December 26, 2025 • 47 mins
Most people think fitness decisions should be driven by studies alone or by experience alone, and that assumption is hindering progress. In this episode of The Supra Human Show, Ryan Stevens, Dr. Taylor Waters, and Ben Olliver break down how research is actually conducted, why studies are often misinterpreted online, and where real-world coaching experience fills the gaps science cannot. They explain the difference between statistical significance and meaningful results, how context changes whether advice applies to you, and why the best outcomes come from blending evidence, pattern recognition, and critical thinking. If you want to make smarter training and nutrition decisions without getting trapped in absolutes, this conversation gives you a clearer framework for what actually works in real life.
(00:00) introduction
(03:24) Why Studies Are Flawed in Practice
(04:01) “Statistically Significant” vs Real World Significant
(10:05) How One Study Shaped Years of Advice
(14:50) The Real Filter Coaches Use: Adherence and Practicality Beat “Optimal”
(16:13) Why Evidence Is Always Behind Real World Experimentation
(29:00) Coaching Is Science Plus Application
(30:38) The Only Bias That Matters: Results
(38:01) A Perfect Example of Uncontrolled Variables
(39:21) The Practical Rule: Try It, Measure It, Keep What Works if It Is Safe
(45:27) Even Labs Make Mistakes
When it comes to your training or nutrition, are you more evidence based or experience based? leave your answer in the comments.
To learn more about Supra Human programs: https://www.suprahuman.com/pocast
Follow us on Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/suprahumanofficial
Interested in joining the team? We are always looking for high performers to join our mission to achieve elite level performance in fitness, nutrition and mindset. View our current career opportunities: https://www.suprahuman.com/careers
Results may vary depending on your condition, starting weight, and commitment to the program.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
(00:00):
Evidence based versus anecdotal bro science versus real science
debate. People will quote abstracts on
social media posts and things. If you actually go and read the
study, you're like that has no real world practicality or like
clinical significance at all. You could spend 2 weeks with a
pro bodybuilder and you could pick up just as good quality
(00:23):
information than if you went andread a textbook and looked at
all the research on certain topics.
This is why like I, I don't think you should be one way or
the other. I always say like the only thing
we're biased towards is results.I'm Ryan Stevens.
Doctor Taylor Waters, I'm Ben Oliver.
Welcome to the Superhuman show, Yeah?
(00:44):
Evidence based versus anecdotal.This is the the bro science
versus real science debate, which is now is never ending on
social media. So, you know, I, I, I really
like this one because we all come from an academic background
(01:07):
doctor, a low academic background, a low academic
background, master's degrees. So we've, we've experienced just
by 1%, one of those pass. But so we, we, we've experienced
the evidence based side, you know, as close as you can get.
Like obviously, obviously when you do a master's degree or a
(01:28):
PhD, you have to do a dissertation where you, you are
carrying out a study, whether it's to do with training or
nutrition or whatever, the psychology, psychology, whatever
nonsense you've ended up. And so you know, you, you get
first hand experience of like, well, how, how are these studies
(01:50):
actually done? And, and anyone that's done an
undergrad or, or a master's degree or a PhD, you do a module
called research methods, which is all the statistical analysis
and the different analysis that you can do based on the study
that you're carrying out. And I can't remember a single
thing about it. And I hated research methods.
(02:12):
Honestly, it's so hard. There's a book out like
Statistics for Dummies or something, and then you've got
like some influencer. There's Bailey made school, like
trying to interpret it. Come on.
And and so. What was the the SPSS one?
It was like, oh, it's the white book.
I come up with a guy's name now,but I remember my my professor
gave it to me and was like, because I didn't do that much
(02:33):
statistics until masters level. So I'd almost try and play catch
up. So she gave me this at this
SSPSS Buck was like, that's likewritten as like a real like, you
know, you'll be able to understand it.
Just read now. It's like algebra, yeah.
You know, it's that when it's a book, so.
And then you see someone doing it on a board with a pen.
Yeah, there's some guys who are doing it like literally on a
board. I'm like, I've got this book and
(02:54):
a software and I still can't do it.
So. Just for anyone that doesn't
know, all of the SPSS is almost looks like an Excel document in
on your computer, but it's specifically used for
statistical data analysis. And so going going through that,
I kind of one, it gives you the appreciation of what actually
goes into a study, but it also highlights how many flaws there
(03:18):
can be and how many variables that you can't, you can't
control within a study. And really all of the
conclusions based on probability.
Yeah. Like there's, there's nothing
that kind of outright says this thing does this thing, it's it's
all based on, on probability or significance.
And so one, one thing which you'll see if you look at any,
(03:41):
any study, you know, to do with like nutritional training, or I
mean, it might be any study, butthe, you'll, you'll see
something called AP value, whichis basically a math equation,
which if the value is less than a certain number, which is what
nought .05 is 10, then it means it's statistically significant
(04:04):
difference. And if it's more than that, then
it's not the issue. The biggest issue that I've had
with it is people will look at pub Med abstract and it would
say like the group that took creatine significantly improved
their bench press compared to the group that didn't.
And in real world day-to-day, when you use the word
(04:26):
significant, generally speaking,you think big difference.
Like if, if, if I said John is significantly taller than me,
then you would go he's pretty a lot taller than you probably got
510 where where? Yeah, yeah, it was five, 510
1/2. But when you're looking at
statistical analysis in like AP value of significance, you would
(04:49):
read a study and it would say, oh, they significantly like, you
know, improve their bench more than the group that didn't.
But when you look at the actual data, it might be like the group
without creating benched 60 kilos.
The group that took creating benched 61 1/2 kilos.
And so statistically it's different.
But you know, in the real world,they could have just been on a
good day. And, and so people will quote
(05:11):
abstracts on social media posts and things and they'd be like,
oh, the group that took this supplement significantly
decreased this or whatever. And then if you actually go and
read the study, you're like, that has no real world
practicality or like clinical significance at all.
And so I, I think the, the evidence based crowd a lot of
(05:32):
times don't come from academic backgrounds.
There's some that do, you know, you've got guys like Eric Helms,
Brad Schoenfeld, Alan Aragon, Lane Norton, like they've all
they've all done their PhDs and or master's degrees.
They've carried out studies themselves.
And they also have a very good when they talk about their
studies, they're the first ones to call out their limitations
(05:54):
and they'll say like, you know what, we're not saying this
thing is this will absolutely dothis.
It's like we couldn't control this and we could only do this
so based on that you can form form your your educated opinion.
There's different levels of research as well, so like metro
analysis and stuff like that not.
Like your gold standard? Yeah, you've got like your gold
standard. I remember my my old mentor
Trevor used to say, if it's not a meta analysis or a systematic,
(06:18):
systematic review, he's like, I don't even look at it.
And that's the point that I've got to now.
Yeah, because that's it like people like quote the study and
it's like only one study with like two people participate in
like 1951. Or or it'll be a it'll be a rat
study. Yeah, over 2 weeks.
Yeah, or it would say the, the first like 2 words would say in
vitro, which basically means in a, in a test tube or like a
(06:40):
simulator. And so it's like that's like the
lowest level of study and, and so I, I think.
It's also the way that they thatthey define certain things.
So like, for example, like what measure are they taking?
So like sometimes they'll say, oh, this person increased muscle
size, but like, what measure will you take in for muscle
(07:00):
size? And then you realize, oh, well,
the measure that they're taking is not a true reflection anyway.
By their eye. He looks, Yeah.
It's like they've. So it's like not even the
measure that they're looking at is a true reflection of what
what you would look at. And so if it says it increases
muscle size, you think I can look at it and it's an increased
muscle. Yeah.
Because or not they took it fromlike a scan inside the muscle
cell and you're like, oh, OK. Well, yeah.
(07:22):
Or if it's on body fat, it's like what they use to test body
fat in body, right? Well, that's useless then.
So it's like there's, there's loads of like, but you don't
look until you read the full study, which takes 30 minutes to
an hour. Like to really break it down.
Like even for a smaller study it's it's very hard to use as a
(07:43):
reference. In order to be, you know,
evidence based, like when you look at like the guys who are
really strong in, in that area, like Elaine Norton, like a Alan
Aragon, people like that, it's they understand it enough that
they can critique the study as well.
And I remember go going through my PHDI always remember that
what that's what I found the hardest, because you almost
(08:04):
whoever's written the study, youput that on a pedestal a little
bit and you're like, oh, I thinklike this is they're obviously
good. They're publishing work.
They're going to be. And then once you do go down
that publishing route, you realise actually there's again,
there's massive degrees into like quality of research that
gets published as well. So and then what?
Once you've got to a certain standard, then you can critique
(08:26):
these papers and be like, OK, this was the finding that they
had. However, looking at the methods,
these are the limitations. It was only X amount of time.
The population was small. Like, but these people who often
claim to be evidence based don'thave that understanding whereby
they can critique a study. So they just take every single
study they read at face value. Yeah, like there's the one.
(08:50):
What's the the supplement? Oh, they use it.
It's like a fat loss supplement.You can't buy it in the UK.
Ephedrine. No.
Oh, you see a lot of the bodybuilders using it.
It's like a tree bark or you're you're him buying.
Yeah, like there's that one study on football players for
(09:11):
like 6 weeks and like it mobilizes fat in harder to reach
areas. So again, for example, it's
like, well, you might have body fat.
Ironic the hip area, which doesn't come off quite as easy
as like the run. Down and stuff.
So and it's like, so therefore it increases fat loss.
No, it might mobilize fat from those areas, but if you continue
(09:32):
to lose fat, it's going to come off those areas anyway.
So it's like again, but people go off that one study and now
like every bodybuilder is addingit to their stack.
And it's like like that one study is was AI would say quite
low, low quality study. The, the biggest one was the, I
mean, this is probably 15 to 20 years ago when creating, maybe
(09:57):
even longer when it started to become popular as a supplement.
You had to creatine loading stage, which was you take 20
grams a day for like the first week and then you drop it to 5g.
And that was like a staple for everyone.
And so I know I'm in the loadingstage of my creatine and I think
it was one of my, one of my lecturers and my undergrad said
the reason that whole loading stage even became a thing was
(10:22):
one of the first guys that was researching creatine.
No one in the US was willing to be a participant because they
knew what it was. And it was Russian athletes that
were willing to try it, obviously, because they'll do
anything. But he could only get a week
visa to Russia. And so he was like, well, if I'm
only there for a week, I'll fucking slam it.
(10:43):
And so he gave them all 20 grams.
And so like, that's where the loading phase came from.
It was just, he only had seven days with those athletes.
So he just loaded up. But then that turned into like,
you know, for 10 years, it was like, you've got to load your
creatine because of this and that.
And it's like you like you've you've extrapolated that from a
study and you didn't know the reasoning behind it at all.
(11:04):
Yeah. It's like you can cherry pick
studies for your own benefit, can you?
But also like people, what people don't realize you can
come down to who the study was funded by as well.
Yeah. Do they have, do they have like
a bias in like they're actually trying to prove something, you
know, So you have to take the research like a pinch of salt.
And that's why systematic reviews matter.
Analysis. If you are going to go off the
research, they're probably a better better another.
(11:24):
Huge one in fitness is the the untrained and trained.
So it's oh, this person, this increased muscle in these.
Yeah, they're untrained. Like they can, they can just
walk in a gym and they're going to add a little bit of muscle to
their frame. There was a, there was a really
good one. You could probably, you probably
still find the study online, butit was and because we went
(11:46):
through it on my master's degree, it was a group of men
who basically gained muscle and lost fat over like a, it was
like an 8 or 12 week period. But the numbers that they were
churning out was like gained 8 lbs of muscle and lost 12 lbs of
fat. And I'm like, get the fuck out.
(12:08):
Like that's nonsense. And then when you look closer,
it turns out the people that they used were ex NFL athletes.
They'd like to train. So what they did is they
regained a small percentage of lost muscle that they had for 20
years and they lost some, they lost some timber, but they, and
they were also like mid 200 lbs,like they were like beefy boys.
(12:31):
And so they didn't build new muscle tissue during that time.
They just, they, they stopped eating like a full time athlete
because they were retired. And so it's like, well, that's
that's not practical for anyone.Because if you if the fact that
you're in the NFL, you're in thepoint not, not 1% of genetics
anyway. So yeah, it's.
And that's why context is so important, yeah.
(12:54):
Yeah, but the, and then and thenwhen you get on the training
studies, like it's like a new thing.
I don't know if it's just click bait now on social media where
you've got like the skinny kids and they're like, you know,
they've got like a strap around their midsection, their arm to
to brace their arm. And they're like, you know, this
is the most optimal tricep extension you can do.
And it's like you've got no tricep and and then meanwhile
(13:14):
you've got hundreds of thousandsof meathead bodybuilders, like
natural and not natural that have just been doing the
standard pushdowns, extensions, skull crushes with massive
triceps. Yeah.
And then they're kind of like, see, if you look at this pro
bodybuilder, if he did 2 sets rather than 8, he'd be so much
bigger. And it's like, who were you to
critique? Like you've, you've not walked
(13:35):
the path yet. And like that's I, I think some
of it is just clickbait to get views and things because it's,
it has to, because it's just absurd.
It's that stuff blows my mind. As you said, it has to be like
there's one guy who's got his arm in a foam roller.
Yeah. So he can't bend his.
He can't. Bend his elbow.
And he's doing like a like a fly.
Or something. Yeah, he's, he's got a cuff.
(13:57):
Yeah, he's got a cuffed side lateral, but cuff on.
Holding a handle. Holding a handle and his arm in
like a tube inside. Loud.
But it's but it's like. Sure, and he's got like doubts.
Like a mouse. And he's using, but he's using
the cuff and then the handle is attached to nothing.
And he's like, well, you know, this study showed that by
squeezing, you're going to engage these.
It's like just put the fucking handle on the thing then.
(14:19):
And it's, but it's, it's like, so it's, it's so over the top.
Like I'm like, this has to be like comedy.
Like it has to it has to I. Wonder what the likes of like
Ronnie Coleman, Doreen, nature stuff think of this stuff.
I don't. I don't think they look at it,
no. I think it's just yeah.
And this is it in like true evidence base has to come from
like your personal experience plus like, and also all the
(14:40):
results you've got consistently plus what the research says.
Like one of my things that always say like the best thing I
learned was like theory to practice.
How do I apply it in real life? And how does it does it even
matter in real life significantly?
Well, because again, and the, the number one thing that we
look at with in coaching is adherence.
And so even if there was a perfect study, even though
there's no such thing that showed, let's just say, eating
(15:04):
200 grams of raw beef first thing in the morning, like,
like, you know, ramped up your test levels, you know, increased
muscle building by 25%, whateverit is, how many people are
actually going to do it consistently till they're like,
I really don't want to have raw beef for breakfast.
And it's like, right. So no one's going to do it
(15:25):
anyway. And, and so you have to look at
the, the practical implications of it, regardless of how good
the study is. And so I think that's one thing
that people miss all the time. It's like whether it's optimal
or not, can you eat, Could you even do it?
You know, even if someone said 400 grams of protein today is
better than 200, people can't doit because I feel bloated, I
feel gassy, my food bill is through the roof.
(15:47):
I'm sick of chicken. Like right.
So it's irrelevant anyway. But I think the with the
evidence base, evidence based isalways going to be behind
because someone has to have tried something for someone to
go. We should study that and see if
that is actually the case. And so even with things like
(16:07):
peptides and stuff, which is allthe craze now, they've been
around for 20 years, like bodybuilders have been
experimenting with that shit, you know, in, in the 90s.
It's only now that, you know, because the markup and margins
are so good. And it's, you know, it was
Psalms a couple of years ago andnow it's peptides and it'd be
something else, you know, for the next couple of years.
But I I think the like people that are just trying to solely
(16:31):
go by evidence based, you'll always be left behind from the
guys that have that are like daring to explore and experiment
and try different things. They're on the.
Battlefield. Yeah, I tell you what, we're in
behind on the arm in the foam roller, and they're holding her
hand attached. Nothing.
No one's trying out. Sure.
Enough, but then? But then no.
One's reaching no. And then you and then you have
like the anecdotal side, which isn't, but like you could say
(16:55):
this is the bro science side. But at the like all anecdotal
means is essentially I haven't controlled all the variables in
a, in like a laboratory study setting and done accurate
analysis of it. Or maybe I don't have enough
people to prove it. Or maybe you do, but it's just
you're not controlling variables.
(17:17):
It's almost like an an observation, isn't it?
It's an observation study. Yeah, yeah.
And it's like, I remember part of my part of my PhD was on this
and it was like I was doing qualitative analysis and you're
almost trying to, within the study highlight.
Obviously there's, if I'm interpreting the information,
there is bias there. There's my own and I can, I can
(17:39):
use all the correct methods to try and limit the bias.
However, there's always going tobe biased because it's my
interpretation. So then what you're going to do
is map out then, OK, well, how would someone like mind me,
interpret that information and what are the limitations then?
So, you know, you would say like, I am a fitness person
observing older people in a carehome, for example.
(18:02):
And it's like, so how would a person in their 20s observe
someone who is at that age and what benefits does that have and
what cons does that have? So it's like, you've got to
understand where those limitations are.
So it's like, again, if you're someone again, let's just choose
you, for example, you've trainedfor a long time, you you've got
a good base understanding of lifting weights, of nutrition,
(18:25):
of all of saps. So when you go into a gym and
observe what's going on around you, I would say you're in quite
a good position to observe thesethings and make interpretations
from where you're at because you've got a good idea of what's
going on. But if you put a complete newbie
in a gym, I won't observe what'sgoing on around you.
I haven't got a clue. Yeah.
(18:45):
So it's like there there are benefits to the observational
type stuff as well. You just have to get.
You have to understand the limitations to an observation as
well. Yeah, I think the with the
anecdotal side, a lot of times the it's, it's correlation, not
causation. And understanding why something
(19:06):
is happening is is normally the thing that's been lost.
But then you could also argue it's like if it's if it's
delivering the outcome that you desire.
Who gives a shit? Like in it and and so it's like.
Especially if you've seen it multiple times as well.
Yeah, it's like you've got confidence to say.
When when there's a pattern. Yeah, there's a pattern.
It's like, oh, I'm pretty confident there's something here
to look more in depth. Yeah, I don't know why X = y,
(19:30):
but every time I do, XY happens,Yeah.
So if I keep doing XI should look at what I've seen continue
to get Y. You.
You. Could do an example of like say
like you with, with your busy clients that are traveling quite
a lot. Let's just say one of the most
common things you have them do is have a protein shake for
breakfast because it's convenient, it's practical, you
(19:51):
know, gets jumps on their protein and they all get great
results. Like you could say anecdotally,
when I put a protein shake with these guys, like they always get
better results than the guys that don't do the protein shake.
And if I go why, you could be like, well, it could be they're
actually hitting their protein target for the day.
Because they're getting a head start on it and they're actually
sticking to it. You could say, you know, whey
(20:15):
protein in the morning has been shown to do XY and Z and it's
like, well, that might be the reason, but maybe not.
And so there's, there's loads oflike assumptions you could go
down as to why that's working. And this is where people might
be like, you know, by ingesting 50 grams of whey protein isolate
in the morning, your metabolism does this, the thermic effect
does this, whereas you'll go, But if they do that, they're
(20:38):
like, they're actually going to have breakfast and protein.
And if, if I don't give them a shake, they don't eat breakfast.
And then they're always behind on their protein intake.
And so it's, it's like, it's the, the why behind it, which I
think a lot of people get confused on.
But then also like, you don't need to go.
I need to find a study to prove this before I can do this with
my clients. When it's like, I've seen it
(20:59):
time and time again. When I use this thing, they tend
to get good results. Like I I found if I really ramp
up protein intake with my clients in a fat loss phase they
lose fat faster and that's and if again I wouldn't go well
thermic effect of protein is is causing XY and Z.
I'd say they eat less shit like because I I just eat as much
(21:20):
lean protein as you. Can I must see in that study?
Yeah, yeah, there you go. Ben ET al.
But they, but, but it's if I like perfect example is you
know, my client, my client ScottHall, where when I first started
working with him, he's an ex lineman in football.
So he was, I think he was like 2around 280 lbs.
And we started working together.So it's like he's, he's trained
(21:42):
himself to be able to eat six 7000 calories a day.
And so when we first started, I remember I put his protein
intake at like 350 grams a day and it's.
Windy. He's in Texas, but it was it
was, you know, you won't find, Ithink it's like 1 protein study
(22:02):
by like what's his name, San Antonio, something where it was
like 4.4g per kilogram and he's oh, they didn't gain fat, you
know, and they were ate as much protein as they wanted, blah,
blah, blah. But the reason why I did it was
if I just get him eating lean steak and chicken all day, he's
less likely to eat loads of other stuff, which is going to
(22:24):
put him way over his calorie intake.
Like there's no evidence, like studies to support that, but
I've just seen time and time again with clients, if I have
them just really push the protein, they tend to be really
satiated. Their blood sugar is probably
more stable. They're they're like they're
eating higher volume foods. They're thinking about like
(22:47):
sugary carbs and fats and thingsless.
So they keep their calories in check.
And, and so like there's, there's things that you pick up
from working with people in the real world, like in in the
trenches kind of thing where it,it's hard to, when you look at
it on paper, you're like that. Why would you do that like on
set without knowing the context?Like you said, you could say
(23:11):
who's your coach? He's an idiot.
Like why does he put your protein intake so high?
And then when you understand thecontext, they'll go, that makes
complete sense. And, and so that's why I do like
the anecdotal evidence. If you can rationalize it in a
practical way, I think it has massive validity.
But so, so This is why, like I, I don't think you should be one
(23:32):
way or the other. Like, yes, like you should lean
on the evidence and, and the systematic reviews and, and
things like that. But I wouldn't just pigeonhole
yourself to that because it willnever allow you to go.
Let me just try something that'sa bit out there which may work
really well with these clients because they can actually stick
(23:52):
to it and. And still follow the kind of
fundamentals of the evidence like that you've looked at like
calorie intake and protein and stuff.
It is evidence though. Like we had this conversation
before we start recording. It's like anecdotal evidence is
still evidence. Like it's not, It's not.
You can't make like a full conclusion based off it, but
it's like it can give me some direction and it can get me an
(24:13):
outcome. It's like a really good area
where I see this now is researchon anabolic use.
And it's like, I'm seeing these studies pop up and I'm like,
hey, we. And then, oh, we've, we've,
we've discovered this. I'm like, my bodybuilders
discovered that in gyms 15 yearsago.
And you're so far behind. So if now you were a coach in
(24:36):
that field and you would just goin off the scientific evidence,
you're years behind. You're, you're well over a
decade behind people because there's people in there who have
been doing this. Like if you told that to someone
who is an actual expert in the field now, people like, yeah,
like we've been doing that for years.
Like we've we've figured this out a long, long time ago.
I mean, and it's like he didn't need to.
(24:58):
He's they'll both get to the endpoint, but one of them has got
their way faster because he's not trying to go through all
these random studies. He's just trialing things out,
trying things out and making adjustments.
And they're both going to get tothe end at the same time.
It's just one of them's having to publish all these studies on
the way to try and prove things that you could have just gone
down and asked and asked, you know, Juice head Steve.
And he, yeah, he would tell you that, Yeah.
(25:20):
It's, I mean I don't know if there is any studies, but like
another one say with clients that are using like TRT or or
the Mexican, the Mexican thing again, if you look at like say
testosterone and Anthony like has a half life of what five to
seven days, 7 to 9 days, something like that.
So based on that, the recommended administration is
(25:42):
once 2 times per week. But we've seen time and time
again, anecdotally, when you split the dose across five to
six shots per week, testosteronelevels tend to be more stable.
Side effects tend to be minimized.
Like you can use a smaller injection pin, which is from a
practical standpoint, it allows people to do it for longer
because they're not have to use these fucking horse tranks to,
(26:05):
to use their injections. And so if all you looked at was
like, no, no, but the half life is this.
Therefore you only need to do ittwice a week.
So yeah, but I've seen so many times that by splitting it more
often, people get less side effects, They feel better, their
levels are more stable. Like there probably is some
research behind it, but I haven't looked at it.
But I've just, I've experienced that and loads of clients have
(26:27):
experienced that. So it's like, well, am I going
to blanket recommend it to everyone?
No, but if they're experiencing something which I've seen time
and time again doing two shots aweek, I might go try splitting
that up between 5:00 or 6 and you and you might find this.
And and so like there's, there'ssome stuff that you're going to,
you're going to find with nutrition, with training that
(26:49):
really there's no evidence to support it in the in, in, in, in
pub Med or the literature, but you know that it works like leg
curls before back squat. Like I don't think there's any
studies that that show like an increase in performance in your
back squat by doing leg curls first.
But we found with loads of clients and ourselves, your
(27:10):
knees feel way better when your hamstrings are full of blood.
Doesn't pre fatigue you like your quads or anything.
So you can still squat like optimally, but your knees feel
feel way better. So it's it's like now am I going
to program leg curves before back squat for every single
client? No, but if someone goes my knees
really hurt when I squat. I'm like try doing leg curves
first, might might feel a bit better.
(27:32):
I think one of the one of the biggest issues, like people
these days as well, like who lean heavily into the research
is almost a bit like a badge of owner.
It's like, oh, I'm that excited.Go by the research where you,
you don't go by evidence. You go by like anecdotal where
it's like true evidence based. It's like what we spoke about
context, anecdotal research and how do I, how do I apply that?
You know, it's almost like they feel like they're battling you,
the superior they read 1. Study, yeah, it's like you take
(27:54):
all that knowledge, you interpret it as good as you can
and then you make informed decisions based off all that
information that you've got. Whereas like, again, someone who
just they only go down one Ave. as you've got, you're just
limiting yourself. You've got one pathway that you
can get the information from andit's like, and if it's not and
if it's not on that pathway, then I'm not going down there.
And it's like there's so much more things you like, you just
(28:16):
like, you know, we spoke about it's like science versus
stories. Like you could spend 2 weeks
with a pro bodybuilder and just have open discussion and he can
tell you about his life, his experiences in the gym, his
cycles that he's done, his phases that he's done, the
injuries that he's had. And you could pick up just as
(28:38):
good quality information from sitting there listening to
hidden telling you stories. Then if you went and read a
textbook and looked at all the research on certain topics, it's
like there's benefits to both. Just removing one as like bro
science, it's nonsense. It's like, again, there is bro
science that's nonsense. Just like we've listed, there's
(28:58):
published articles that are alsononsense.
But it's like you have to look at the information and interpret
it yourself and then apply that.And again, if it works, great,
keep doing it. If it doesn't, you can leave it.
So they say done it is like is coaching a science or not?
And it's like, you know, it is ascience, but it's how you apply
that in real life that like that's where the real results.
Come from, I think like the bestskill that you can learn is just
(29:22):
the ability to think critically.And, and that's what that's not
just with studies, it's with your own habits, beliefs,
perceptions. Like you, you should always be
good at arguing against yourself.
Like if someone was going to debate me on something, it's
like, well, if I was going to argue against my point, what are
the things that I would bring upto try and give pushback?
(29:44):
And if I can still rationalize it and win that argument, it's
like, you've probably got a decent point there.
Whereas if I could think of one thing against myself and be
like, oh, like, yeah, that I mean, that falls apart, then
it's like, maybe it, maybe I'm not right there, but I, I think
people are afraid of being wrong.
And and also again, they, you'realways going to have
confirmation bias with like looking at studies, if you want
(30:07):
to believe that a higher proteinintake is going to allow you to
build more muscle, you will findstudies to support that.
If you want to believe that a vegan diet is better than a meat
based diet, you will find studies to support that.
Like you'll be able to find studies that will back any claim
that you want to make, but that doesn't like at the end of the
day, I would go, have you got the results that you're looking
for? Because the answer is no.
(30:29):
Then it's like, well, then you need to start thinking more
critically because you're going to keep bashing your head
against the same wall expecting for a different result.
And so I think it's like I always say, like the only thing
we're biased towards is results.Like I don't give a shit if
someone's vegan or carnival, whatever.
Like I I care about them gettingthe results that they're after
in a practical and as safe as possible way.
(30:50):
But like, I, I think as soon as you start to pigeonhole yourself
between like, I only look at evidence based, I only go by
anecdotal, you know, because you, you will have guys that
will go study some nonsense. It's like, well, they're not
nonsense, but it's, it's again, because they've probably had one
debate against someone which hascalled them out on some bullshit
that they've said. And that person is probably
(31:10):
right. But they're like, I don't, I
don't like, doesn't feel good when I'm wrong.
And also, they've seen a scientist who's like a
researcher in anatomy and Physiology or whatever speak
about and he's got no muscle. Yeah.
So it's everything he says is stupid.
It's like, no, you might understand it quite well.
He just doesn't like training very much.
Yeah. It's like, And then there's the
other end where it's like a guy who's absolutely jacked, talking
(31:33):
complete nonsense. And then the scientists been,
oh, he didn't know what he's talking about.
Like, well, he's. He's done something he's.
Done something right, so he he'snot worth ignoring.
Like you can still listen to himand then you can listen to both
of them and then use that information.
But they almost like feel like you're either one or the other.
Like science is nonsense. And if you haven't got any
muscle or you're not in shape, then you have no leg to stand
(31:55):
on. And if you or if you don't
understand the research and the size, you have no leg to stand
on. And it's like, no, no.
Everyone, it's a massive grey area.
But really, they should both come together and have a
conversation, and they were bothlearning something from each
other. Yeah, yeah.
So, yeah, there was a, there wasa really good, this was years
and years ago. There's a bodybuilder called
Dave Pochinella Palumbo, Dave Palumbo palumbo.
(32:18):
But the Dave Portionella was theguy that liked the six foods
that work like that guy and like, you know, very bro
science. But you know, he got shredded,
you know, for for his shows and a he got called out by a YouTube
and I think the YouTube channel was something like ice cream
fitness or something. And the, the, the YouTube was
(32:39):
like skinny guy with glasses, nomuscle, like he never trained in
his life. And he was basically was saying
meal frequency doesn't matter. Like you, it doesn't matter
whether you eat once a day or six times a day.
Six meals a day does not speed up your metabolism.
And Dave was a six meal a day guy.
And so they had an in person debate and it basically come
down to Dave was saying like what you're saying is correct.
(33:02):
However, when you're a large bodybuilder needing to eat 6000
calories a day, you cannot practically do it in two meals
or three meals. That's why we do 6 meals a day.
Like, so you do 61000 calorie meals.
And so it's like, both of us arecorrect.
Like This is why we do it. But like, and obviously if you
(33:22):
eat 6000 calories a day, your metabolism is probably going to
be faster when you're not eating6000.
But also, yeah, you could theoretically do it in one meal
a day, but practically speaking,you're going to feel fucking
terrible. And so it was, it was like this
like real world experience versus there's no study that
supports 6 meal a day is beneficial compared to like one.
(33:43):
Yeah. But then you've got a massive
yolk to go being like, you can'tget this big without eating like
frequent meals. And, and but it was it was a
really like, it was a constructive debate, like,
because Dave was very, very intelligent.
Yeah. And it wasn't like, like, like
just a bro, but it was, it was like a good debate.
But I thought it was a really good example of like you've got
one guy that is pure evidence based, like the Lion McDonald
(34:05):
kind of guy, and then you've gotthe bro and but is educated as
well. And so it was.
It was quite interesting. Think of.
Context was missing there, isn'tit?
You know. Think of just that example now.
It's a really good way of looking at it.
Whereas like say now someone is trying to eat 6000 calves a day.
If they did try and do it in twoor three meals, the chance,
well, there's a potential outcome that they are absolutely
(34:29):
stuffed. Therefore they don't want to be
very active or their training intensity drops down like
they're in like a carb coma whereby they want to have a nap.
Therefore, when you look at their total energy expenditure
at the end of the day, it is less, they haven't moved as
much. So therefore their metabolic
rate, their metabolism has gone down because they're now moving
less. And it's not because of the
(34:49):
meals directly, it's just stuffing that much food.
And whereas if you're eating 61000 calorie meals and you can
digest them much better and you feel good digesting them, you're
up and about, you're moving, your training performance is
better. You're so it's up.
Well, now it is having a positive effect and it's not
again, we, we had this conversation on the on the power
out the other day. It's not direct, but like there
(35:09):
is something to be said for it. It's not, although you know,
there's not a study showing the oh, but when someone changed
their meals to six, this happened.
But that is a potential outcome.So it's like, again, it's it's
you don't need a study to prove something.
You can just trial and error it and still figure it out.
And I think that's where a lot of it with fitness is like you,
they feel like they need a studyto prove something, to show it's
(35:33):
true. But it's like, well, if again,
if you just keep trial and errorin it and it seems to be a
consistent theme, it's like theywill.
There's some truth. To this you, I mean you have
like the three, I think, I thinkall right, you have like the
three variables. You have like the independent
variable, the thing you're, you're testing the dependent
variable, which is like your standard group.
And then you have confounding variables which are like, we
(35:54):
don't have control over these things.
You can never control all of theconfounding variables.
Like most. If you look at any nutrition
study, if it says self reported intake, you may as well just
wipe your ass with it because it's like we've we've again and
you can look at other studies with tracking and you could say
people under report their intakeup to 50%.
And so it's like, well, how are we going to look at?
(36:15):
And I, and I, and I've seen thisfirst person when I was doing my
master's because the majority ofguys in my group were Oxford
Brooks rowers. And they were all taking part in
certain nutrition studies. And I would see them eating shit
that wasn't part of the study. And I'm like, aren't you doing
that? Like you're supposed to be
(36:36):
tracking that. And he's like, yeah, whatever.
And it's like, well, how many studies are like this?
Where? And I would ask them, like, what
is your diet? And he's like, anything I can
get my hands on. It's like, I need like 5000
calories a day. I was like, what do you eat for
dinner at Domino's? It's like, I'm a student like,
and we get, we get all the dealsfor Domino's Pizza.
And I'm like, but you're supposed to be like an elite
athlete tracking these things for this study.
(36:58):
And they're like, yeah, whatever.
We just lie about it. Yeah.
And so it's like, how, how many,how much does that go on?
Yeah. Like with with the supplement
studies with any like anything where you're not setting a lab
and being monitored 24/7, peoplewill make shit up.
And look at the variables there in fitness, like sleep.
Look at the sleep differentials between people, sleep quality
(37:18):
between people, the hydration levels between people, the
ability to train hard, self reporting their nutrition, like
all these things. And again, how we've been
measuring all those things. Is it all self self reported?
So self reported sleep, self reported water, self reported
diet, self reported training. Not like looking at actual.
So all these things moving at the same time.
(37:38):
It's so hard to really dial in astudy to show this caused this
because there's so many other living parts.
Another one we did was beetroot supplementation and I think, I
think we were using, oh, it was like a repeated Wingate or
something because that what, what is the benefit?
It's like nitric oxide or something.
(38:00):
It's like a basil dilator or something.
But like we were doing like a repeated Wingate and let's take
Cialis. Yeah, yeah, the, the first one
we did. And I guess again, this is like
the variables that you can't control.
First when we did, we did in theafternoon.
And so I was one of the participants.
So I got to university. Obviously that morning I had a
(38:20):
day's worth of food and hydration and I was feeling
pretty good. I did the first Test, Second one
we had to do in the morning. This was like, I think the
temperature dropped massively inthe lab was freezing.
I got there first thing in the morning.
I'd only had a coffee, and I also didn't have time to warm up
because they were behind schedule.
And so my performance dropped bythe beetroot supplementation.
(38:42):
But it's like, well, I slept like shit, I was up at 3:00,
I've had a coffee, I've had no food, I'm dehydrated and my legs
are cold. And so it's like you're, you're
and then, and then you've got fifty participants where they've
got all of those variables goingin as well.
And then so it's like, oh, we looked at this study and this
supplement causes, it's like, you have no idea.
Like half the students could have been out on the piss last
(39:03):
night. And you don't know.
And and so like with all like supplement studies and things,
if you're not monitored in the lab 24/7 like you are, your
conclusion is maybe this thing might do something.
We don't know. Like go and try pretty much it.
Like Go. Try yourself.
That's like. Creatine.
Some people are like, oh, shouldI take creatine?
And I'm like, well, there is some evidence out there because
(39:26):
if someone said, shall I eat a cactus?
I'm like, well, no, there's no evidence to suggest a cactus
helps. But it's like, should I take
creatine? Well, there is some evidence.
So buy it, try it. If you're happy with the
outcome, keep taking it. If you're not, stop taking it.
I'm like there like there's, there's your evidence.
I would literally look at it as like, is there any reports of
like negative, like health outcomes?
(39:49):
And if there isn't, you know, I think there's like a small
percentage of people that take creatine that might shit their
pants. But like aside from that, you
know, and again, it's like, yeah, yeah, just a day in the
office. But even with that, it's like,
OK, you might take it and have aa bad bow day.
Then you stop taking it, you're not going to die.
Like you're going to be fine. And and so like with any
(40:10):
supplements that I'm like, try it.
So you like because because placebo effects are still
effects. Yeah.
And so even if like I've been taking this pre workout workout
to been awesome, that pre workout could literally be
Ribena, you know, or, or just like a it could be caffeine and
something else. And you're like, Oh my God, it's
amazing. Cool.
Keep going as long as there's nodownside effects, go for it.
Because again, we're we're looking for the the results or
(40:32):
the outcome that we're after. But yeah, I think until until
you've taken part in research studies or conducted them
yourself, you realise how flawedthey are.
Yeah. It's like science can put you on
like the right path and then therest comes from trial and area.
Yeah, yeah, Amino acids was people like you'll see all these
(40:53):
bodybuilders lumping in aminos and things and it's like they'll
say oh, like there is a study that showed that it didn't
improve muscle retention and youlook and it's like yeah, but
that protein intake was naff yeah like so that they.
Ate more protein. Yeah, it's like they had a
better amino acid provenance than the other ones because they
were also low protein and didn'ttake anything.
Whereas if now you compare to a sufficient protein intake and
(41:15):
then you add it on top, oh, now there's nothing.
So it's like, oh it again there.If you're unable to critically
think about what's going on, which is a hard skill to have,
going down the science route is almost a waste of time.
You may as well just give it a knock yourself.
It's like, did you start taking them?
Did you build muscle as a resultof taking them?
Was the amount of muscle you built with the cost that you
(41:37):
spent on it? There we go, your answers.
There was remember it was like, it was when like all the ketone
supplements kind of like Raspberry ketones and stuff.
And I remember there was a guy like promoting all of it.
And, and my old mentor Trevor was like SAT and it was like a
conference and he was big enough, all these ketones and
stuff. He's yeah, you know, take these
in a fasted state and, you know,and then your energy levels are
(41:59):
going to improve. And then.
And Trevor was like, so if you consume calories in a fasted
state, like do your energies improve?
And he's like, yeah. And he's like, do ketones
contain calories? And he's like, yeah.
And he goes, all right. And he's like, so basically
you're eating something and it's, there's nothing to do with
ketones. It's like you're having 100
cows. Like most people when they're
(42:20):
fasted, when they eat food, theyfeel better and their energy
levels go up. OK.
Like, yeah, yeah. So it was just like, like have
some raspberries, like. But it just little things like
that. Like you miss the forest for the
trees kind of thing. Like exactly, like, you know, if
if someone added a bunch of essential amino acids to that
naff protein intake, they will get benefits because they've
(42:43):
increased their protein intake. Like if you're already eating
300 grams of protein a day, BCA's ain't doing shit.
But it's just, yeah, I think like correlation and causation
are big ones. Again, when you when you are
looking at studies, like if you are going to, if you are going
to like looking to explore, lookat meta analysis and systematic
(43:06):
reviews. And that's got like the highest
probability that like the conclusion is probably closer to
the truth than not. It's because it's been shown
time and. Time, yeah.
You know, rat studies, in vitro,things like that.
It's a very low level of like reliable information.
(43:26):
Unless you're a rat. Yeah, unless you're a
ratatouille, then you can. It's not bad.
You can go by the rat studies. But yeah, I like trial and error
is one of the, if not the best thing to do.
And like, and but this is the cool thing is like you can use
your body as a bit of a science experiment because you, you
(43:48):
know, the variables that you're controlling.
And so again, this isn't to say that you can then promote this
as, because you see this all thetime where someone gets great
results doing something and now they are that guy and they're
going to sell it to everyone andlike, do this and you'll get
great results. Like, well, you got great
results. Again, there's loads of other
variables which go into play in someone else's life, which this
(44:10):
might be the worst program ever for them.
Like they've got kids that theirhormones are different, their
age is different, their muscle mass is different.
All of these things like what you're promoting could literally
harm them. But all you all you can say is
from my personal experience, doing XY and Z has helped me
achieve this. Cool.
(44:30):
Perfectly valid micro study, butI think be being open to trying
different things and building your own kind of evidence is
good. Being able to think critically
and give yourself push back on why certain things are working
is a really, really good skill to build.
And also when you're reading studies, like try and tear them
(44:53):
apart, like just from the examples that we've just said,
it's probably opened up a lot ofpeople's eyes of like, oh, this
isn't like a real structured, you know, like controlled thing.
Because anytime you say study, people think Labco people like
in a line, you know, like like robots like going in.
And it's like real studies aren't like that at all.
(45:14):
It's winged and chaotic. Yeah, 100%.
Some people pull out, some people don't show up, some
people are late, some people forget to take the supplement.
Sometimes the technicians fuck it up.
We, we had a guy at our universe.
He he, he missed, he miscalculated the dose of
caffeine and he gave someone like 2 grams of caffeine or 3G
and it was supposed to be milligrams.
(45:35):
Yeah, yeah, it was, it was like milligrams per body weight.
And he did grams per body weightand and then they had to like
pay the guy off so he didn't sue.
Yeah, it was nice. Yeah, he literally had
tachycardia, like literally had sent the hospital.
And so and so it's like scientists always make mistakes.
The there's so many variables which it doesn't matter how hard
you try, you can't control and so all studies are really is
(45:57):
like best guess it it might do this.
It's some it just, it just adds,it adds to the pool of
information, yes, but look at the whole pool.
Don't just look at the one study, Yeah.
Or if you you are going to read an abstract, read the
limitations as well. Yeah, yeah.
But it's again, it's like when you see patterns happen over and
over and over and over and over again.
(46:19):
Maybe there's something to it. And.
And so it's just our job as coaches for our clients is to
provide them with as much information as possible so they
can make as an informed decisionas possible.
Doesn't mean it's going to be the right one, but it's like,
here's all the here's all the information you can look at,
(46:40):
here's the limitations, here's the pros, here's the cons.
Trial and error. Here we go.
I guess the it's the best way. So yeah.
So hopefully that opens up your eyes to the the anecdotal versus
evidence and the goal is to kindof make that bridge and give you
the the practical implementations that you can
(47:02):
carry away and actually get the results that you're after.
Thank you. As always tuning in guys, be
sure to like and subscribe on iTunes, Spotify and YouTube and
we'll see you next time. If you love this show, please
like, share and leave us a five star review so that we can help
more people. I'm John Matson, reminding you
to always go get what's yours.
Evidence based versus anecdotal bro science versus real science
debate. People will quote abstracts on
social media posts and things. If you actually go and read the
study, you're like that has no real world practicality or like
clinical significance at all. You could spend 2 weeks with a
pro bodybuilder and you could pick up just as good quality
(00:23):
information than if you went andread a textbook and looked at
all the research on certain topics.
This is why like I, I don't think you should be one way or
the other. I always say like the only thing
we're biased towards is results.I'm Ryan Stevens.
Doctor Taylor Waters, I'm Ben Oliver.
Welcome to the Superhuman show, Yeah?
(00:44):
Evidence based versus anecdotal.This is the the bro science
versus real science debate, which is now is never ending on
social media. So, you know, I, I, I really
like this one because we all come from an academic background
(01:07):
doctor, a low academic background, a low academic
background, master's degrees. So we've, we've experienced just
by 1%, one of those pass. But so we, we, we've experienced
the evidence based side, you know, as close as you can get.
Like obviously, obviously when you do a master's degree or a
(01:28):
PhD, you have to do a dissertation where you, you are
carrying out a study, whether it's to do with training or
nutrition or whatever, the psychology, psychology, whatever
nonsense you've ended up. And so you know, you, you get
first hand experience of like, well, how, how are these studies
(01:50):
actually done? And, and anyone that's done an
undergrad or, or a master's degree or a PhD, you do a module
called research methods, which is all the statistical analysis
and the different analysis that you can do based on the study
that you're carrying out. And I can't remember a single
thing about it. And I hated research methods.
(02:12):
Honestly, it's so hard. There's a book out like
Statistics for Dummies or something, and then you've got
like some influencer. There's Bailey made school, like
trying to interpret it. Come on.
And and so. What was the the SPSS one?
It was like, oh, it's the white book.
I come up with a guy's name now,but I remember my my professor
gave it to me and was like, because I didn't do that much
(02:33):
statistics until masters level. So I'd almost try and play catch
up. So she gave me this at this
SSPSS Buck was like, that's likewritten as like a real like, you
know, you'll be able to understand it.
Just read now. It's like algebra, yeah.
You know, it's that when it's a book, so.
And then you see someone doing it on a board with a pen.
Yeah, there's some guys who are doing it like literally on a
board. I'm like, I've got this book and
(02:54):
a software and I still can't do it.
So. Just for anyone that doesn't
know, all of the SPSS is almost looks like an Excel document in
on your computer, but it's specifically used for
statistical data analysis. And so going going through that,
I kind of one, it gives you the appreciation of what actually
goes into a study, but it also highlights how many flaws there
(03:18):
can be and how many variables that you can't, you can't
control within a study. And really all of the
conclusions based on probability.
Yeah. Like there's, there's nothing
that kind of outright says this thing does this thing, it's it's
all based on, on probability or significance.
And so one, one thing which you'll see if you look at any,
(03:41):
any study, you know, to do with like nutritional training, or I
mean, it might be any study, butthe, you'll, you'll see
something called AP value, whichis basically a math equation,
which if the value is less than a certain number, which is what
nought .05 is 10, then it means it's statistically significant
(04:04):
difference. And if it's more than that, then
it's not the issue. The biggest issue that I've had
with it is people will look at pub Med abstract and it would
say like the group that took creatine significantly improved
their bench press compared to the group that didn't.
And in real world day-to-day, when you use the word
(04:26):
significant, generally speaking,you think big difference.
Like if, if, if I said John is significantly taller than me,
then you would go he's pretty a lot taller than you probably got
510 where where? Yeah, yeah, it was five, 510
1/2. But when you're looking at
statistical analysis in like AP value of significance, you would
(04:49):
read a study and it would say, oh, they significantly like, you
know, improve their bench more than the group that didn't.
But when you look at the actual data, it might be like the group
without creating benched 60 kilos.
The group that took creating benched 61 1/2 kilos.
And so statistically it's different.
But you know, in the real world,they could have just been on a
good day. And, and so people will quote
(05:11):
abstracts on social media posts and things and they'd be like,
oh, the group that took this supplement significantly
decreased this or whatever. And then if you actually go and
read the study, you're like, that has no real world
practicality or like clinical significance at all.
And so I, I think the, the evidence based crowd a lot of
(05:32):
times don't come from academic backgrounds.
There's some that do, you know, you've got guys like Eric Helms,
Brad Schoenfeld, Alan Aragon, Lane Norton, like they've all
they've all done their PhDs and or master's degrees.
They've carried out studies themselves.
And they also have a very good when they talk about their
studies, they're the first ones to call out their limitations
(05:54):
and they'll say like, you know what, we're not saying this
thing is this will absolutely dothis.
It's like we couldn't control this and we could only do this
so based on that you can form form your your educated opinion.
There's different levels of research as well, so like metro
analysis and stuff like that not.
Like your gold standard? Yeah, you've got like your gold
standard. I remember my my old mentor
Trevor used to say, if it's not a meta analysis or a systematic,
(06:18):
systematic review, he's like, I don't even look at it.
And that's the point that I've got to now.
Yeah, because that's it like people like quote the study and
it's like only one study with like two people participate in
like 1951. Or or it'll be a it'll be a rat
study. Yeah, over 2 weeks.
Yeah, or it would say the, the first like 2 words would say in
vitro, which basically means in a, in a test tube or like a
(06:40):
simulator. And so it's like that's like the
lowest level of study and, and so I, I think.
It's also the way that they thatthey define certain things.
So like, for example, like what measure are they taking?
So like sometimes they'll say, oh, this person increased muscle
size, but like, what measure will you take in for muscle
(07:00):
size? And then you realize, oh, well,
the measure that they're taking is not a true reflection anyway.
By their eye. He looks, Yeah.
It's like they've. So it's like not even the
measure that they're looking at is a true reflection of what
what you would look at. And so if it says it increases
muscle size, you think I can look at it and it's an increased
muscle. Yeah.
Because or not they took it fromlike a scan inside the muscle
cell and you're like, oh, OK. Well, yeah.
(07:22):
Or if it's on body fat, it's like what they use to test body
fat in body, right? Well, that's useless then.
So it's like there's, there's loads of like, but you don't
look until you read the full study, which takes 30 minutes to
an hour. Like to really break it down.
Like even for a smaller study it's it's very hard to use as a
(07:43):
reference. In order to be, you know,
evidence based, like when you look at like the guys who are
really strong in, in that area, like Elaine Norton, like a Alan
Aragon, people like that, it's they understand it enough that
they can critique the study as well.
And I remember go going through my PHDI always remember that
what that's what I found the hardest, because you almost
(08:04):
whoever's written the study, youput that on a pedestal a little
bit and you're like, oh, I thinklike this is they're obviously
good. They're publishing work.
They're going to be. And then once you do go down
that publishing route, you realise actually there's again,
there's massive degrees into like quality of research that
gets published as well. So and then what?
Once you've got to a certain standard, then you can critique
(08:26):
these papers and be like, OK, this was the finding that they
had. However, looking at the methods,
these are the limitations. It was only X amount of time.
The population was small. Like, but these people who often
claim to be evidence based don'thave that understanding whereby
they can critique a study. So they just take every single
study they read at face value. Yeah, like there's the one.
(08:50):
What's the the supplement? Oh, they use it.
It's like a fat loss supplement.You can't buy it in the UK.
Ephedrine. No.
Oh, you see a lot of the bodybuilders using it.
It's like a tree bark or you're you're him buying.
Yeah, like there's that one study on football players for
(09:11):
like 6 weeks and like it mobilizes fat in harder to reach
areas. So again, for example, it's
like, well, you might have body fat.
Ironic the hip area, which doesn't come off quite as easy
as like the run. Down and stuff.
So and it's like, so therefore it increases fat loss.
No, it might mobilize fat from those areas, but if you continue
(09:32):
to lose fat, it's going to come off those areas anyway.
So it's like again, but people go off that one study and now
like every bodybuilder is addingit to their stack.
And it's like like that one study is was AI would say quite
low, low quality study. The, the biggest one was the, I
mean, this is probably 15 to 20 years ago when creating, maybe
(09:57):
even longer when it started to become popular as a supplement.
You had to creatine loading stage, which was you take 20
grams a day for like the first week and then you drop it to 5g.
And that was like a staple for everyone.
And so I know I'm in the loadingstage of my creatine and I think
it was one of my, one of my lecturers and my undergrad said
the reason that whole loading stage even became a thing was
(10:22):
one of the first guys that was researching creatine.
No one in the US was willing to be a participant because they
knew what it was. And it was Russian athletes that
were willing to try it, obviously, because they'll do
anything. But he could only get a week
visa to Russia. And so he was like, well, if I'm
only there for a week, I'll fucking slam it.
(10:43):
And so he gave them all 20 grams.
And so like, that's where the loading phase came from.
It was just, he only had seven days with those athletes.
So he just loaded up. But then that turned into like,
you know, for 10 years, it was like, you've got to load your
creatine because of this and that.
And it's like you like you've you've extrapolated that from a
study and you didn't know the reasoning behind it at all.
(11:04):
Yeah. It's like you can cherry pick
studies for your own benefit, can you?
But also like people, what people don't realize you can
come down to who the study was funded by as well.
Yeah. Do they have, do they have like
a bias in like they're actually trying to prove something, you
know, So you have to take the research like a pinch of salt.
And that's why systematic reviews matter.
Analysis. If you are going to go off the
research, they're probably a better better another.
(11:24):
Huge one in fitness is the the untrained and trained.
So it's oh, this person, this increased muscle in these.
Yeah, they're untrained. Like they can, they can just
walk in a gym and they're going to add a little bit of muscle to
their frame. There was a, there was a really
good one. You could probably, you probably
still find the study online, butit was and because we went
(11:46):
through it on my master's degree, it was a group of men
who basically gained muscle and lost fat over like a, it was
like an 8 or 12 week period. But the numbers that they were
churning out was like gained 8 lbs of muscle and lost 12 lbs of
fat. And I'm like, get the fuck out.
(12:08):
Like that's nonsense. And then when you look closer,
it turns out the people that they used were ex NFL athletes.
They'd like to train. So what they did is they
regained a small percentage of lost muscle that they had for 20
years and they lost some, they lost some timber, but they, and
they were also like mid 200 lbs,like they were like beefy boys.
(12:31):
And so they didn't build new muscle tissue during that time.
They just, they, they stopped eating like a full time athlete
because they were retired. And so it's like, well, that's
that's not practical for anyone.Because if you if the fact that
you're in the NFL, you're in thepoint not, not 1% of genetics
anyway. So yeah, it's.
And that's why context is so important, yeah.
(12:54):
Yeah, but the, and then and thenwhen you get on the training
studies, like it's like a new thing.
I don't know if it's just click bait now on social media where
you've got like the skinny kids and they're like, you know,
they've got like a strap around their midsection, their arm to
to brace their arm. And they're like, you know, this
is the most optimal tricep extension you can do.
And it's like you've got no tricep and and then meanwhile
(13:14):
you've got hundreds of thousandsof meathead bodybuilders, like
natural and not natural that have just been doing the
standard pushdowns, extensions, skull crushes with massive
triceps. Yeah.
And then they're kind of like, see, if you look at this pro
bodybuilder, if he did 2 sets rather than 8, he'd be so much
bigger. And it's like, who were you to
critique? Like you've, you've not walked
(13:35):
the path yet. And like that's I, I think some
of it is just clickbait to get views and things because it's,
it has to, because it's just absurd.
It's that stuff blows my mind. As you said, it has to be like
there's one guy who's got his arm in a foam roller.
Yeah. So he can't bend his.
He can't. Bend his elbow.
And he's doing like a like a fly.
Or something. Yeah, he's, he's got a cuff.
(13:57):
Yeah, he's got a cuffed side lateral, but cuff on.
Holding a handle. Holding a handle and his arm in
like a tube inside. Loud.
But it's but it's like. Sure, and he's got like doubts.
Like a mouse. And he's using, but he's using
the cuff and then the handle is attached to nothing.
And he's like, well, you know, this study showed that by
squeezing, you're going to engage these.
It's like just put the fucking handle on the thing then.
(14:19):
And it's, but it's, it's like, so it's, it's so over the top.
Like I'm like, this has to be like comedy.
Like it has to it has to I. Wonder what the likes of like
Ronnie Coleman, Doreen, nature stuff think of this stuff.
I don't. I don't think they look at it,
no. I think it's just yeah.
And this is it in like true evidence base has to come from
like your personal experience plus like, and also all the
(14:40):
results you've got consistently plus what the research says.
Like one of my things that always say like the best thing I
learned was like theory to practice.
How do I apply it in real life? And how does it does it even
matter in real life significantly?
Well, because again, and the, the number one thing that we
look at with in coaching is adherence.
And so even if there was a perfect study, even though
there's no such thing that showed, let's just say, eating
(15:04):
200 grams of raw beef first thing in the morning, like,
like, you know, ramped up your test levels, you know, increased
muscle building by 25%, whateverit is, how many people are
actually going to do it consistently till they're like,
I really don't want to have raw beef for breakfast.
And it's like, right. So no one's going to do it
(15:25):
anyway. And, and so you have to look at
the, the practical implications of it, regardless of how good
the study is. And so I think that's one thing
that people miss all the time. It's like whether it's optimal
or not, can you eat, Could you even do it?
You know, even if someone said 400 grams of protein today is
better than 200, people can't doit because I feel bloated, I
feel gassy, my food bill is through the roof.
(15:47):
I'm sick of chicken. Like right.
So it's irrelevant anyway. But I think the with the
evidence base, evidence based isalways going to be behind
because someone has to have tried something for someone to
go. We should study that and see if
that is actually the case. And so even with things like
(16:07):
peptides and stuff, which is allthe craze now, they've been
around for 20 years, like bodybuilders have been
experimenting with that shit, you know, in, in the 90s.
It's only now that, you know, because the markup and margins
are so good. And it's, you know, it was
Psalms a couple of years ago andnow it's peptides and it'd be
something else, you know, for the next couple of years.
But I I think the like people that are just trying to solely
(16:31):
go by evidence based, you'll always be left behind from the
guys that have that are like daring to explore and experiment
and try different things. They're on the.
Battlefield. Yeah, I tell you what, we're in
behind on the arm in the foam roller, and they're holding her
hand attached. Nothing.
No one's trying out. Sure.
Enough, but then? But then no.
One's reaching no. And then you and then you have
like the anecdotal side, which isn't, but like you could say
(16:55):
this is the bro science side. But at the like all anecdotal
means is essentially I haven't controlled all the variables in
a, in like a laboratory study setting and done accurate
analysis of it. Or maybe I don't have enough
people to prove it. Or maybe you do, but it's just
you're not controlling variables.
(17:17):
It's almost like an an observation, isn't it?
It's an observation study. Yeah, yeah.
And it's like, I remember part of my part of my PhD was on this
and it was like I was doing qualitative analysis and you're
almost trying to, within the study highlight.
Obviously there's, if I'm interpreting the information,
there is bias there. There's my own and I can, I can
(17:39):
use all the correct methods to try and limit the bias.
However, there's always going tobe biased because it's my
interpretation. So then what you're going to do
is map out then, OK, well, how would someone like mind me,
interpret that information and what are the limitations then?
So, you know, you would say like, I am a fitness person
observing older people in a carehome, for example.
(18:02):
And it's like, so how would a person in their 20s observe
someone who is at that age and what benefits does that have and
what cons does that have? So it's like, you've got to
understand where those limitations are.
So it's like, again, if you're someone again, let's just choose
you, for example, you've trainedfor a long time, you you've got
a good base understanding of lifting weights, of nutrition,
(18:25):
of all of saps. So when you go into a gym and
observe what's going on around you, I would say you're in quite
a good position to observe thesethings and make interpretations
from where you're at because you've got a good idea of what's
going on. But if you put a complete newbie
in a gym, I won't observe what'sgoing on around you.
I haven't got a clue. Yeah.
(18:45):
So it's like there there are benefits to the observational
type stuff as well. You just have to get.
You have to understand the limitations to an observation as
well. Yeah, I think the with the
anecdotal side, a lot of times the it's, it's correlation, not
causation. And understanding why something
(19:06):
is happening is is normally the thing that's been lost.
But then you could also argue it's like if it's if it's
delivering the outcome that you desire.
Who gives a shit? Like in it and and so it's like.
Especially if you've seen it multiple times as well.
Yeah, it's like you've got confidence to say.
When when there's a pattern. Yeah, there's a pattern.
It's like, oh, I'm pretty confident there's something here
to look more in depth. Yeah, I don't know why X = y,
(19:30):
but every time I do, XY happens,Yeah.
So if I keep doing XI should look at what I've seen continue
to get Y. You.
You. Could do an example of like say
like you with, with your busy clients that are traveling quite
a lot. Let's just say one of the most
common things you have them do is have a protein shake for
breakfast because it's convenient, it's practical, you
(19:51):
know, gets jumps on their protein and they all get great
results. Like you could say anecdotally,
when I put a protein shake with these guys, like they always get
better results than the guys that don't do the protein shake.
And if I go why, you could be like, well, it could be they're
actually hitting their protein target for the day.
Because they're getting a head start on it and they're actually
sticking to it. You could say, you know, whey
(20:15):
protein in the morning has been shown to do XY and Z and it's
like, well, that might be the reason, but maybe not.
And so there's, there's loads oflike assumptions you could go
down as to why that's working. And this is where people might
be like, you know, by ingesting 50 grams of whey protein isolate
in the morning, your metabolism does this, the thermic effect
does this, whereas you'll go, But if they do that, they're
(20:38):
like, they're actually going to have breakfast and protein.
And if, if I don't give them a shake, they don't eat breakfast.
And then they're always behind on their protein intake.
And so it's, it's like, it's the, the why behind it, which I
think a lot of people get confused on.
But then also like, you don't need to go.
I need to find a study to prove this before I can do this with
my clients. When it's like, I've seen it
(20:59):
time and time again. When I use this thing, they tend
to get good results. Like I I found if I really ramp
up protein intake with my clients in a fat loss phase they
lose fat faster and that's and if again I wouldn't go well
thermic effect of protein is is causing XY and Z.
I'd say they eat less shit like because I I just eat as much
(21:20):
lean protein as you. Can I must see in that study?
Yeah, yeah, there you go. Ben ET al.
But they, but, but it's if I like perfect example is you
know, my client, my client ScottHall, where when I first started
working with him, he's an ex lineman in football.
So he was, I think he was like 2around 280 lbs.
And we started working together.So it's like he's, he's trained
(21:42):
himself to be able to eat six 7000 calories a day.
And so when we first started, I remember I put his protein
intake at like 350 grams a day and it's.
Windy. He's in Texas, but it was it
was, you know, you won't find, Ithink it's like 1 protein study
(22:02):
by like what's his name, San Antonio, something where it was
like 4.4g per kilogram and he's oh, they didn't gain fat, you
know, and they were ate as much protein as they wanted, blah,
blah, blah. But the reason why I did it was
if I just get him eating lean steak and chicken all day, he's
less likely to eat loads of other stuff, which is going to
(22:24):
put him way over his calorie intake.
Like there's no evidence, like studies to support that, but
I've just seen time and time again with clients, if I have
them just really push the protein, they tend to be really
satiated. Their blood sugar is probably
more stable. They're they're like they're
eating higher volume foods. They're thinking about like
(22:47):
sugary carbs and fats and thingsless.
So they keep their calories in check.
And, and so like there's, there's things that you pick up
from working with people in the real world, like in in the
trenches kind of thing where it,it's hard to, when you look at
it on paper, you're like that. Why would you do that like on
set without knowing the context?Like you said, you could say
(23:11):
who's your coach? He's an idiot.
Like why does he put your protein intake so high?
And then when you understand thecontext, they'll go, that makes
complete sense. And, and so that's why I do like
the anecdotal evidence. If you can rationalize it in a
practical way, I think it has massive validity.
But so, so This is why, like I, I don't think you should be one
(23:32):
way or the other. Like, yes, like you should lean
on the evidence and, and the systematic reviews and, and
things like that. But I wouldn't just pigeonhole
yourself to that because it willnever allow you to go.
Let me just try something that'sa bit out there which may work
really well with these clients because they can actually stick
(23:52):
to it and. And still follow the kind of
fundamentals of the evidence like that you've looked at like
calorie intake and protein and stuff.
It is evidence though. Like we had this conversation
before we start recording. It's like anecdotal evidence is
still evidence. Like it's not, It's not.
You can't make like a full conclusion based off it, but
it's like it can give me some direction and it can get me an
(24:13):
outcome. It's like a really good area
where I see this now is researchon anabolic use.
And it's like, I'm seeing these studies pop up and I'm like,
hey, we. And then, oh, we've, we've,
we've discovered this. I'm like, my bodybuilders
discovered that in gyms 15 yearsago.
And you're so far behind. So if now you were a coach in
(24:36):
that field and you would just goin off the scientific evidence,
you're years behind. You're, you're well over a
decade behind people because there's people in there who have
been doing this. Like if you told that to someone
who is an actual expert in the field now, people like, yeah,
like we've been doing that for years.
Like we've we've figured this out a long, long time ago.
I mean, and it's like he didn't need to.
(24:58):
He's they'll both get to the endpoint, but one of them has got
their way faster because he's not trying to go through all
these random studies. He's just trialing things out,
trying things out and making adjustments.
And they're both going to get tothe end at the same time.
It's just one of them's having to publish all these studies on
the way to try and prove things that you could have just gone
down and asked and asked, you know, Juice head Steve.
And he, yeah, he would tell you that, Yeah.
(25:20):
It's, I mean I don't know if there is any studies, but like
another one say with clients that are using like TRT or or
the Mexican, the Mexican thing again, if you look at like say
testosterone and Anthony like has a half life of what five to
seven days, 7 to 9 days, something like that.
So based on that, the recommended administration is
(25:42):
once 2 times per week. But we've seen time and time
again, anecdotally, when you split the dose across five to
six shots per week, testosteronelevels tend to be more stable.
Side effects tend to be minimized.
Like you can use a smaller injection pin, which is from a
practical standpoint, it allows people to do it for longer
because they're not have to use these fucking horse tranks to,
(26:05):
to use their injections. And so if all you looked at was
like, no, no, but the half life is this.
Therefore you only need to do ittwice a week.
So yeah, but I've seen so many times that by splitting it more
often, people get less side effects, They feel better, their
levels are more stable. Like there probably is some
research behind it, but I haven't looked at it.
But I've just, I've experienced that and loads of clients have
(26:27):
experienced that. So it's like, well, am I going
to blanket recommend it to everyone?
No, but if they're experiencing something which I've seen time
and time again doing two shots aweek, I might go try splitting
that up between 5:00 or 6 and you and you might find this.
And and so like there's, there'ssome stuff that you're going to,
you're going to find with nutrition, with training that
(26:49):
really there's no evidence to support it in the in, in, in, in
pub Med or the literature, but you know that it works like leg
curls before back squat. Like I don't think there's any
studies that that show like an increase in performance in your
back squat by doing leg curls first.
But we found with loads of clients and ourselves, your
(27:10):
knees feel way better when your hamstrings are full of blood.
Doesn't pre fatigue you like your quads or anything.
So you can still squat like optimally, but your knees feel
feel way better. So it's it's like now am I going
to program leg curves before back squat for every single
client? No, but if someone goes my knees
really hurt when I squat. I'm like try doing leg curves
first, might might feel a bit better.
(27:32):
I think one of the one of the biggest issues, like people
these days as well, like who lean heavily into the research
is almost a bit like a badge of owner.
It's like, oh, I'm that excited.Go by the research where you,
you don't go by evidence. You go by like anecdotal where
it's like true evidence based. It's like what we spoke about
context, anecdotal research and how do I, how do I apply that?
You know, it's almost like they feel like they're battling you,
the superior they read 1. Study, yeah, it's like you take
(27:54):
all that knowledge, you interpret it as good as you can
and then you make informed decisions based off all that
information that you've got. Whereas like, again, someone who
just they only go down one Ave. as you've got, you're just
limiting yourself. You've got one pathway that you
can get the information from andit's like, and if it's not and
if it's not on that pathway, then I'm not going down there.
And it's like there's so much more things you like, you just
(28:16):
like, you know, we spoke about it's like science versus
stories. Like you could spend 2 weeks
with a pro bodybuilder and just have open discussion and he can
tell you about his life, his experiences in the gym, his
cycles that he's done, his phases that he's done, the
injuries that he's had. And you could pick up just as
(28:38):
good quality information from sitting there listening to
hidden telling you stories. Then if you went and read a
textbook and looked at all the research on certain topics, it's
like there's benefits to both. Just removing one as like bro
science, it's nonsense. It's like, again, there is bro
science that's nonsense. Just like we've listed, there's
(28:58):
published articles that are alsononsense.
But it's like you have to look at the information and interpret
it yourself and then apply that.And again, if it works, great,
keep doing it. If it doesn't, you can leave it.
So they say done it is like is coaching a science or not?
And it's like, you know, it is ascience, but it's how you apply
that in real life that like that's where the real results.
Come from, I think like the bestskill that you can learn is just
(29:22):
the ability to think critically.And, and that's what that's not
just with studies, it's with your own habits, beliefs,
perceptions. Like you, you should always be
good at arguing against yourself.
Like if someone was going to debate me on something, it's
like, well, if I was going to argue against my point, what are
the things that I would bring upto try and give pushback?
(29:44):
And if I can still rationalize it and win that argument, it's
like, you've probably got a decent point there.
Whereas if I could think of one thing against myself and be
like, oh, like, yeah, that I mean, that falls apart, then
it's like, maybe it, maybe I'm not right there, but I, I think
people are afraid of being wrong.
And and also again, they, you'realways going to have
confirmation bias with like looking at studies, if you want
(30:07):
to believe that a higher proteinintake is going to allow you to
build more muscle, you will findstudies to support that.
If you want to believe that a vegan diet is better than a meat
based diet, you will find studies to support that.
Like you'll be able to find studies that will back any claim
that you want to make, but that doesn't like at the end of the
day, I would go, have you got the results that you're looking
for? Because the answer is no.
(30:29):
Then it's like, well, then you need to start thinking more
critically because you're going to keep bashing your head
against the same wall expecting for a different result.
And so I think it's like I always say, like the only thing
we're biased towards is results.Like I don't give a shit if
someone's vegan or carnival, whatever.
Like I I care about them gettingthe results that they're after
in a practical and as safe as possible way.
(30:50):
But like, I, I think as soon as you start to pigeonhole yourself
between like, I only look at evidence based, I only go by
anecdotal, you know, because you, you will have guys that
will go study some nonsense. It's like, well, they're not
nonsense, but it's, it's again, because they've probably had one
debate against someone which hascalled them out on some bullshit
that they've said. And that person is probably
(31:10):
right. But they're like, I don't, I
don't like, doesn't feel good when I'm wrong.
And also, they've seen a scientist who's like a
researcher in anatomy and Physiology or whatever speak
about and he's got no muscle. Yeah.
So it's everything he says is stupid.
It's like, no, you might understand it quite well.
He just doesn't like training very much.
Yeah. It's like, And then there's the
other end where it's like a guy who's absolutely jacked, talking
(31:33):
complete nonsense. And then the scientists been,
oh, he didn't know what he's talking about.
Like, well, he's. He's done something he's.
Done something right, so he he'snot worth ignoring.
Like you can still listen to himand then you can listen to both
of them and then use that information.
But they almost like feel like you're either one or the other.
Like science is nonsense. And if you haven't got any
muscle or you're not in shape, then you have no leg to stand
(31:55):
on. And if you or if you don't
understand the research and the size, you have no leg to stand
on. And it's like, no, no.
Everyone, it's a massive grey area.
But really, they should both come together and have a
conversation, and they were bothlearning something from each
other. Yeah, yeah.
So, yeah, there was a, there wasa really good, this was years
and years ago. There's a bodybuilder called
Dave Pochinella Palumbo, Dave Palumbo palumbo.
(32:18):
But the Dave Portionella was theguy that liked the six foods
that work like that guy and like, you know, very bro
science. But you know, he got shredded,
you know, for for his shows and a he got called out by a YouTube
and I think the YouTube channel was something like ice cream
fitness or something. And the, the, the YouTube was
(32:39):
like skinny guy with glasses, nomuscle, like he never trained in
his life. And he was basically was saying
meal frequency doesn't matter. Like you, it doesn't matter
whether you eat once a day or six times a day.
Six meals a day does not speed up your metabolism.
And Dave was a six meal a day guy.
And so they had an in person debate and it basically come
down to Dave was saying like what you're saying is correct.
(33:02):
However, when you're a large bodybuilder needing to eat 6000
calories a day, you cannot practically do it in two meals
or three meals. That's why we do 6 meals a day.
Like, so you do 61000 calorie meals.
And so it's like, both of us arecorrect.
Like This is why we do it. But like, and obviously if you
(33:22):
eat 6000 calories a day, your metabolism is probably going to
be faster when you're not eating6000.
But also, yeah, you could theoretically do it in one meal
a day, but practically speaking,you're going to feel fucking
terrible. And so it was, it was like this
like real world experience versus there's no study that
supports 6 meal a day is beneficial compared to like one.
(33:43):
Yeah. But then you've got a massive
yolk to go being like, you can'tget this big without eating like
frequent meals. And, and but it was it was a
really like, it was a constructive debate, like,
because Dave was very, very intelligent.
Yeah. And it wasn't like, like, like
just a bro, but it was, it was like a good debate.
But I thought it was a really good example of like you've got
one guy that is pure evidence based, like the Lion McDonald
(34:05):
kind of guy, and then you've gotthe bro and but is educated as
well. And so it was.
It was quite interesting. Think of.
Context was missing there, isn'tit?
You know. Think of just that example now.
It's a really good way of looking at it.
Whereas like say now someone is trying to eat 6000 calves a day.
If they did try and do it in twoor three meals, the chance,
well, there's a potential outcome that they are absolutely
(34:29):
stuffed. Therefore they don't want to be
very active or their training intensity drops down like
they're in like a carb coma whereby they want to have a nap.
Therefore, when you look at their total energy expenditure
at the end of the day, it is less, they haven't moved as
much. So therefore their metabolic
rate, their metabolism has gone down because they're now moving
less. And it's not because of the
(34:49):
meals directly, it's just stuffing that much food.
And whereas if you're eating 61000 calorie meals and you can
digest them much better and you feel good digesting them, you're
up and about, you're moving, your training performance is
better. You're so it's up.
Well, now it is having a positive effect and it's not
again, we, we had this conversation on the on the power
out the other day. It's not direct, but like there
(35:09):
is something to be said for it. It's not, although you know,
there's not a study showing the oh, but when someone changed
their meals to six, this happened.
But that is a potential outcome.So it's like, again, it's it's
you don't need a study to prove something.
You can just trial and error it and still figure it out.
And I think that's where a lot of it with fitness is like you,
they feel like they need a studyto prove something, to show it's
(35:33):
true. But it's like, well, if again,
if you just keep trial and errorin it and it seems to be a
consistent theme, it's like theywill.
There's some truth. To this you, I mean you have
like the three, I think, I thinkall right, you have like the
three variables. You have like the independent
variable, the thing you're, you're testing the dependent
variable, which is like your standard group.
And then you have confounding variables which are like, we
(35:54):
don't have control over these things.
You can never control all of theconfounding variables.
Like most. If you look at any nutrition
study, if it says self reported intake, you may as well just
wipe your ass with it because it's like we've we've again and
you can look at other studies with tracking and you could say
people under report their intakeup to 50%.
And so it's like, well, how are we going to look at?
(36:15):
And I, and I, and I've seen thisfirst person when I was doing my
master's because the majority ofguys in my group were Oxford
Brooks rowers. And they were all taking part in
certain nutrition studies. And I would see them eating shit
that wasn't part of the study. And I'm like, aren't you doing
that? Like you're supposed to be
(36:36):
tracking that. And he's like, yeah, whatever.
And it's like, well, how many studies are like this?
Where? And I would ask them, like, what
is your diet? And he's like, anything I can
get my hands on. It's like, I need like 5000
calories a day. I was like, what do you eat for
dinner at Domino's? It's like, I'm a student like,
and we get, we get all the dealsfor Domino's Pizza.
And I'm like, but you're supposed to be like an elite
athlete tracking these things for this study.
(36:58):
And they're like, yeah, whatever.
We just lie about it. Yeah.
And so it's like, how, how many,how much does that go on?
Yeah. Like with with the supplement
studies with any like anything where you're not setting a lab
and being monitored 24/7, peoplewill make shit up.
And look at the variables there in fitness, like sleep.
Look at the sleep differentials between people, sleep quality
(37:18):
between people, the hydration levels between people, the
ability to train hard, self reporting their nutrition, like
all these things. And again, how we've been
measuring all those things. Is it all self self reported?
So self reported sleep, self reported water, self reported
diet, self reported training. Not like looking at actual.
So all these things moving at the same time.
(37:38):
It's so hard to really dial in astudy to show this caused this
because there's so many other living parts.
Another one we did was beetroot supplementation and I think, I
think we were using, oh, it was like a repeated Wingate or
something because that what, what is the benefit?
It's like nitric oxide or something.
(38:00):
It's like a basil dilator or something.
But like we were doing like a repeated Wingate and let's take
Cialis. Yeah, yeah, the, the first one
we did. And I guess again, this is like
the variables that you can't control.
First when we did, we did in theafternoon.
And so I was one of the participants.
So I got to university. Obviously that morning I had a
(38:20):
day's worth of food and hydration and I was feeling
pretty good. I did the first Test, Second one
we had to do in the morning. This was like, I think the
temperature dropped massively inthe lab was freezing.
I got there first thing in the morning.
I'd only had a coffee, and I also didn't have time to warm up
because they were behind schedule.
And so my performance dropped bythe beetroot supplementation.
(38:42):
But it's like, well, I slept like shit, I was up at 3:00,
I've had a coffee, I've had no food, I'm dehydrated and my legs
are cold. And so it's like you're, you're
and then, and then you've got fifty participants where they've
got all of those variables goingin as well.
And then so it's like, oh, we looked at this study and this
supplement causes, it's like, you have no idea.
Like half the students could have been out on the piss last
(39:03):
night. And you don't know.
And and so like with all like supplement studies and things,
if you're not monitored in the lab 24/7 like you are, your
conclusion is maybe this thing might do something.
We don't know. Like go and try pretty much it.
Like Go. Try yourself.
That's like. Creatine.
Some people are like, oh, shouldI take creatine?
And I'm like, well, there is some evidence out there because
(39:26):
if someone said, shall I eat a cactus?
I'm like, well, no, there's no evidence to suggest a cactus
helps. But it's like, should I take
creatine? Well, there is some evidence.
So buy it, try it. If you're happy with the
outcome, keep taking it. If you're not, stop taking it.
I'm like there like there's, there's your evidence.
I would literally look at it as like, is there any reports of
like negative, like health outcomes?
(39:49):
And if there isn't, you know, I think there's like a small
percentage of people that take creatine that might shit their
pants. But like aside from that, you
know, and again, it's like, yeah, yeah, just a day in the
office. But even with that, it's like,
OK, you might take it and have aa bad bow day.
Then you stop taking it, you're not going to die.
Like you're going to be fine. And and so like with any
(40:10):
supplements that I'm like, try it.
So you like because because placebo effects are still
effects. Yeah.
And so even if like I've been taking this pre workout workout
to been awesome, that pre workout could literally be
Ribena, you know, or, or just like a it could be caffeine and
something else. And you're like, Oh my God, it's
amazing. Cool.
Keep going as long as there's nodownside effects, go for it.
Because again, we're we're looking for the the results or
(40:32):
the outcome that we're after. But yeah, I think until until
you've taken part in research studies or conducted them
yourself, you realise how flawedthey are.
Yeah. It's like science can put you on
like the right path and then therest comes from trial and area.
Yeah, yeah, Amino acids was people like you'll see all these
(40:53):
bodybuilders lumping in aminos and things and it's like they'll
say oh, like there is a study that showed that it didn't
improve muscle retention and youlook and it's like yeah, but
that protein intake was naff yeah like so that they.
Ate more protein. Yeah, it's like they had a
better amino acid provenance than the other ones because they
were also low protein and didn'ttake anything.
Whereas if now you compare to a sufficient protein intake and
(41:15):
then you add it on top, oh, now there's nothing.
So it's like, oh it again there.If you're unable to critically
think about what's going on, which is a hard skill to have,
going down the science route is almost a waste of time.
You may as well just give it a knock yourself.
It's like, did you start taking them?
Did you build muscle as a resultof taking them?
Was the amount of muscle you built with the cost that you
(41:37):
spent on it? There we go, your answers.
There was remember it was like, it was when like all the ketone
supplements kind of like Raspberry ketones and stuff.
And I remember there was a guy like promoting all of it.
And, and my old mentor Trevor was like SAT and it was like a
conference and he was big enough, all these ketones and
stuff. He's yeah, you know, take these
in a fasted state and, you know,and then your energy levels are
(41:59):
going to improve. And then.
And Trevor was like, so if you consume calories in a fasted
state, like do your energies improve?
And he's like, yeah. And he's like, do ketones
contain calories? And he's like, yeah.
And he goes, all right. And he's like, so basically
you're eating something and it's, there's nothing to do with
ketones. It's like you're having 100
cows. Like most people when they're
(42:20):
fasted, when they eat food, theyfeel better and their energy
levels go up. OK.
Like, yeah, yeah. So it was just like, like have
some raspberries, like. But it just little things like
that. Like you miss the forest for the
trees kind of thing. Like exactly, like, you know, if
if someone added a bunch of essential amino acids to that
naff protein intake, they will get benefits because they've
(42:43):
increased their protein intake. Like if you're already eating
300 grams of protein a day, BCA's ain't doing shit.
But it's just, yeah, I think like correlation and causation
are big ones. Again, when you when you are
looking at studies, like if you are going to, if you are going
to like looking to explore, lookat meta analysis and systematic
(43:06):
reviews. And that's got like the highest
probability that like the conclusion is probably closer to
the truth than not. It's because it's been shown
time and. Time, yeah.
You know, rat studies, in vitro,things like that.
It's a very low level of like reliable information.
(43:26):
Unless you're a rat. Yeah, unless you're a
ratatouille, then you can. It's not bad.
You can go by the rat studies. But yeah, I like trial and error
is one of the, if not the best thing to do.
And like, and but this is the cool thing is like you can use
your body as a bit of a science experiment because you, you
(43:48):
know, the variables that you're controlling.
And so again, this isn't to say that you can then promote this
as, because you see this all thetime where someone gets great
results doing something and now they are that guy and they're
going to sell it to everyone andlike, do this and you'll get
great results. Like, well, you got great
results. Again, there's loads of other
variables which go into play in someone else's life, which this
(44:10):
might be the worst program ever for them.
Like they've got kids that theirhormones are different, their
age is different, their muscle mass is different.
All of these things like what you're promoting could literally
harm them. But all you all you can say is
from my personal experience, doing XY and Z has helped me
achieve this. Cool.
(44:30):
Perfectly valid micro study, butI think be being open to trying
different things and building your own kind of evidence is
good. Being able to think critically
and give yourself push back on why certain things are working
is a really, really good skill to build.
And also when you're reading studies, like try and tear them
(44:53):
apart, like just from the examples that we've just said,
it's probably opened up a lot ofpeople's eyes of like, oh, this
isn't like a real structured, you know, like controlled thing.
Because anytime you say study, people think Labco people like
in a line, you know, like like robots like going in.
And it's like real studies aren't like that at all.
(45:14):
It's winged and chaotic. Yeah, 100%.
Some people pull out, some people don't show up, some
people are late, some people forget to take the supplement.
Sometimes the technicians fuck it up.
We, we had a guy at our universe.
He he, he missed, he miscalculated the dose of
caffeine and he gave someone like 2 grams of caffeine or 3G
and it was supposed to be milligrams.
(45:35):
Yeah, yeah, it was, it was like milligrams per body weight.
And he did grams per body weightand and then they had to like
pay the guy off so he didn't sue.
Yeah, it was nice. Yeah, he literally had
tachycardia, like literally had sent the hospital.
And so and so it's like scientists always make mistakes.
The there's so many variables which it doesn't matter how hard
you try, you can't control and so all studies are really is
(45:57):
like best guess it it might do this.
It's some it just, it just adds,it adds to the pool of
information, yes, but look at the whole pool.
Don't just look at the one study, Yeah.
Or if you you are going to read an abstract, read the
limitations as well. Yeah, yeah.
But it's again, it's like when you see patterns happen over and
over and over and over and over again.
(46:19):
Maybe there's something to it. And.
And so it's just our job as coaches for our clients is to
provide them with as much information as possible so they
can make as an informed decisionas possible.
Doesn't mean it's going to be the right one, but it's like,
here's all the here's all the information you can look at,
(46:40):
here's the limitations, here's the pros, here's the cons.
Trial and error. Here we go.
I guess the it's the best way. So yeah.
So hopefully that opens up your eyes to the the anecdotal versus
evidence and the goal is to kindof make that bridge and give you
the the practical implementations that you can
(47:02):
carry away and actually get the results that you're after.
Thank you. As always tuning in guys, be
sure to like and subscribe on iTunes, Spotify and YouTube and
we'll see you next time. If you love this show, please
like, share and leave us a five star review so that we can help
more people. I'm John Matson, reminding you
to always go get what's yours.
Popular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
The Burden
The Burden is a documentary series that takes listeners into the hidden places where justice is done (and undone). It dives deep into the lives of heroes and villains. And it focuses a spotlight on those who triumph even when the odds are against them. Season 5 - The Burden: Death & Deceit in Alliance On April Fools Day 1999, 26-year-old Yvonne Layne was found murdered in her Alliance, Ohio home. David Thorne, her ex-boyfriend and father of one of her children, was instantly a suspect. Another young man admitted to the murder, and David breathed a sigh of relief, until the confessed murderer fingered David; “He paid me to do it.” David was sentenced to life without parole. Two decades later, Pulitzer winner and podcast host, Maggie Freleng (Bone Valley Season 3: Graves County, Wrongful Conviction, Suave) launched a “live” investigation into David's conviction alongside Jason Baldwin (himself wrongfully convicted as a member of the West Memphis Three). Maggie had come to believe that the entire investigation of David was botched by the tiny local police department, or worse, covered up the real killer. Was Maggie correct? Was David’s claim of innocence credible? In Death and Deceit in Alliance, Maggie recounts the case that launched her career, and ultimately, “broke” her.” The results will shock the listener and reduce Maggie to tears and self-doubt. This is not your typical wrongful conviction story. In fact, it turns the genre on its head. It asks the question: What if our champions are foolish? Season 4 - The Burden: Get the Money and Run “Trying to murder my father, this was the thing that put me on the path.” That’s Joe Loya and that path was bank robbery. Bank, bank, bank, bank, bank. In season 4 of The Burden: Get the Money and Run, we hear from Joe who was once the most prolific bank robber in Southern California, and beyond. He used disguises, body doubles, proxies. He leaped over counters, grabbed the money and ran. Even as the FBI was closing in. It was a showdown between a daring bank robber, and a patient FBI agent. Joe was no ordinary bank robber. He was bright, articulate, charismatic, and driven by a dark rage that he summoned up at will. In seven episodes, Joe tells all: the what, the how… and the why. Including why he tried to murder his father. Season 3 - The Burden: Avenger Miriam Lewin is one of Argentina’s leading journalists today. At 19 years old, she was kidnapped off the streets of Buenos Aires for her political activism and thrown into a concentration camp. Thousands of her fellow inmates were executed, tossed alive from a cargo plane into the ocean. Miriam, along with a handful of others, will survive the camp. Then as a journalist, she will wage a decades long campaign to bring her tormentors to justice. Avenger is about one woman’s triumphant battle against unbelievable odds to survive torture, claim justice for the crimes done against her and others like her, and change the future of her country. Season 2 - The Burden: Empire on Blood Empire on Blood is set in the Bronx, NY, in the early 90s, when two young drug dealers ruled an intersection known as “The Corner on Blood.” The boss, Calvin Buari, lived large. He and a protege swore they would build an empire on blood. Then the relationship frayed and the protege accused Calvin of a double homicide which he claimed he didn’t do. But did he? Award-winning journalist Steve Fishman spent seven years to answer that question. This is the story of one man’s last chance to overturn his life sentence. He may prevail, but someone’s gotta pay. The Burden: Empire on Blood is the director’s cut of the true crime classic which reached #1 on the charts when it was first released half a dozen years ago. Season 1 - The Burden In the 1990s, Detective Louis N. Scarcella was legendary. In a city overrun by violent crime, he cracked the toughest cases and put away the worst criminals. “The Hulk” was his nickname. Then the story changed. Scarcella ran into a group of convicted murderers who all say they are innocent. They turned themselves into jailhouse-lawyers and in prison founded a lway firm. When they realized Scarcella helped put many of them away, they set their sights on taking him down. And with the help of a NY Times reporter they have a chance. For years, Scarcella insisted he did nothing wrong. But that’s all he’d say. Until we tracked Scarcella to a sauna in a Russian bathhouse, where he started to talk..and talk and talk. “The guilty have gone free,” he whispered. And then agreed to take us into the belly of the beast. Welcome to The Burden.