Fitness Industry Peer-Review

2009 February 16

By Matt

I’d like to rant for a minute about who you listen to, and more specifically, why self-proclaimed experts are taken as experts.

Let me lecture you about the scientific method for a minute. Arguably the largest strength of research and science in general is transparency. When a researcher or team of researchers submits a paper for publication, it’s expected to meet certain standards. The experiment has to be detailed – the subjects, the methods used, the data gathered (and how it was gathered and interpreted), all of that. The authors then have to discuss the results, how they fit into (or conflict with) existing data, and so on. If the paper passes the requirements and the critical eye of other experts in the field, a process called peer review, then it’s accepted into the journal and we can consider it to be solid research.

Peer review is important, but even then it’s important to note that anyone who obtains the paper can see the experiment, its data, and its conclusions for him/herself. This means that if I see someone post an abstract and the conclusions look wonky, I can go read the full paper and see what’s actually going on. That’s where critical analysis comes in handy.

It all comes back to the fact that knowledge thrives on free speech and the open exchange of ideas; it’s not just about blindly listening to authority. That’s the entire foundation of the science establishment.

Now let’s contrast this to what goes on with your favorite Internet Experts. When was the last time you saw an e-Guru, of any kind, accept that level of intellectual honesty and transparency? How many experts do you know that even allow blog comments? How many do you know that are willing to defend themselves, without moderation, on forums?

The line that’s always trotted out is that there’s a lot of “not so bright” folks on the Internet, and they’ll gum up the works. Yes, there’s certainly something to be said for the mass stupidity of the Internet. There’s a lot of morons out there and they’re all quite ready and willing to contribute their IQ-lowering nonsense to your blog comments or forum.

However, this is a weak excuse: it also excludes any kind of discussion with peers. The model as it stands now is “I preach, you listen”. I’m a big believer in open discussion and exchange of ideas – which is why my comments are turned on and why my forum won’t censor posts based on content.

There’s a certain popular forum named after a male hormone that is the number one offender in this regard; they claim to encourage discussion, but that really means “as long as you don’t disagree with a person we’ve promoted as an expert”. Yeah, no. It doesn’t work like that. I’d point you at the recent discussion with Alan Aragon to see “free discussion” in effect. If you make a logical, well-reasoned case, your posts get deleted. If you’re an approved “expert”, you can pile on the logical fallacies all day long and still be a hero to the people not equipped to see past your “expert” status.

That’s ridiculous. If you have an argument so weak that you have to hide behind censorship and put credentials over quality of information, then I’m not sure why anyone should listen to you at all. Sadly, that’s our fitness industry. It’s all about flash and marketing over substance – and that just plays right into the “I talk, you listen” model they love so much.

Most of the big names are afraid of discussion not because “oh everyone will bombard me with stupid questions” but because they can’t defend themselves. They know the things they say occasionally range from stupid to money-whoring right on up to dangerous and/or counter-productive. Seriously – when’s the last time you read the blog or newsletter of a “name” and it wasn’t explicitly trying to sell you something?

Personally, I like discussion and debate even if it gets heated. Here’s a novel thing: when I have to defend my position, I usually have to go read things and think about what I’m claiming. I have to consider the other side of the argument, too. In any event, it prompts me to go read more and to consider that maybe I am wrong.

The net result is that I either reinforce what I thought, or I have something new to go read up on. I don’t lose either way. I want you to think about this any time you’re reading an article on an unapologetic elite website, or reading the latest expert’s blog where he’s telling you to go buy the latest product his friend’s offering on a special.

That’s probably the difference; I’m not trying to sell a bunch of products. Thing is, even if I were, I couldn’t operate that way. Yeah there’s a lot of noise out there, but at the same time I wouldn’t ignore quality criticisms from people that could provide insight. In fact, I tend to welcome the opportunity to discuss the matter, as opposed to hiding behind a wall of censorship and pretending I’m an unassailable authority.

If you were standing on a solid position, you’d have the comments turned on and tell the moderators to let the discussion happen. Simple as that.