simpleton studies, I recommend reading articles targeted to exactly you. Many evidence-based coaches today have very good articles for free (and some pay content of course) with studies referenced, explained, critiqued and applied to practice.

    If youre interested, shoot for the likes of Alan Aragon (for nutrition), Eric Helms, Menno Henselmans (more physique oriented), Chris Beardsley (theory-crafting), Eric Cressey (sports rehab, prehab), Greg Nuckols (strength). Their free content is excellent and offers more than an Easter weekend´s reading.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Philly burbs, USA
    Posts
    653

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Marenghi View Post
    Also, strength is specific, that means if you have experienced high bar squatters, they will perform better on high bar squatts, same with low bar and front squatters, respectively. When you investigate beginners, technique variability is even greater.
    Your premise is wrong and your argument fails to support it. Do you do peer review of these studies?

    Strength is general. Display of strength through a technique dependent movement is less so, particularly with a newb, but it's quite wrong to say strength is specific.

    I never did a front squat until recently, but I've been LBB Squatting for years (I'm in the low 400s for reps). My son has been front squatting at his Jiu Jitsu instructor's suggestion. He was up to almost 2 plates for 5. I had no problem completing his weight + for the same number of reps. If you were correct that couldn't have happened.

    You almost got correct that machine exercises reduce technique dependency to make strength measurement more accurate, but such exercises are a suboptimal way to increase strength themselves, and therefore a suboptimal way to run a study.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    May 2016
    Posts
    357

    Default

    Strength is specific - hypertrophy is far more general.

    Chris Beardsley, whom I listed as a ressource, happens to have written extensively on the subject. And correlations of different strength measurements show that - they are not overwhelming. He does peer-reviewed, yes.

    Recent articles | S&C Research
    Search and find – Medium , for example:
    When *are* strength gains specific? – Chris Beardsley – Medium and
    When are strength gains *not* specific? – Chris Beardsley – Medium
    What is the relationship between muscle growth and strength gains?


    Your front squat example doesnt show your claim: You would need comparable movements, that are not limited by different factors and dont train muscles differently - and above all: not an interindividual ad-hoc comparison in two different people (in studies, randomization into groups with several trainees achieves equal baselines). For example quarter squat group vs parallel squat group after some weeks of training, both tested for quarter and parallel squat.

    I explained that the design of a study serves the object of the study. Therefore leg extensions can be a good exercise depending on the object, I gave some examples.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Philly burbs, USA
    Posts
    653

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Marenghi View Post

    Your front squat example doesnt show your claim: You would need comparable movements, that are not limited by different factors and dont train muscles differently - and above all: not an interindividual ad-hoc comparison in two different people
    I’m pretty sure you’re trolling, so this is just for anyone else who took you seriously.

    My front squat example? YOU cited squats, that’s why I responded - I had a counter-example.

    And, no, I don’t need more than N=1 to refute your false blanket claim. Try again, but you’ll still be wrong.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Location
    Chicago Burbs, IL
    Posts
    1,525

    Default

    starting strength coach development program
    Quote Originally Posted by BPJ View Post
    I'll posit two alternatives:

    1) If you see someone smart doing something you think is stupid, maybe they actually aren't that smart
    2) If you see someone smart doing something you think is stupid, maybe they really are smart, but their interests and objectives aren't actually what you think they are
    Yes this.

    The only edit I would make is to remove the presupposition that this is "someone smart". They may well be, but, In my view they need to prove it, not be granted a waiver.

    To those who doubt my right to an opinion... I offer the composite advice of "experts" to me and my demographic: "do cardio and if you do weights, do light weights for high reps".

    While you may be correct that I "should not have an opinion" it is more true of the "experts" who are demonstrably wrong, and I, of shall we say "limited gifting" happen to be right.

    "Stupid is as stupid does", no matter the excuse. Giving them a pass based on a presupposition of enlightenment, actually makes them look worse.

    It is human nature to discard evidence that contradicts what we "know". (Confirmation Bias) People without the discipline to overcome this tendency should not be referred to as "smart". They lack perspective.

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Posting Permissions

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