Bro Science vs. Published Science - What's your take?

[Jim Stoppani PhD]

As a bodybuilder, you find it everywhere... Bro Science! Bro Science is found on the Internet forums and you hear it from guys at the gym. Bro Science is different from Published Science.

By Published Science, I mean the science published in peer-reviewed science journals or presented at scientific meetings.

I always stay up to date with the latest cutting-edge science published in peer-reviewed journals and presented at scientific meetings all over the world. Many of the studies I get directly from my colleagues doing the research. Some of the studies I have conducted myself.

But published science is not always the be-all and end-all of what works in the gym. It also has to hold up with real world application in the gym. And as we all know, sometimes Bro Science trumps Published Science. Other times we find out that a long held belief is just plain wrong!

Please let me know your thoughts on Bro Science vs. Published Science and please post up some examples of Bro Science so we can debate and discuss!

 

[keepnitreal]

As a bodybuilder, you find it everywhere... Bro Science! Bro Science is found on the Internet forums and you hear it from guys at the gym. Bro Science is different from Published Science.

By Published Science, I mean the science published in peer-reviewed science journals or presented at scientific meetings.

I always stay up to date with the latest cutting-edge science published in peer-reviewed journals and presented at scientific meetings all over the world. Many of the studies I get directly from my colleagues doing the research. Some of the studies I have conducted myself.

But published science is not always the be-all and end-all of what works in the gym. It also has to hold up with real world application in the gym. And as we all know, sometimes Bro Science trumps Published Science. Other times we find out that a long held belief is just plain wrong!

Please let me know your thoughts on Bro Science vs. Published Science and please post up some examples of Bro Science so we can debate and discuss!

Oh wow its Jim stoppani !!!
hmm the broscience that carbs at night leads to weight gain... BUT if I can remember, i recall reading a study layne norton posted on his fb page in respect to eating.carbs at night does not.cause you to gain weight..

Sent from my SGH-I896 using EliteFitness

 

[Texas Monster]

Depends on how much experience you have.

Bro science tells you some things and real science tells you other. But what about the results you receive from each one?

As far as results either way you are going to achieve results if you have the slightest inclination of what you are doing in the gym and have little real science to back it up ie bro science. In real science you should receive results because they have been tested.

I guess the better question which way gives the best results.

Example Bro science tells you to lift heavy and eat lots of protein after workout and space your meals to 6 times a day.

Real science tells a different story and more and more evidence is coming up that IF dieting can be more beneficial in some aspects of health such as insulin sensitivity etc. This also leads to more fat loss etc. Stack this with the lifting mentality that you do not have to lift the heaviest weight possible in the gym every time you have something completely different from bro science.

Which one receives better results? There is no telling because every body is different and even if you apply scientific studies to groups of people the selection size will never be large enough to encompass the vast complexity of the differences that generate from person to person.

So instead of getting caught up in bro science vs real science go out and find out what works for you.

This is a long journey anyway and some people react differently to different training programs. It is all up to the individual to find out what works for them.

However I do feel that is necessary to research real science in order to help you in your journey. But what it comes down to is that real science does not always work for every single person and this is where we get bro science from.

 

[Nelson Montana]

Depends on how much experience you have.

Bro science tells you some things and real science tells you other. But what about the results you receive from each one?

As far as results either way you are going to achieve results if you have the slightest inclination of what you are doing in the gym and have little real science to back it up ie bro science. In real science you should receive results because they have been tested.

I guess the better question which way gives the best results.

Example Bro science tells you to lift heavy and eat lots of protein after workout and space your meals to 6 times a day.

Real science tells a different story and more and more evidence is coming up that IF dieting can be more beneficial in some aspects of health such as insulin sensitivity etc. This also leads to more fat loss etc. Stack this with the lifting mentality that you do not have to lift the heaviest weight possible in the gym every time you have something completely different from bro science.

Which one receives better results? There is no telling because every body is different and even if you apply scientific studies to groups of people the selection size will never be large enough to encompass the vast complexity of the differences that generate from person to person.

So instead of getting caught up in bro science vs real science go out and find out what works for you.

This is a long journey anyway and some people react differently to different training programs. It is all up to the individual to find out what works for them.

However I do feel that is necessary to research real science in order to help you in your journey. But what it comes down to is that real science does not always work for every single person and this is where we get bro science from.

I'm not really sure what you;re getting at. A lot of "bro" science is based on incorrect evaluation of scientific studies. That's been the biggest problem for the last 15 years. You got guys that read some studie, (without really understanding them) then they call themselves gurus and people follow them. (Hey! They posted studies!)

Meanwhile, look back at all the "experts" like Pat Arnold who was regarded as the paragon of scientific knowledge and has been proven wrong in just about every one of his evaluations. Remember Bill Roberts? Lyle McDonald? They constantly used "real" science to support their agenda and were wrong 9 times of of 10.

I believe in common sense, experience and observation. And the shit that the scientists told me was wrong 10 years ago is now proven to be "scientifically" accurate.

As far as I';m concerned, the only area where there's been real advnacment in the last 10 years has been with supplementation. And even there, most of it is garbage. But today, you can be natty and get more of an advantage using supps than ever before. IF, they're the right ones. There's still plenty of snake oil out there -- and plenty lof stuff that may be fine but terribly overpriced. Plus, cycling can be much safer and recovery much faster with the right supplement strategy.

Training, diet, drugs -- nothing's really changed. There are no magical or mysterious combinations of macronutrients or timing schedules. But it takes a lot of study, work and experimentation to find what works best for the individual.

 

[musclei]

It's bro-science for me. The reason is that no one is as motivated or updated on the subject as we, its practitioners are. Sure, it's not always accurate and you have to take it with a grain of salt but guess what, neither is real science. Let's face it: we're alone at what we're doing and it's up to us to make gains and keep ourselves healthy.
Then there's how politicized Health is: they have no real interest in men's health, anti-aging or sports science.

 

[SpyWizard]

I'm not really sure what you;re getting at. A lot of "bro" science is based on incorrect evaluation of scientific studies. That's been the biggest problem for the last 15 years. You got guys that read some studie, (without really understanding them) then they call themselves gurus and people follow them. (Hey! They posted studies!)

Meanwhile, look back at all the "experts" like Pat Arnold who was regarded as the paragon of scientific knowledge and has been proven wrong in just about every one of his evaluations. Remember Bill Roberts? Lyle McDonald? They constantly used "real" science to support their agenda and were wrong 9 times of of 10.

I believe in common sense, experience and observation. And the shit that the scientists told me was wrong 10 years ago is now proven to be "scientifically" accurate.

As far as I';m concerned, the only area where there's been real advnacment in the last 10 years has been with supplementation. And even there, most of it is garbage. But today, you can be natty and get more of an advantage using supps than ever before. IF, they're the right ones. There's still plenty of snake oil out there -- and plenty lof stuff that may be fine but terribly overpriced. Plus, cycling can be much safer and recovery much faster with the right supplement strategy.

Training, diet, drugs -- nothing's really changed. There are no magical or mysterious combinations of macronutrients or timing schedules. But it takes a lot of study, work and experimentation to find what works best for the individual.

the individual, genetics and the current effectiveness of their insulin capabilities all play a part in "should carbs be taken in at night"..

But I'd agree that in the past 10 yrs there has yet to be the magic pill/combination

 

[stevesmi]

my view is you can say that deca bloats, and another person can say it doesn't bloat. is either bro science? is either based on studies?

people ask all the time on the forums what can i take to lose weight? to gain weight? there is no exact answer because our bodies are so different.. just like everyone has talents, no body is the same height, weight, body fat, genetics..

so everyone should experiment for themselves. when i post an opinion on here SOME people go up in arms about it. because its not what happened to them hence i can't be right. i can only tell you what happened TO ME. and i can take a good guess based on your information what could/should/might happen to YOU.

 

[Zyglamail]

There is a lot of good and a lot of bad in both Bro Science and Published Science.

Ill be the first to admit there is a lot of regurgitated bro science people have been following for years thats totally bunk but at the same time there are a lot of scientific studies that are basically worthless. As with anything take the time to understand whats going on and apply some logic. Couple that with observation and experience for a winning combination.

 

[RADAR]

There is a lot of good and a lot of bad in both Bro Science and Published Science.

Ill be the first to admit there is a lot of regurgitated bro science people have been following for years thats totally bunk but at the same time there are a lot of scientific studies that are basically worthless. As with anything take the time to understand whats going on and apply some logic. Couple that with observation and experience for a winning combination.

I agree on this, I have over 45 years experience in this field, and i can honestly say theres alot of Published Bunk information out there,not to say all of it is, but the main factor especially for those learning is "Which way do i go".
Over the years I've tried just about everything,did i get discouraged? Hell yea! But i also learned more Thru Bro science Hands on experience than anything else.

 

[UA_Iron]

Pretty much anything Diet related is going to be "bro science" because 99% of the studies out there either do not pertain to this population, are not easily applied or are soon debunked by another study with the same qualities. Granted, there are some things that we all know "work" - like cutting carbs will help shed water weight etc. But diets like Intermittent Fasting come along, people get great results; but this goes against the idea of eating 6 smaller meals a day. What about carb-backloading? everyone "knows" that you should eat carbs first thing in the morning, but people see great results pigging out on them post workout at the end of the day.

As far as anabolics go, the good rule of thumb to help out any cycle is "dont be fat" and you'll get less side effects (typically).

The aim of communities like this is to outline a general set of principles, that through combined experiences, have shown the best and most efficient ways to achieve one's goals. These outlines are then continually tweaked by individuals to achieve further successes.