454: Science-Based Lifters | Why Are They Hated? - Geoffrey Verity Schofield

I think the science based lifting backlash is because people have been digging into some of the actual studies and realizing virtually all of the studies are garbage from both a study design and statistical results perspective. I realize the limitations of trying to do these studies but they are basically meaningless.

I had no idea that there were people who read all the studies and have no training history at all. Learned something new!

Thanks both. Enjoyed the chat.

I mean it's not hard to understand, really. Science guys tend to make lifting, which is cool, nerdy.

Science based lifters!!!??? When anyone disagrees with whatever a particular person is saying then they immediately go on attack mode and revert to ad hominem/slander PERIOD!

Basically n one of them are science based. They just hold on to the volume bullshit they built a career on.

I can’t get enough GVS content, he makes me so excited to work those triceps 💪🏻

Great to see GVS on another of your podcasts. This was a good one!

I wonder how much of a role "handedness" plays in doing a study with the limb of one side being the experiment and the opposite limb being the control

pls just dont compare cars with training.. it sounds very .... stupid... 😅😂

My take is: I see enjoy listening to really jacked bros from the experience side. I enjoy listening to evidence-based lifters mesh literature and experience. I DESPISE listening to “science-based” lifters who vomit PMIDs and completely ignore experience, and fall into the “absence of evidence is evidence of absence” trap thinking they need a study before they do anything.

The “hashtag le epic science” lifters with 🧬🔬🥼🧪 emojis in their bio, fresh out of college with an exercise science or nutrition degree, who act like know-it-alls and talk down to people with far more knowledge and experience than themselves. They’re all over the place right now and I think those are the people that are (rightfully) getting the hate right now.

Edit: After listening, it’s cool to see both you and GVS seem to be in line with that opinion. And Scientificsnitch is exactly the avatar of who I was thinking of that is grating. The worst thing about her is just how AGGRESSIVE she is in how she talks to people. No humility. No consideration that she might be misinterpreting studies. Pure overconfidence. And the algorithm is rewarding her. Sad state of affairs.

The 52 sets of squats per week was an inflection point—one where a lot of people really began to question the science bros.

Because they use roids and talking science fiction

"Why is there so much hate for science based lifters right now?" - Because of Milo Wolf. It's literally all his fault

Every other study Menno reposts: "We found (insane result) based on this 1 week study on 2 untrained participants"

Here's my distilled take:

Social media and certain creators have amplified the reach of these scientific papers, but what's getting broadcast is not being properly filtered for relevance. A lot of the papers causing the backlash are done with the intent of guiding future research; they're fact-finding or proof of concept papers, they're not prescriptive. A lot of what is being done is basic science literature.

In the medical field, you wouldn't even pay attention to this research at all. There's a long way to go to get from basic science to real world guidelines. This is why experts exist, and why systematic reviews exist. I know everyone is obsessed with meta analyses, but the issue is that you're pooling data and trying to use statistics to get an answer, instead of critically analyzing the papers for their methods and generalizability.

This is particularly a problem in the fitness realm where the papers are often not very academically rigorous. That's not the researchers' fault for the most part, they have very limited resources and in most cases are doing their best with what they have. The problem is the science communication is often subpar or even manipulative. You need to filter down to only the best. I think Eric Helms stands above the rest, because he is unemotional and highly critical. He tries to take what the research gives or supports and discards the rest, and he's good about saying "we don't know for sure" or that the research "currently suggests this." He is evidence based, not scientific paper-based. That concept doesn't exist in medicine, basing everything you do on what was published, and so I really don't think it should exist in fitness.

Thanks for sharing

Golden Era training and diet with some modern scientific refinements is all you will ever need

Jeff's descriptions of science-based is more accurate in terms of definition, but in terms of what is being advertised as science based, it's rarely those things at this time.  Today's science based content is almost exclusively focusing on research, and in most cases it does a terrible job of contextualizing the research into the practical and useful take aways needed to be used in a science based training approach. 

Not understanding the contextual difference and expectation we should have with research results in a constant back and forth on topics, and sometimes completely divergent interpretations of the same research. Methodical and statistical limitations are often overlooked in favor of viral takes, thumbnails etc.

I think Geoff contradicts himself saying he agrees more with an evidence based approach as this actually reflects what he and most other are critical of, but it's labeled as "science" in content because science is a more powerful buzz word than evidence based. I would say Geoff probably takes a scientific approach to his training, applying a lot of things that are far outside the "evidence" but rather based on principles and his intuition.

IMO Milo Wolf has made himself an avatar of why there is this sudden backlash. Click bait thumbnails, bombastic claims, memes attacking bros, or people that disagree, tier list and best/worst exercise content where exercises are ranked and qualified purely on limited research. (for example, an exercise must be lengthened partial friendly to be highly ranked when actually the best lengthened biased exercises allow for little to no lengthened partials at the end or no difference in reps between partials and full reps). STOP DOING this exercise, Leg extensions are the worst quad exercise etc etc. Add on top of that the credentialism used most often by the people that make the most bad takes and most errors in foundational sciences like anatomy, biomechanics, and physics which inform far more of our gym decisions than what research itself can guide us on.

I think the fact that there is no accountability within the community makes this behavior more infuriating and people are then drawn to people that are pushing back against it, even if they are doing things just as bad themselves. In other words, the fact that so many in the "science" based community are essentially gaslighting people by saying they really don't see an issue, or completely ignoring the most egregious offenses, end up pushing people towards the influencers that have the most opposing views. To continue on my example, how many followers has Paul Carter gained by simply being the loudest voice against Milo and company.



So IMO if the science community doesn't self correct itself, the sentiment will grow. For every science based influencer that has grown a following attacking other people, there are 100 other bigger influencers on the other side. Take Layne Norton for example. Arguable the most successful by size (not an endorsement) "science based" call-out guy. In isolation you may think he has a large reach when compared to other science based content creators, but it's barely a blip in comparison to fitness influencers.

The idea that some of these people think they can make V-Shred content with citations and that's the way to increase the reach of science is an oxymoron IMO. I think people are confused by the increase in volume of their echo chamber, and mistaking it for changing the masses.

GVS is not natural, thus, the whole debate loses its purpose....

gvs, atlas, uncommon sense. if three well versed dudes say multi day fasting works...then it for sure works

When are people gonna realize the bros are the best source of information

Weird not.seeing Dr Mike on here for a long tjme. (The man with the highest raw iq)

The big thing for me is dogmatic people. Pretty much everything has worked for certain group of people. Why are you identifying yourself with training style. The goal is to make gains. If it’s been working keep doing it, If not try something else.

Seems like most "science-based" lifters cannot fathom the possibility that fasting does not diminish performance

Screw the science, just refer all questions to Lee Priest

In an endurance sport like cycling, science based training methods and eating habits have made a huge difference in performance over the last couple of years. Curious to see if coaches and trainees that don't heed the science at all will fall behind in strength sports too.

This feels like less of a problem with science-based influencers, more of an issue with bad influencers. I'm not sure the worse bro-based lifters are any better.

People being straight anti-intellectualism and anti-science probably plays a role

Why is science always wrong?
Because science based is statistic based. What's why science based lifting don't work. They looking on mystical creature called "average man". This human doesn't exist. It is construct created to make sense of data. You have more than 99% chance you are not this guy. He has a different genetics than you. He has a different body than you. In a lot of studies he has less experience than you, he doesn't train as hard as you. He is fresh so his body respond good to every workout nooby gains. Nobody train before study in study style so that's why. Study time is shorter than gains on this different metod of traning. If you will go for science based approach you will eventually hit wall. Recovery or not training enough.

Ramadan ain't really fasting... more like feasting actually

Disclaimer: Science is good, don't be dumb. Do your research.

That being said, If I see anything (not just fitness related) with the "Science based" label on it I assume it's bullshit. It's a marketing tool aimed at people who believe they're smarter than everyone else because they "follow the science". Boosted wokies eat that shit up though so whatever.

My exercises and splits are based on feel and execution with life schedule

Science based lifting went from "What is most efficient for growing muscle and/or strength whilst keeping your joints healthy" to clickbaity muck such as "They're lying to you about protein" or "Why 'X' is killing your gains". After working at a gym for a few years I know first hand that it is the intensity of effort (close to failure) that makes or breaks how well a person progresses. As they advance diet becomes more of a bottle neck. It all comes back to cycles of STIMULUS - RECOVERY.

Science based lifter (SBL) are mostly SBGrifters. Real lifting science is hard to come by but thankfully we know the broad strokes by now. The SBG community ist detestable and terrible because they regularly:
>promote nonsensical or vastly overblown fads, eg stretch-heavy reps
>don't speak about the elephant in the room, ie steroids, which is what formed their bodies (seriously, would Dr.(lol) M. Isralel even look as if he trained without buckets of juice?)
>create a cult like environment which prevents debate on said issues

Q:what do you call bro science that works? A: science.

Each time I go to the gym, I always have MORE exercises than I can actually do, meaning I am physically too tired to do them PROPERLY so I stop. And yes, programming all of those exercises to do them properly is not possible, why?? bc there are so many different exercises and VARIATIONS of those same exercises that it would be too far in TIME between one and the next time doing them. Still, they need doing, so I always do two good basic exercises for the legs, with one or two secondary exercises for legs on a given day, then I do the same for the upper body, and since 99%+ exercises are push pull one way or another, then I choose one basic exercise of each, plus two secondary "auxiliary" exercises that are sufficiently hard to do and ALMOST as good as the basic ones. Say I do bench press (either flat or 30 degree incline) then a few sets of good slow dips all the way to the "stretched" position that everyone loves so much now, and THAT should be more than good enough for the chest, plus good enough for the other muscles involved like triceps and stabilizers, all in TWO good exercises... is this science based?? who the fuk cares!! I'm not gonna wait until the science based nerds tell me is ok, they are NOT difficult but the exercises ARE hard, not difficult but hard is the way to go, complexity for its own sake is for idiots.
That said... I do also understand the need or recommendation of working some muscles, or MOVEMENTS into the extreme ranges of motion with the mentality of that KneesOverToes guy, same mentality for shoulders and arms, and maybe even back, with OF COURSE much less weight, this ensures a lot of the prevention of injury if you ever play and move into those ranges as is common in sports.

Geoffrey the goat

Who is this babaca wnf natural champion bodybuilder? I never know who these top naturals actually are.

Eating is some what difficult. It's pretty much just being full all the time for me.

I have difficulty deciding whether to change anything in my splits or exercises during a cut because I don't know if the results suck because of the exercises/volume/ I'm doing or it's just because I'm in a cut.

Science based lifting is not hated.
What is hated is useless content.
Just because you call something science or based it doesn’t make it practical.

Just seen this channel has only 45K subscribers. :O Sure there are maaany more thousands to come, but I expected at least 200-250K with the value you put out!! Excellent interview with Geoffrey yet again.

It’s funny how most people have “bounced” off the science wall and are now just doing what works for them…. As they should.