Why "science-based lifting" is irrational

[Elliott]

It seems kind of intuitive that different muscle groups or types of muscle fibers would react quite differently.

[Carl-Richard]

59 minutes ago, Elliott said:

It seems kind of intuitive that different muscle groups or types of muscle fibers would react quite differently.

In theory, yes, but that doesn't matter for the "dose-response relationship" claim if only one of the between-group comparisons were ever solid. The relationship was ever only solidly 1 sets vs 5 sets; very low volume < very high volume (granted the host of other limitations with the study). The intermediate part of the supposed curve is at best tentative or unknown. If the latter, any conclusions about that part of the curve is speculative and hypothetical, not empirical, not "the science has shown that".

Edited 3 hours ago by Carl-Richard

[Leo Gura]

SeRIoUs SCieNcE

[VioleGrace]

On 05/12/2025 at 3:56 PM, Carl-Richard said:

. "Science-based lifting" is mostly not serious people in the field. It's YouTubers either without scientific credentials or with dubious ones making ideological proclaimations, selling programs, apps and coaching services, making "educational videos", trying to make a buck, and their minions slurping it up.

I am agree with it but it is not absolute some are using this as a marketing to sell their shit, and other are really serious about sourcing their work from scientific studies.

It like say "all youtubers on self-help are gurus " ...
 

 

On 05/12/2025 at 3:56 PM, Carl-Richard said:

2. Serious people in the field disagree on what "the science" says. And me pointing to the pseudoscientific levels of methodological design and conclusions is simply a way to explain that.

And that is just not true.

Edited 1 hour ago by VioleGrace

[VioleGrace]

On 05/12/2025 at 1:16 AM, Carl-Richard said:

Please elaborate. Your other points did not.

I mean that serious scientific studies are aware of their limitations 

On 30/11/2025 at 7:56 AM, Carl-Richard said:

1. not at all knowledgeable in lifting,
2. not at all motivated to lift (at any considerable level of intensity or rigor),
3. not the same size or shape as you,
and 4. maybe most importantly generally lifting in a controlled and alien setting where a scientist is standing behind you shouting "start", "stop", "start", "stop", at every rep, where some designs use absolutely unheard of training setups like using one technique with one arm and another technique with the other arm for those 8 weeks, where even quantifying states like "true failure" vs "3 reps in reserve" is mere hocus-pocus philosophical conjecture?

And never proceed like what you just described there except if there is a specific need to do that 

Ultimately i don't think that you read enough scientific study to really know how "serious scientific studies are managed"

Edited 1 hour ago by VioleGrace