Thread 76716313

Why do some people (including this board) do not trust it?
Isn't Science supposed to be immutable? What's wrong with applying scientific facts to your workout?

>>76716313 (OP)
the two biggest names in science based lifting are an insane jew and a canadian

>>76716313 (OP)
"science based" = i read this study's title so my personal opinion is unmistakably correct and if you think otherwise you like getting injured

>>76716313 (OP)
>What's wrong with applying scientific facts to your workout?
like that lad spread is necessary for delt work?
or that shoulders need to be protracted for pec work? or that gastrocnemius bends the knee not extends it ? or that bicpes long head won't work cause tendon won't slide properly with flexed delt?
what facs exactly bot?
>no i just wanna talk in abstract with meaningless word salads hooman
and that's where u're wrong bot


>>76716203
>So what's the problem with engaging the hip flexors along with the abs?
it doesn't grow abs bot :D
>but why? why is for ex. crunch not effective?
it's just a theory but i believe that psoas pulling with compromised lumbar origin is sputtering and this instability is propagated over all the muscles involved and ruin the quality of contraction u get, u can get sore but it's not because muscle belly was properly worked no, i believe it's just injury, "micro-tears" as u like calling it bot
and u need continuous tension on muscle belly without such interruptions for muscle building stimulus, dozens of seconds, 2 or 3 dozens

>>76716313 (OP)
>Isn't Science supposed to be immutable?
No, obviously not. Scientific consensus is updated all the time when new findings come out. What a dumb thing to say.

Normalcattle are incapable of performing scientific method so it falls flat.

>>76716313 (OP)
Because it's already been solved and people are just doing dogshit click bait "science" to get views and money to make up for being a manlet who can't stop taking Ls

>>76716546
>People should egolift
Thank you, science.

>>76716313 (OP)
There's nothing wrong with attempting to use the result of scientific studies for lifting and nutrition, it's just that the phrase "science-based" is primarily used by reddit grifters like kike israel and jefflet nipple. People that don't understand or actually care about science, but worship the word because they view it as a way to advance their status.

>>76716313 (OP)
>Isn't Science supposed to be immutable
What you are thinking of is basically only math, this is not true for the shit show that is nutrition and exercise. Until they start doing "inhuman" studies of absolute controlled environment all their findings are a joke and only a tiny step above "trust me bro".

>>76716685
You can do all these studies on your own body at home, retard.

>>76716313 (OP)
>Isn't Science supposed to be immutable
No, it's not.

>>76716691
Kek, science is full of narcissists, that's why many of them are religious scum that would be shot in the back of their head if science was about anything even remotely close to search for objective truth.

>>76716688
That's the problem low iq retard, what's the point of a study in these things if you have to try everything and figure it out yourself?

>>76716697
>science
You mean academia as an institute, not scientific research

>if science was about anything even remotely close to search for objective truth
It's not. You can't KNOW. Reality is far more complex than any human brain can fathom, or even human civilization as a whole.

The aim of scientific research is to create a model with a certain degree of probability that it's an accurate description of events in the outside world. That model needs to be attacked, weaknesses in reasoning need to be exposed, flaws in the data, incongruities. Then, you are forced to come up with a new model, one without the weaknesses and flaws that have been pointed out, and you can be quite certain that the new model is likely a more accurate description than the previous one. Once again, you want your new model to be attacked, new weaknesses exposed, so you can go on to make an even more reliable one.

You aim for 70% certainty, 75%, 80%, 82.5%, 85%, 87.5%, 90%, 91%, 92%, 92.5%, 92.6%, 92.65%, 92.7%.

You never, ever, aim for 100%. Because if you make that claim, you stop looking, you've "found it". Instead of looking for weaknesses in your reasoning, you start to enforce your view like a dogma or religion. And if you're wrong, you'll never know it, because you're no longer looking.

>>76716708
>academia as an institute, not scientific research
Those are indistinguishable and nobody does it outside of there, as we can see from sample size of 1 + many more lazy retards here >>76716704 who don't understand that studies with positive results can be reproduced independently, if it doesn't work, you wasted some time, if it works, great. What's the problem lazy fatass? Can't repeat same exercises as in the trials? Kek.

>>76716719
>nobody does it outside of there
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_Shulgin

>>76716730
>Junkie cooking meth in unsanitary conditions
OH MY SCIENCE

>>76716719
>who don't understand that studies with positive results can be reproduced independently, if it doesn't work, you wasted some time, if it works, great.
You are so low iq it's insane, stop replying to me about simple things that you can't even grasp the basis of an argument that came out of a statement in the op, you are out of your lane monkey nigger go on tik tok.

>>76716739
OP talks about narcissists who don't care about science, in a sense, he talks about subhumans like you.

>>76716688
>sample size: 1

>>76716768
Retard autismo living out of body experience over here doesn't realize that the sample is his body and nothing else matters lol.

>>76716313 (OP)
ironically enough the science based lifting crowd isn't very scientific and can't handle criticism/questions

also experience beats science because if it werks for me then it just werks and I'm not gonna do things differently

>>76716313 (OP)
I am a science-based lifter.
I form a hypothesis about what will make me bigger
I test it
I revise and test it
I write everything down in my notes.

The only difference between science and fucking around is whether or not you write it down

i hate science based lifiting
i hate working out in public
i hate using cables instead of free weights

>>76716313 (OP)
>Why do some people (including this board) do not trust it?
Because you can have differing opinions with different experts, so who is the correct one?

>>76716313 (OP)
Because true science based lifters dont exist and the ones that parade the label around look like shit usually and have 0 achievements
>>76716689
/xfit/ Mogs

>>76716412
>>76718063

>>76716313 (OP)
Nothing in particular, it just infuriates mindlets to know there's research understanding a topic they worked hard to intuit at the gym that anyone can use to understand the human body better than they do because they don't know how to read it.
There's no shame in being scientifically illiterate, lots of papers in less "big name" journals are pretty tough to work through without the required background. It's also possible, and not even particularly difficult, to get a decently fit/healthy body without in-depth literature into specific sub-processes in various metabolic pathways.
I think another point of ire comes from the fact that the "healthiest" bodies are not usually the /fit/test bodies.

>>76716313 (OP)
I will explain in short
>owing to both practical problems specific to the field, as well as many of the same issues that fetter other fields, the field of "exercise science" is particularly low quality
>yet, a core group of academics and fitness influencers have taken on the mantle of espousing "science-based" fitness advice, for profit
>this advice is in the main based on flawed and faulty evidence
>the cabal has become so established that they maintain the only ability to declare their own ideas as being based upon "science" ergo "correct", and control which information is released (to protect their own opinion monopoly)
There's nothing wrong with basing your to raining on the actual literature, if you read it critically
There's lots wrong in permitting a cabal to have the overall authority in the space and preach with impunity from their own holy scriptures

>>76716546
>basically do wathever the fuck you want just reach failure.

>you can be ripped and also strong at endurance.

Good, I fucking love cycling.

>>76716313 (OP)
"Science based lifting" is attractive to pencil necks because it implies there is a magic equation to get big. Its like they want to skip the trial and error, like they don't even enjoy the gym.

Also, all of their complicated studies with shit control groups can be replied to with: Work hard = get big and strong

>>76718757
I'd like to add, some of these studies do have their place. But to have your whole philosophy around lifting be "science-based" is gay as hell. Even Jeff Nippard says he uses experience.

DYEL's hide behind the word "science" because it sounds infalliable

You end up with twinks trying to correct horsecock weightlifters and it comes off as so annoying