Episode 169 - Charlie Weingroff: What Does the Research Actually Tell Us? - D&D Fitness Radio Podcast

Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:14):
Welcome to the D and D Fitness Radio podcast, brought
to you by your hosts Don Saladino from New York
City and Derek Hanson from Vancouver, Canada.

Speaker 2 (00:31):
The conversation that you and I had in the car
about you know, getting into like research base versus effendence,
base versus science, and how I think a lot of
people are just they're a bit confused because they're just
listening to anyone online right now, and who's saying, well,
the research shows this, and I think your perspective was
I thought it was really interesting, and I think Derek
and I just wanted to have a conversation with.

Speaker 3 (00:53):
You about that.

Speaker 2 (00:53):
Nothing high level, Just do like a nice little intro
and just talk about how I think a lot of
people out there not that the research is very important,
but is that enough.

Speaker 4 (01:04):
You get what I'm saying, Yeah, yeah, exactly, I know
what to say.

Speaker 2 (01:08):
Not perfect. So I'm I'm gonna introduce Derek. I'm very
excited about this. I'm introducing Charlie Winecroft.

Speaker 3 (01:13):
Derek.

Speaker 2 (01:14):
I think you might have known Charlie before I did.
I think you guys have maybe known each other before
I did, which I consider.

Speaker 3 (01:22):
Yeah, Charlie's not Charlie. Charlie's the youngest on here.

Speaker 4 (01:25):
But I'm part I'm part Meadian. And even though like
I'm at like this, I'm at like this branch on
the Charlie Francis tree, and this guy is like up here.
That's so that I'm considered a sarrogate. He he was
the number one man.

Speaker 3 (01:40):
But I love it. I'm gonna give a quick so
giving the intron to Charlie.

Speaker 2 (01:44):
I know everyone listening probably right now, right now, eventually
when they're listening, knows.

Speaker 3 (01:49):
Who Charlie is.

Speaker 2 (01:49):
But Charlie, you know, has been a doctor of physical therapy,
a certified athletic trainer, certified strength and conditioning specialist. He's
worked with you know many high Hollywood A listeners as
I have more professional athletes than I ever will and
you know, it's been like a brother to me for
the last twelve years. Has created an incredible business. Uh

(02:12):
travels the world with specific people that I can't even
mention previous roles. He's worked with the with the Sixers,
Men's canad of Basketball, US Marine.

Speaker 1 (02:21):
Corps Buccaneers destroyed My Chiefs. Come on.

Speaker 4 (02:26):
That was a couple of years ago where I got
a call at the we in the wee hours after
the Super Bowl, and somebody told me that he broke
his hand, and I'm like, you punched that little kid
in the helmet on that sack, didn't you. And he goes, yeah,
so his hand, his hand wasn't broken.

Speaker 2 (02:44):
I love it, But I think getting into the world
of physical therapy and I think getting in the world
of of trom Nember said this, but problems, when someone
has a problem and something's going on and people are scratching.

Speaker 3 (02:56):
Their head and they don't know what's going on, I'd probably.

Speaker 2 (02:59):
Put you at the top of the people that I'm
gonna you're You're probably the number one guy son.

Speaker 4 (03:04):
I like that, don I think you know? I struggle
immensely to describe what I do, because obviously the degree
is physical therapy, and usually it's like, oh, like, what
do you do? And then I'll like look at Ali
or let them describe or let someone else describe what
I do, because honestly, a lot of people, probably in

(03:24):
different spaces, they have no idea of a physical therapist.
Because most of the glorified jobs that I've had has
been in officially strength conditioning and thence vice versa and
even I think it was last Monday at the time
we're filming. I had an NBA player in LA where
we do our biomechanics testing and the the uh it's

(03:44):
a researcher, so it's we use things that are very
very objective. It's not very commercialized. But he's like this
ardent APTA like American Physical Therapy Association, and he asked,
can some of the students watch? I said, of course,
like they're not going to film anything. But and the
athlete strength coach was there and they're asking me questions

(04:05):
like am my ipt like and he's like, they don't
know who you are. I'm like, listen, I don't know
who they are either. So if everything's fine, like it doesn't,
it doesn't. But I like, if I had to describe
in some way like I'm a problem solver because I've
gotten out of the profession quite a bit over the
last several years because of having clients that are you know,
as a physical therapist, where they're like, you have a

(04:28):
way of you just use the human body, but like
the algorithms of creating solutions is very similar to what
happens in business. So I'm a problem solver. That's all
I just and and I can't solve them all, but no,
but sure.

Speaker 2 (04:42):
But but there's a list of people I'm going to
and it's definitely You're You're definitely at the top.

Speaker 4 (04:47):
You are a fixer.

Speaker 2 (04:47):
So you know Charlie Derek, as you know, Charlie's been
such a close friend but also someone that I cannot
tell you how much I've learned from.

Speaker 3 (04:55):
I think working with Charlie at Drive Charlie, it's going
to be one twelve.

Speaker 2 (04:58):
Twelve years we were in there to get other and
the amount of times I would just sit in the
office with him with a client of mine that Charlie
was working on and just listen and watch. And Charlie,
I've never I never told you this, but one of
the best lessons that you taught me was probably ten
years ago and we were sitting with someone who you know,

(05:19):
I worked with early in the morning and you worked
with a lot and I'm not going to mention his name,
but I came in, I said, this guy's just kind
of like hyper flexible.

Speaker 3 (05:27):
He's all over the place, and You're like, okay, let
me let me take a look at.

Speaker 2 (05:30):
Him and see what's going on and and you you
kind of went through everything with me. When you want
him through the SFMA, and you know I screened him.
You want to put him through an s FMA, which
is for people who don't know, that's one of the screenings,
one of the very many screenings that Charlie uses. And
you gave me the instructions. I went, I sat down

(05:50):
and I started writing this program. And I and I
sat down with you and I dropped this like massive
program in front of you, and you looked at and
you started reading and you started kind of shaking your head,
and you.

Speaker 3 (06:00):
Looked at him and you're like, you know, don deadlift him.

Speaker 2 (06:05):
And I just kind of stopped for a second, like
you were like five by five heavy deadlifts, heavy front squatting.
We got to get this guy stable, we got to
get him tight. And I was like, I felt like
an idiot.

Speaker 3 (06:15):
My jaw hit the floor.

Speaker 2 (06:16):
I'm putting bands this that to try and fix every
little detail in every little area. Back then, the program
looked like a Chinese menu. Like I thought I was
being smart. I thought I was approaching it. And you
gave me a simple approach of deadlift him and squat
them and we started slow. Over that twelve to sixteen
week period of time, I think we ran like a
bill star five by five. We worked on tension techniques,

(06:38):
we worked on his foot placement, we worked on getting
in a position coming out a hole with some speed,
and to be honest, we I think we probably fixed
ninety percent of his issues that I was trying to
in that short period of time. And it was the
simplicity that you delivered to me.

Speaker 3 (06:51):
There.

Speaker 2 (06:52):
I really a tribute to my training career, being able
to go off in a certain direction and learn and
understand that sometimes what less is more.

Speaker 3 (07:00):
So thank you for that.

Speaker 2 (07:01):
But we were having a conversation a few weeks ago,
driving to perform better, and we're talking about I brought
up to Charlie about research. I'm like, you know what, man,
I'm like, I'm you know, everything that gets thrown to me,
people send me stuff, What do you think that this
person says? And you know, sometimes you know, you're happy
to answer, and sometimes you're rolling your eyes because it's
just complete garbage. But you know, I'm feeling like, now

(07:25):
these professionals out there, kids start a conversation without saying
research shows, research shows, and it sounds. It's something that
sounds very intelligent out of someone's mouth. But it also
I think up steers people into believing, well, that's that's life.
That's one correct, he's dating research shows and and and

(07:46):
that's all it is. And I think Charlie, we went
on a rant for about an hour on this stuff.

Speaker 3 (07:52):
CW.

Speaker 2 (07:53):
I just we had a long ride, but I kind
of wanted to start breaking in this conversation and getting
some perspectives from you and Derek can hopefully allow people
here to leave, you know, thinking a little bit more
for themselves.

Speaker 3 (08:05):
You know.

Speaker 4 (08:06):
Well, I think it's good that said individual would say
the research shows instead of saying they have shown, because
no one really knows who they are. But the look,
it's a there's a there's so many directions to go.
But I think the pink elephant, at least in today's

(08:27):
day and age, which probably lasts at least ten to
fifteen years, is the nature of how that message is consumed,
because if you go back twenty to twenty five years,
it would not be consumed through social media like it
would just be consumed in a different way. And the
lens of how the same exact words from the same

(08:47):
exact type of individual is completely completely different where you know,
with a little bit of prep how did I want
to say this? Like it went from you know, maybe
thirty years ago, is like my dad can beat up
your dad, and then it became my dad can bench
press more than your dad, and now it's my dad

(09:07):
has more followers than your dad. So like, if it's on,
if it's on, now, look, that's totally can't. That's totally
can I've heard funny, but you see, my point is
is the way to kind of and obviously there's words
that live in social media like cloud or whatever, whatever
these terms are. The there's there's that's the chase. And

(09:32):
I think the value that people find in whatever social
media brings is immensely intoxicating. And that's a that's I
think that's the right word. It's intoxicating of what what
this can bring for people. And and I've studied this
from from years ago simply to try to understand, you know,
why people do what they do, because it's that's a

(09:53):
big question, that's a that's a problem that I can't solve.
I don't know, like and and everybody has their own
perspective as long as people stay in their own home figuratively,
who cares, like, you know, because social media people care
more because we it does bring us together in maybe
less than a positive way as it relates to this topic.
But in the study of like when you see these horrible,

(10:15):
horrible things that happen when people join cults, like it's
think of now cult. Cult is the short word of
one of the most valuable words in all of communal
living is culture. Like cult and culture cult the most
evil thing ever culture the chase, at least in professional
sports or business. We always want to create culture, create culture,

(10:36):
so they're really they're really not different. They're actually the
same Latin root. And in creating a cult though, where
it's these more nefarious ways of creating this type of thing,
there's something called the bookend effect, which is now relates
to this research shows because if you start your statement
with this very very desig iirable goal, so whatever somebody

(11:02):
is saying, well, the research shows that if you run
ten miles every day, then you'll have a great heart.
So you have two things. You have this factual statement
that in every way, shape and form is completely like real,
like that the research is a real statement. I'm not
making any assumptions that the research was written poorly or

(11:24):
shouldn't have been published. This is grade, whether it's whether
it's Grade A or not. I think we talked a
little bit about that, because research is literally graded by letters.
I'm saying this is good research, like nobody can poke
holes in it and it got published. Because if there's
so many holes and it's like any level of standards
are not being met, is not going to get published. Okay,

(11:46):
So that's on this side. The bookend is over here,
and then you have a good heart that's over here.
So when somebody who's not stupid but under educated, meaning
they don't really know the answers to these things, they're
coming to find it through these means like social media.
That individual can say almost anything they want in the
middle to get and that's how you then how do

(12:07):
you find these really smart people that believe things that
are basic violations of at least current standards of science,
meaning as it relates to the human body, the laws.
I'll try to do, you guys know, I do voices.
It's really just me trying to sound like somebody else.
One of my mentors that you guys know, abou in

(12:28):
thethetic in He's like, you can do whatever you will like,
I don't care as long as it is by the
laws of biology and physics. So biology and physics are
the laws. Now. Look, they could be different tomorrow, but
there's a scientific process that has to happen for those
laws to change. So people will believe things that are
completely inconsistent with biology and physics. Because this thing was

(12:53):
factual in the beginning and so desirable at the end.
You could tell them anything, yeah, like to you know,
run ten miles and you'll have And because it's a
they should that. The I think the real questions that
then need to be asked is not was that research
not good enough to be published? Or certainly was it
being nefarious?

Speaker 2 (13:12):
Uh?

Speaker 4 (13:13):
What are the what is the actual context of all
the people that ran? And how hot was it outside?
And what type of shoes did they wear? And what
was the state of their degenerative meniscus? On the left
but not the right, it is infinite because when you
look at research, the goal is to find the truth. However,

(13:36):
my opinion, it's really not opinion, but I have to
say it's opinion because it's a perspective, is that the
best research level. A double blind is as univariant as possible,
meaning there's as few variables as possible. Remember, the more
variables that you put into those people that ran ten miles,

(13:56):
you need more sample size. You know, there's probably a
number for every variable you're going to have, you have
to have at least another twenty samples. If that number
is not correct, you can cuff me. But I think
it's twenty. So you want to have as few variables
as possible. Otherwise it would it would borderline be impossible
to even run contemporary statistics because you would need so

(14:19):
many people in order to make any type of sense
of this. So the word is a univariant and linear.
All we said was running. We didn't say what time
of day, We didn't say how they were carbloaded. We
didn't say if they did a sauna when we're done,
or any kind of foolishness that you because it would
actually make sense for the scientific process. So maybe their

(14:41):
heart doesn't do better if.

Speaker 3 (14:43):
They have anything or anything.

Speaker 4 (14:46):
But again, the more complicated that we look at the research,
it doesn't make it wrong research, it doesn't make it bad.
It's just maybe not as applicable to what you want
to do. So the words are univariant and linear. Real
life is multivariate and nonlinear. So it doesn't mean that
this is a poor study. There's no suggestion of that.

(15:10):
But really it's really a guiding or a starting point
for you to make whatever is the best decision. And
that's where I think people that know that, whether they
use the same words as I do or not. People
that know that, there's no way that those seventy five
people in this study are the same seventy five people

(15:30):
that I work with. People know this. They get this sense. Now,
of course, there's always going to be people that just
want to antagonize because we can get to that. We
can get to that too, but that's where this starts.
But not everybody has that perspective. So again based on
what social media is, oh bam, Because if you want

(15:51):
to be popular in social media today not when it
first started, I think there's two ways to do it,
and I think some of the examples you're talking about
check both boxes. Number one, say the opposite of somebody
who's really really popular. That's that's a great way to
get and recognized. Yo, don did you see what so
and so said about you? Or maybe it's someone not

(16:13):
on this call, but somebody who's very very well known,
and you know, somebody just picks them apart, whether it's
warranted or not. Like that, you're gonna listen, Oh my god,
did you see what so and so said about that person?
It's just human human nature, so you'll get eyes on
what you're doing. The other one is to just run
the evidence based route like Nope, can't do that. The
research doesn't support that, You're not allowed to do it.

(16:34):
And then people are gonna listen because again, it antagonizes
a variant level of accepted message. So you can take
that research where running ten making this up. Obviously, running
ten miles is good for your heart. Well, we like
to do we like to run nine miles. Nope, Charlie's
an idiot because there's now Just because somebody actually didn't
do the study, that doesn't mean I'm not getting the results.

(16:57):
I am not obliged to write this study. I am
allowed to be a heuristic more than a researcher. And
Aaron Kots told me this in a restaurant in Sydney, Australia,
several years ago. Because you can do anything, you don't
have to you just have to write it down and
run your own scientific method if you really want to
make statements. Now, I may not even care. I'm like, yeah,

(17:18):
we run nine miles. I'm really not concerned with what
and what so and so says. Now, you see, there's
a lot of ingredients in this murky, you know situation
where why do people care? What is the person's motive?
And then what is the listener? What is their standard
of acceptance? And and it's like it all starts with
this research paper that isn't wrong, it's just might not

(17:41):
always be right. And the last thing I'll say in
this opening is the the the most substantial definition of
evidence based practice. What the what the literature says is
only one third of that answer, and it may not
be thirty three percent of each it could be some

(18:02):
varying level. But is what does the current literature say?
Number one? Number two? What do you have access to?
Meaning I live on a ski slope, we can't run
ten miles? Well, what can we do? That's similar to
the physiological components. Oh, but the research didn't say you
were allowed to go snowshoeing, so that doesn't count. Of
course it counts. And then Thirdly, what is the population

(18:26):
as a clinician, what do they prefer, what do they like,
what do they want to do. That's the essence of
evidence based which is very very different than science. The
scientific method is very very different than what literature shows
scientific I ran the scientific process by logging out and
coming back in without my headset. I try. I had

(18:49):
a problem. I needed to create a solution. I tried something,
and my hypothesis was that I would be able to
be heard if I took my ears out. It worked.
That's the scientific process. I don't need to publish this
like I and I think that frustrates some people sometimes
when somebody is maybe trying to be an innovator, maybe winning,
maybe losing. But if it's not in the research, it's

(19:12):
it's it gives somebody this this this sword to kind
of cut you up with, and that's it's kind of sucks.
But that's that's really a summary of what I think
we were talking about in the car.

Speaker 1 (19:24):
Down that that was very good. I Uh, I mean
from what just listening to you. If I just walked
into the room, I would say wow. In order to
for me to benefit from research, I have to be
pretty intelligent I have to have I have to be
pretty reasonable in terms of, you know, just just how

(19:46):
I interpret things and all that, and and I have
to take a common sense approach to make research useful
to me, because everything you said to me is like, well,
when I know for myself, when I see somebody sends
me an abstract or a title of an article, I'm like, well,
I have to look at the entire article, like I
need to see the entire research art. I need to

(20:07):
see the subjects, the study design, blah blah, and I'll
and then I'll get a better understanding of it. But
how many people do that? How many people are like
And another example is it seems like when I'm invited
to a conference, now they're giving me less time to speak, right.
So it used to be like you get an hour
ninety minutes. Now I'm getting twenty minutes. It's like Ted talk, right,

(20:27):
And so I'm thinking, well, what am I going to
say in twenty minutes that's going to spark interest for
them to do a deeper dive into my topic and
really start, you know, taking it upon themselves. So that's
that's what I got from that, is that we need
people research is really there to kind of spark interest
and make people work harder. Is that does that sound right?

Speaker 4 (20:48):
It's a yeah, of course, of course it's right. I
think it's yeah. Let me let me put a real
world example. So you guys know Sam Gibbs, you know
who brought me into Canada basketball. And what we don't
really have in America is genuine osteopathy, which which we

(21:10):
have in Canada. So if you have a d oh,
they're really just the lame you know, MD. They have
all the same privileges. If you go into Europe, doctor
I mean it, and we have excellent deos that are
orthopedic surgeons. This is not this is not an osteopath
that you would see in Canada, which is very influenced
from Western Europe or in the UK an osteopath. It's
it's you know, because also physical therapist is different than

(21:33):
it is an American in Canada. It's all different, the
same words, but they're different. An osteopath to a to
a true individual who is very familiar with an American
culture of health and fitness, osteopathy looks like magic, like
there's no reference point as to how these methods are working,
and they just have a different standard, a different book.

(21:55):
It's not nearly as wild as maybe Asian medicine. Also brilliant,
brilliant and stuff that goes off this completely different manual,
if you will. Okay. So at that same conversation, and
it was with Aaron Koots who who who was he
was on the original Nike board. We brought him to
Canada to to spend the summer with us UH and

(22:16):
then when we had friendly games there, we would spend
a lot of time. We trained at his college City
University of Sydney, et cetera, et cetera. This is one
of the most well known, you know, sports scientists, you know,
in the world. It's just because sports science in America
isn't really what it is in other parts of the world.
So he was saying, like, Sam's like all over the place.
I mean, like he had never seen any of these

(22:37):
things before, because he's very you know, very the barriers
of research. But he's like, but you guys are clearly
getting results. He like, I remember dry needling him, which
I thought was a shock. He's like, I had no
idea this is what dry needling was. Because manual therapy
in Australia and New Zealand is kind of like a
well known thing. He's like, my back is never fine,

(23:00):
and his back felt great. Whatever, that's not the point.
The point is that he never even knew that that's
what you could do with dry needling and create this
kind of result. So he's like, you guys are like
Sam's in this other level. But as long as you
guys just write down what you're doing, that's a heuristic.
Like you're not a bad person if you're a heuristic,
meaning you're just gonna do what you want to do,
and you just, you know, put all these things, put

(23:21):
put all of these things together. So that my response
to Derek is that whatever I've written down is the
same as research. It's just a guide like it's and
and it's it's more of like a hand holding. And
sometimes that hand holding can take you immediately to a
to an endpoint, an action plan, but a lot of

(23:43):
times it's it's it's just on the way where it
kind of maybe eliminates poor choices but doesn't always tell
you what the exact correct choice is. And I think
almost every research paper that has value is gonna have
some language saying this topic requires more research because we
know that in order for that research to really hold up,

(24:07):
it can't encompass everything that is heuristic can can encompass.
So I think that that that's absolutely like some of
the other things that's you actually have to know what
the words are in the in the research paper, so
like what is the end, what is subject?

Speaker 3 (24:27):
What?

Speaker 4 (24:28):
You have to understand statistics, you have to understand the
standards of the statistics that you're using. All of these things.
So it's not just only reading the abstract, which I
think a lot of people that are in this space
would be very condemning towards, like you're of course you're
allowed to read it, but that's not the standard of
judging what this paper says. The title in the abstract
is not the No, you can't do that, Like that's

(24:49):
not that's not logical. You have to read the whole
thing and it's not like this is quantum physics. But
you have to know what you're what these words mean,
and and it's more than just reading the conclusion of
the of the abstract. So again taking it back to
what I think is going to be useful to most
people listening, especially if they're in the general population. No, No,

(25:13):
one is being accused of being stupid. It's it's it's
that this like I might find it strange that somebody
would look to social media for that level of solution,
but everyone has a role in social media. It's a
big to me. It's like this big game. It's we
all play a character, and there's some characters that aren't
always good guys and and uh, but they're but if

(25:35):
they're really slick, they're going to use this bookend effect.
So again, it's the lens because if you go back
twenty five years, it would be a conference where instead
of twenty minutes each each each speaker gets two hours
and they're going at each other, you know, you know,
hopefully in somewhat of a professional way. If it's a

(25:56):
real debate, I'm going to crush you. Like a debate
is like a win loss, Like an argument is just
you know, or a real debate there's a judge and
there's rules to a debate, and that doesn't really happen
anymore for whatever reasons. And that's where again that it
always goes back to it's not a suggestion that the

(26:19):
statement is wrong, it's just not as complete as we
need it to be.

Speaker 3 (26:24):
Well, does it work both ways?

Speaker 2 (26:26):
Because I was listening to an internal conversation, I'm not
going to mention the person's name. He didn't say anything wrong,
but he turned around and he was discussing his demographic.

Speaker 3 (26:35):
He's a PhD. He was discussing his demographic and.

Speaker 2 (26:38):
He said that, well, my demographic really prefers to only
listen to doctors and PhDs.

Speaker 3 (26:46):
Okay, interesting, right.

Speaker 2 (26:47):
I also think in a way, I think it's insulting
to a lot of people out there who've spent their
entire life's work in developing, you know, their craft and
learning from some incredible people.

Speaker 3 (26:58):
I mean, one of them being Charlie Francis.

Speaker 2 (26:59):
Right, you gave Charlie Francis some pretty big props coming
early on in this in this intro. But Charlie had
his history, got his history degree from Stanford. You know,
Charlie wasn't a science based Derek, correct me if I'm wrong,
But he wasn't some science based, you know, running mechanics
coach that is sitting in a lab at Stanford with

(27:20):
electrobes hooked up to someone's leg. And in the season
in the UH, in the scene of Drago where they're
where they're testing.

Speaker 3 (27:26):
That wasn't Charlie Francis.

Speaker 2 (27:28):
He was an Olympian, he was someone that's worked with
some incredible athletes, and he really formed his own hypothesis
based off of what it was he learned and did
throughout his career, and he created call what you want, Derek,
a system, a training method, whatever it is he created
and put it out there. Do you think a lot
of these researchers PhDs where people are going too far

(27:52):
in the direction of just listening to them, Because what
I'm gathering from a lot of them is they're just
doing the research in a lab and they're not actually
the ones going out and doing a lot of the
physical work themselves to where I think someone like me
learned a lot over thirty years of getting underneath the
bar or running or getting injured and having to sit
with someone like you for twelve years and learn about

(28:13):
injury and sitting with clients and learning how. And I'm
not a pt, but just that educational piece of learning
from someone like you, and you were one of many
people I've learned from allowed me to develop this kind
of rolodex of information in my life. So do you
think people are going too far in the direction of like, well,
you've got to learn from researchers, isn't it inconclusive a

(28:33):
little bit when they're not actually doing the work or
out there on the field themselves at times? Or do
you disagree with me? You have plenty of times in
my life it's fun. No, it's for truth, it's for me.

Speaker 4 (28:49):
Yeah, I would not say inconclusive. I would say incomplete.
That's again a semantics because again I'm not I have
to remove myself from making any suggestion. I have to
use these words carefully that I'm not questioning the quality
of what there is. I think it's more of a
perspective of what it is in the first place. Now,

(29:10):
if somebody is only going to listen to that, hey
there's a lot of I could make some sarcastic comments
that maybe people will laugh at, Like if if you're
only going to follow what a researcher says, you are
likely only doing what someone else did upwards of two
years ago. That's that's you know, come at me, bro like,

(29:32):
that's because it takes time from when some and that
can be with anything like like the moment, like we're
filming this, whatever day it is, somebody might not watch
this for a year from now. We may not believe
what we're saying right now that that's allowed. So you know,
maybe if you're going to be an innovator, you have
to choose like you're going to be because researchers their

(29:54):
their role in this machine not not what I was
referencing before social media. They're they're to get the questions
and find if what innovators are saying is true under
certain circumstances. And you have to start at the most
basic consistency of circumstances, maybe not even what the innovator

(30:16):
is doing. So you have to kind of create like, okay,
what is the research, What is the innovator saying. They're
saying that if we write okay, well if we if
we maintain this speed, is the same thing happening? Is
reliability or you do it like does what you're saying
even hold any water that if you do it ten
times in a row, right or wrong, the same thing

(30:39):
is going to happen. That's reliability. So there is no
validity unless there's reliability. Validity is did this thing actually
do what you said it was going to do, So
it can't possibly be that if it's not reliable. Now
to do those those initial studies that might be as
like like the the world of the innovator is like this,

(31:02):
and then the study is like this, because and then
and then the study goes here, and then the study
gets here, et cetera, et cetera. That's the correct way
to begin this. But until there's an innovator who's challenging
things in hopefully not a negative way, then then then
the researcher will create an environment with enough repetitions to

(31:25):
see is this actually the truth. Now here's the thing
that again, where social media you know, has become a
significant antagonist, the researcher is not supposed to care. The
researcher has no skin in the game. There is nothing
to stop a researcher who's making you know whatever at

(31:45):
a PhD, you know, at at university X from building
a social media model where now the same things don't
matter anymore. So if that is a certain degree of bias,
that's why we may not see this a lot in fitness,
but we'll see it in high level medical conferences where

(32:06):
it is incumbent on the speaker to reveal any potential
relationships that they have that may have an impact on
what they're saying, where in fitness doesn't exist because the
standards are just not the same. It doesn't make one
right or wrong. So do they do they have anything
to disclose that a researcher that I will consult with significantly,

(32:34):
he's even even in a closed phone call, he like, hey, listen,
just so you know, Pepsiico supported this study, you know,
like even, And it's not because obviously pepsi is a
company has many things other than rotten soda. But there's
there's other things that they sell that could potentially impact

(32:54):
what the answer was to this study. That doesn't mean
it has to. Okay, that doesn't mean it has to.
So so all of those things again is not a
is more incomplete than any You know, then if somebody's
only going to listen to that person, I'd be like,
all right, man, the uh now, at least they're listening
to somebody, because manure that bookend effect can work the

(33:17):
same way when there is no research at all, no
one's ever researched certain things, and if it's presented in
a very convincing fashion to the right voice aka a cult,
then all of a sudden, everybody's doing you know, uh hyptoes.
And it's a good point.

Speaker 2 (33:33):
But but but but but it's but it's a good point.
I almost rather people deliver their information of their opinion
that way, Like listen, I've read this research that states this,
and I've actually been utilizing this for the last thirty
years of my life, and this is what I found, Like,
like that to me might even be a little bit
more intelligent than just because how many times and me

(33:55):
and I talked to Boil about it. I've spoken to
Greg Rose about it, and I've gone to them years after.
Remember I went through you know, I think you and
I were the first team. I know, I was the
first TPI three. So I've gone to Greg and been like,
do you guys still use this? And they're like no,
I'm like why not. They're like, because we evolved out
of it. We just realize it's not important. And I'm
like I was sitting there at a certain point going wow,
like I listened to this twenty years ago, like it

(34:16):
was the be all, end all, and I'm preaching it
like it was the be all end all.

Speaker 3 (34:19):
Shit on me for doing that, because that's my fault.

Speaker 2 (34:22):
But they ended up you know, being very honest and
saying like, no, we just don't find value in it anymore.

Speaker 3 (34:27):
And Boyle has turned to me.

Speaker 2 (34:28):
On countless times and said, no, I've changed my mind,
and I'm like okay, Like like that to me is
interesting because we're speaking to people who are valued at
a specific level in our industry. I want to hear
their opinion, not some guy putting a bunch of test
rats throughout six weeks.

Speaker 4 (34:44):
Letus know that, whether it's the names you're mentioning, the
three of us or three other people, if you're in
a different camp that didn't always exist, there wasn't always
these camps, then they're like, oh, they're full of shit,
like because they're not in the same yeahs as somebody
that you know. Okay, So there's certain models that I

(35:06):
significantly champion and because they're so multi variant, they're literally
impossible to research. Impossible. So anytime someone does research it,
it shows that it doesn't do certain things. Okay, but
that's not what I'm doing, you know. But well it's
not about I know it's like okay, but I'm not wrong,

(35:29):
Like you're just making this thing up like that's and
also keep in mind, guys that if you take ten
studies and five say that it worked and five said
it didn't work, that means it didn't work. No one
cares about the five. So then then you get into this,
you know, the difference between scientifically significant, which nine out
of ten is not even you need to be in

(35:51):
the ninety eight ninety nine level. But then what's clinically significant?
And then you're going to get into some potentially insensitive
statements that if someone has a grave illness, are you
going to try this method that has a seventy percent
success rate or you're gonna or not do it and
have and die like now, oh, but the research doesn't
support this, and then you get into FDA et cetera,

(36:14):
et cetera. It's it's just it's so that that concept
of scientifically significant again, because in order to say this,
there's there's data, there's statistics, there's confidence levels, there's baysy
in models like all of this stuff that no one
talks about ever on social media. If you're below that,

(36:34):
like one little centimeter below it, it did not work.
It did not there was no impact. Really, so ninety
four percent, which would be bad level, like it didn't
work according to research, So now can you still learn
something from that? Meaning somebody might still I have to
believe that if I read that paper because it was
relevant to how I was trying to help somebody, I'm like,

(36:56):
you know what, I didn't draw that line right there.
And even though ninety four percent you know this, this
one statement in this particular form of media says X,
I'm gonna run with why because I didn't make that
line right there that they did make it ninety four
out of one hundred? Is it sounds interesting to me?
And then you run it? And and I think the

(37:18):
biggest thing is like why do people care? Like why
do people even care what somebody else does? And again,
I know I can think of one reason why I
would care, Because I want to make money. And if
I have a different standard on how to you know,
gain money, then that that's that works. And people have
some very dastardly standards, some very low standards on if

(37:39):
they say certain things, whether it's research based science based,
which are a little bit different, as we've said, then
then all of a sudden, you can you have courses,
you have you know, you can sign up for this
and and and it's okay, like that doesn't bother me.
They're not there's it's just a game, like we're all
we're all in this and I may not like it,

(37:59):
and we can talk about it, you know, hopefully professionally
in a proper setting. It's just that when people go
after other people for no reason other than to create
this image, you know, this content that sucks. That sucks
like that. That's and I know we talked about that too,
because they're not wrong. They're not wrong like the research
or just simple opinion like that is garbage. If I

(38:23):
wasn't doing garbage, you would never have content that's no good, Like,
don't ever do. I don't think that's cool to do.
But people don't even realize it, Like they don't even
realize what they're watching. That this individual would never have
any content if he or she wasn't banging on somebody
else who they don't even know. They don't even know
who this person is, And of course what they would
say off camera is probably very different anyway, of course,

(38:45):
of course.

Speaker 1 (38:46):
Derek, Yeah, I mean I agree entirely with what you
guys are saying because I went through this process for
the last few years where I was going through the
research on electrical muscle stimulation, right. And so so if
you go through you will find a lot of studies
that don't support it, you know, but those are useful.

(39:07):
Those are useful to me because what I'll end up
doing is I'll say I know what works for me,
and then I go into the study and I'm looking
at it and they're like, oh, I found something that
they are doing different in the study that's different from
what I'm doing, So maybe that's why they didn't get
a result. So in a lot of these electrical stimulation studies,
they leave it up to the participant to choose their intensity, right,

(39:29):
because they from an ethical point of view, you can't
turn it up too high otherwise people freak out and
crap their.

Speaker 2 (39:34):
Pants, right.

Speaker 1 (39:35):
So if they're not turning it up, they're not getting
the same stimulus and adaptation that I would get in
my own personal use of it, right or with my clients.
So so right away I'm like, Okay, well that rules
out that study because they're not doing the same thing
that I'm doing, So maybe that's why they're not getting
the result. And then you start looking at pad placement

(39:56):
on muscles and they're not using like a motor point
device to figure out where the optimal motor point is,
so they're just slapping them on where they think it
should go. Okay, well, that rules out that study. So
by virtue of the fact that there are studies that
are having different outcomes than my result is useful because
I'm going through and figuring out, oh, okay, this actually supports

(40:18):
what I'm doing. So I think now I'm almost expecting
to find studies that dis well on the surface, disprove
what I'm doing, but when you dig deeper, they actually
support what I'm doing. So I think it's useful to
see all these different studies and figure out why they
might get a result versus what you're doing. And I think,

(40:38):
but you have to go through that mental exercise, And
as you guys have said, Charlie said, you have to
have the experience to be able to go in as
like a crime scene investigator and figure out why it's different.
If you don't have that experience, you can't deduce why
they're getting a different result. So I think, you know,
all these things you guys are saying about having an
intelligent approach with how to assess research is so important.

Speaker 4 (41:02):
Yeah, guys, there's a conduit, Derek, there's a conduit to
what you're saying in that I think of quite a bit.
Research shows that scratching your arm doesn't increase you know,
this rist extension. Okay, a lot of people scratch people's

(41:23):
arm and they increase it. Except the research was was
attacking this question from an assumed physiological response, when in
fact there did have this very real change in risk extension,
it just wasn't because of what they were testing. So
then they call it a placebo, and I would say,

(41:45):
most of the time, it's not a placebo. You just
measure the wrong thing. And and again that there's you'd
have to then, like I know when they talk about
these things sometimes like if I'm really digging in, I
used to actually literally do this. I did it in
a when I used to do my own my own seminars.
I had all the research papers that I said, this

(42:06):
is how why I think what I think. This is
just what you paid to listen to me talk here
it is. And then I took the research papers and
I laid them all out by when they were published,
and then I moved them all around and I'm like,
this is the real story. So it's like you have
to take like this research over here is meaningless, but
now it makes perfect sense when you take this one

(42:26):
and put it over here, and then you have to
then move it over here when this one came in,
and that takes like if you're really digging in. That's
why it's like somewhat impossible to know everything, but it
is very possible to have very strong opinions. And then
when you have that, it wasn't that you weren't doing
anything to the Piscinian corpuscles. Of course, that made no sense.

(42:47):
That's why the researchers challenged it so aggressively. Except doing
this increases oxytocin, which has an opportunity over time to
decrease you know, systemic stress, and then all the sudden
you can improve better. Like that makes perfect sense. Maybe
not the way I said it, but I'm talking too fast.
But there's always some other reason as to why something

(43:09):
could have worked. It's not that the method. Ah, there's
very very famous and very well used manual therapies that
say they're breaking up adhesions. I have yet to find
any scientific merit to the word adhesion. You could use ultrasound,
like there's nothing that shows there. I have seen people
do this and all of a sudden, something really good happens.

(43:32):
You didn't break up an adhesion in one move, or
that that didn't happen. I don't believe that happened. But
I do believe that the method is very, very valuable.
So we just don't how that method is being taught
is just wrong from the science level, but it's brilliant
from a psychomotor level. It's brilliant to create a solution
for somebody. Now the real challenges, well, are you more

(43:57):
positive because you are genuinely helping people which firm believe,
or are you negative because you're purporting this thing that's
not really happening. Well, there's some merit to that. I
shouldn't be saying that I'm breaking up an adhesion. That
is completely ludicrous, Like there's no no science whatsoever to
say an adhesion exists. So that's that's a similar where

(44:21):
it just works, but not for the same reason.

Speaker 1 (44:26):
Sorry, if somebody did say kept saying adhesion adhesion and
you've proven not, would that be a hit on their
character or how would you assess that?

Speaker 4 (44:36):
I mean, I probably wouldn't care ultimately, because if the
person's wrist moves better. That's all I really care about.
You guys have heard me say a million times this
is my personal Now there's no longer talking about research.
I don't care if you spread peanut butter on somebody
doesn't get the job done. Like that's because if the
if we have a reliable and valid post measure, I

(44:57):
don't care what you do. It's completely irrelevant. So now
what you're what you're referring to is you know, Derek,
I really think your shirt is garbage, Like that has
no commentary on the quality of human being youre are.
I just chose to communicate in a way that was objective.
Hopefully it was a request it like you didn't ask me,

(45:18):
but so to think that somehow and then and this
is actually very meaningful to me from different roles that
I've had in the past. But it just because somebody
is believing something that is factually incorrect. Yo, look at
all this stuff behind me, like like no, it's all fake,
it's all fantasy, Like it's all because that's what I like.

(45:39):
So if some now, if somebody is genuinely helping somebody,
I my personal opinion is I don't care that they're
but just if they feel that it's an attack on
their character. Yo, Like we're talking about adhesions, like we're
talking about Scrooge McDuff, Like, come on, like, like, what
does that have to do with your character? You're genuinely
trying to help, So what I usually say this has

(46:01):
had nothing to do with the person's altruism or their
interest in helping. Years and years ago, in Canada basketball,
we had social systems and processes. Okay, it's basically how
do you act? And when you have a machine like
we had that was you know, so special, we kept
looking for breadcrumbs and I like, okay, yeah, we all

(46:22):
kind of get along. What do we really do? So
part of my role as a director was to put
all this on paper, and it was a it was
a diamond. It was meant to be around the maple leaf,
et cetera. And one of them was, uh, when when
someone says something to you that doesn't jive? Like, there's
no such things as adhesions. Years ago, one of my

(46:45):
favorite coaches in football, his name was Herm Edwards really
like southern voice, like I want to go to war
for this dude. And I remember meeting him once. It
was really cool, and he was talking about he was coaching,
he was not in the NFL, and he hadn't gone
to college. He was talking to the players at like
the under Armoured like All Star game. And I think

(47:07):
around that time, somebody there was this period of time
where you know, they could go back in twitterland and
if you posted something ten years ago where those kids
would have been like eight years old, and if it
was wrong now that you were gonna fry, you were
gonna get in big trouble. So he was like, don't
hit send. That was like he kept saying it. I
can always hear his voice. He's like, don't hit send.

(47:29):
Don't So whenever you think you're gonna do something, just
stop and think about it. And then I took that
and this is just how you can look at research.
But I took what that was. And it's like, if
someone says something really mean to you or something that
really does hurt, I'm gonna say it's really just a
scratch or a beasting. Don't hit send before you respond.

(47:50):
So if I attack your character because you believe adhesions exist,
which they do not, don't hit send, Derek. Don't hit send.
Ask yourself two questions. Is this person really trying to
hurt me? Hmm, I can tell you if I'm trying
to hurt somebody, I'm gonna pick something other than adhesions.
I'm gonna go to work on you. I'm gonna I'm
gonna get you. The other question that I would, I

(48:13):
would we would teach the interns like to before somebody
says something that's that's very hurtful. Is is it possible
for for a millisecond, is it possible that this person
knows something that I don't know? And And if you
do think the person is trying to hurt you, and
it is not possible that they know anything, go get them,

(48:34):
destroy them, crush everything in your path. But of course
most of the time I'm not If I were to say,
and people listening maybe are very you know, the people
that do believe in adhesions, they're somewhat offended. Do you
really think I'm trying to hurt you? Like I don't
even know you, I don't care, Like right, I know
for a fact that that there is no histological study

(48:56):
and I'm doing like ultrasound, because that would be the
merit that shows whatever is described as an adhesion in
this manual therapy seminar that I'm referring to. So I'm
not And if you and if you think there is adhesions,
let's talk about football's let's talk like we can talk
about something else. Because I know it works. It just
works for something else. That's our real discussion here. Like

(49:18):
research may not indicate why something works. So if you
if you tailor the research model to only determine not
did it work, but why it worked? Nope, it didn't
work because of that, this must be garbage. No, it's
not garbage. I've seen it work. I've used it myself.
It just didn't work because of why we were taught.

(49:38):
How I want to get you think that's a very
important component of evaluating research.

Speaker 2 (49:43):
I want to get your I got one last question
for you, and we really greatly appreciate your time. What
is your advice to someone who is, you know, listening
to a lot of a noise out there. They're they're
not a fitness professional, they're not a medical they're watching
stuff off online, and how what advice would you give
to them in filtering? You know, someone who's coming on

(50:06):
sounding very smart that may not be and you and
I have talked about it.

Speaker 3 (50:09):
There are people and I'm not going to.

Speaker 2 (50:10):
Mention names that come off sounding very intelligent and very believable,
and they're saying the opposite of the truth just to
get eyeballs on them. So what's your advice to someone
who doesn't know how to depict between one or the other?

Speaker 3 (50:24):
Tough question about.

Speaker 4 (50:26):
No, no, And and look, this comes up a lot
because it's it. It can suck like if if, if, if, whoever?
The the third person, not the person posting, not the
person watching, but someone else that cares. It takes some time,
and it takes a unique path to get to a
point where you just literally don't give a shit like
and that's you know, it takes time, you have to

(50:47):
And look that that was all a big part of
Canada basketball social systems, you know, like how do you
act like you want to? We had a way to
talk about how do you get to a place where
you don't care anymore because you're good, like you're full.
There's one hundred and fifty one in one role. But
I think the first thing, you know, basically what I
think you're asking don is how do you filter the information?

(51:09):
I think the first one is what is the ratio
of the person's content that I mentioned before would never
exist without someone else's thing. Whether it's their post that
they take because it's public domain and put it into
their post and then comment on it, okay, doesn't mean

(51:30):
they're wrong, doesn't mean they're not hilarious, but that's one thing.
Or if their post is talking about this podcast, so
they Hey, I saw a podcast where Charlie was running
his mouth about adhesions and then they make a post
about it. If if that is the bulk of what

(51:51):
they of what they're presenting, delete block their garbage, their
trash you know where. I think it's you know where
where if this other thing didn't exist and it's not
like you do one. But there was somebody who was
in my you know, my team where we work with

(52:12):
lots of studs, and even before COVID he was because
his methods are I even told them, and I would
try to counsel him, like I don't believe in alternative.
It's not alternative just because you're one of the few
people that do this stuff. You're here because it works.
It's not alternative just because someone's just because a lot

(52:33):
of people don't do it doesn't make it alternative, so
I don't use that word. He just does some different shit.
And he was always somebody because of his profession and
his methods that he believed in and that worked. He
always probably felt that there was a thumb on like
he was being marginalized because people didn't really respect what
he did as a natural path. And he started to

(52:56):
talk a lot about on social media about crypto, because
crypto would be like fighting against the machine. I'm like,
seems to me it's like a way to make money
or exchange for goods, like he thought about it as
making machine. And then when COVID came, he would post
like just he got he got. He didn't get Shadow band,
he got real band. Like he was he was on

(53:18):
a list, and he believed what he believed. He was
probably correct in everything that he was saying. But I said, yo,
can I get Can I get one post of why
your special and why you do things that no one
else does for every five while the rest of us
are idiots, could I at least get one? And and

(53:39):
like you see what I because there's a lot of
people that have significant following. Goes back to what I
said just say the opposite of what someone else is saying.
And I think if we if you actually that, you
shouldn't be able to see that. Like if somebody is
only largely not not ten out of ten, but like
six out of ten, seven out of ten, their content
only would never ever exist without it doesn't even mean

(54:01):
that they're wrong. I think you gotta kind of look
side eye at that person because no one asked them,
No one asked them, hey, can you make a post
on this? You know, until that becomes their thing and
that's all that they do. So that's where you know.
It may not be a person, but like your commercial model,
like I have never made a post about adhesions are dumb,
Like I've never done that because that's someone's life blood,

(54:24):
somebody somebody made, somebody feeds their family from that I have.
I have no interest in her.

Speaker 1 (54:29):
That's the title of the podcast.

Speaker 4 (54:30):
You know that. Sure everybody remembers. Everybody remembers that. I said, like,
I have seen this method work very very well. It's
just breaking up an adhesion in one thing in one turn.
It is nothing.

Speaker 2 (54:47):
It seems so simple to you, but this is one
of my favorite ones.

Speaker 3 (54:50):
Maybe laugh.

Speaker 4 (54:52):
That's the filter. That's the filter, and then the other one,
which is a little bit harder. I think because I've
thought about this is what do you know about the person? Like,
you know, what is the relatability? We've talked about this
to me, that's rule number two of social media land.
Are you relatable? So but you could be relatable in

(55:14):
different ways. So if if somebody, if somebody just actually
divulges a little bit, probably not all of who they
are as a human, you might have a better idea
of what their motives are. So, for instance, if I
happened to know that chiropractor X was a really was

(55:34):
a real prip going through chiropractic school, and he was
really angry because he knew what they were teaching him
was wrong, and he was so angry, and then he
became this incredibly eloquent and brilliant speaker that had really
good science to everything he was talking about. Maybe you'd
understand why he's you know, makes why he bangs on

(55:56):
everybody because he got banged on. But if you don't
know that about this chiropractor, then you know, maybe you
would look at his information and put way more value
on it rather than man, he's just this is just
his time to punch back, and everybody else beat up
a lot when he was in Kiro's.

Speaker 2 (56:13):
Yeah yeah, and I and I'm going to close on that,
and I completely agree with you. I just if you're
if you're smart, if you know what you're doing, you
should be able to create your own content and not
have to destroy people constantly whether they're right or wrong.
I mean, unless somebody is just being so irresponsible in
their message and people that sometimes can get a bit frustrating.

Speaker 3 (56:30):
Is it not good and you're like it's terrible? Thank you,
thank you, Thank you.

Speaker 2 (56:34):
Charlie.

Speaker 3 (56:34):
Where can everyone find you on social media? Never adult
moment with you?

Speaker 2 (56:37):
Brother?

Speaker 4 (56:37):
Love so Instagram is chwine Groff websites Charlie wineroff dot
com and hey we every I was asked a bunch
of questions. I didn't volunteer anything.

Speaker 3 (56:49):
I love you man, You're the best. I will call
you later again.

Speaker 2 (56:52):
Thank you, our best to Ali exactly my boy over there.

Speaker 3 (56:57):
Talk to you guys. Thanks again, guys.

Speaker 4 (57:00):
Here guys,

All Episodes

Episode 169 - Charlie Weingroff: What Does the Research Actually Tell Us?

Episode Transcript

Popular Podcasts

NFL Daily with Gregg Rosenthal

On Purpose with Jay Shetty

Dateline NBC

.css-15opob5{left:0;position:absolute;top:0.8rem;} All Episodes

.css-14f5ked{margin:0;word-break:break-word;display:-webkit-box;-webkit-box-orient:vertical;box-orient:vertical;-webkit-line-clamp:2;overflow:hidden;}Episode 169 - Charlie Weingroff: What Does the Research Actually Tell Us?