AmpedTraining Blog
2010 April 1 | 1 Comment »
By Matt
Earlier, I was in a Twitter-chat about the Paleo/Primal style of eating.
(BTW, shameless plug: follow me @ImpulseStrength if you aren’t already. Just do it.)
Now, I want to preface this by saying I really have nothing against Paleo diets as a way of eating – or lifestyle, if you’re one of “those”. It will work if you follow it, because it’s not a bad collection of rules.
But that’s actually what I want to talk about. Where does the validity of an idea stop? Even if Paleo eating is a good idea, can we use that fact to extrapolate, speculate, and/or justify other claims associated with the concept?
Continue »
2010 March 24 | 4 Comments »
By Matt
So the other day I wrote a post talking about how science and experience both fit into our outlook on this whole “lifting weights” thing. Just to expand on that, I wanted to give a few examples to show where science and personal experience or anecdote would fit into the picture.
Case Study #1 – Diet Bro Magic
I figure that this is as good a place to start as any.
Continue »
2010 March 23 | 2 Comments »
By Matt
The eternal debate: what’s more valuable, scientific research or the wisdom of experienced lifters?
Simple minds like simple dichotomies. Black and white is easier to deal with than shades of grey. The unfortunate problem for our friends is that the world isn’t so easily classified. It would be a lot easier if it were.
Continue »
2010 February 5 | 3 Comments »
By Matt
I’m guilty as hell when it comes to spreading the use of the term “bro-science”. I don’t know for sure that I was one of the originators of the term, but I strongly suspect I was. This isn’t a bad thing all around; people need to be more aware of how they’re thinking about topics, instead of just repeating things or making things up like most fitness “professionals”. The term “bro-science” is a convenient way to package up a specific collection of fallacies that are almost always trotted out in any debate argument over exercise-related subjects.
“Bro-science” itself was a term originally coined to note the complete absence of science and/or logical reasoning to back up a claim – the “bro” came from the habit of people on forums referring to everyone else as “bro”, and since it was usually one of these guys making the argument, the term just kinda stuck.
Continue »
2009 February 16 | Comments Off
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.
Continue »
2009 January 2 | Comments Off
By Matt
So it seems I had more to talk about than I’d originally thought. What can I say, forums are a lot of inspiration.
This particular piece is still related to the last two. As you can probably tell by now, I’m big on being able to analyze and apply information. I think that’s the big thing that most fitness-seekers are missing.
Being able to discriminate and filter information is crucial, regardless of your goal. Doesn’t matter if you’re trying to build muscle, lose some fat, the generic ‘get in shape’, or what have you – there’s ways to go about things, and then there’s misinformation.
3. Evaluate information objectively, not by how you feel
I know that it’s the big thing today to be happy and trust your gut and all that. The modern world is a constant bombardment of messages telling you that you are special, that you have a voice and should let it be heard. This self-centered perception has given a lot of people the idea that the world is subjective – that you, too, can be an expert and have a worthy opinion on just about anything.
After all, you can go set up a blog or a Myspace page and suddenly you’re a celebrity. I mean, just look at where you’re reading this page to see that in effect. The problem is that people have yet to learn that simply because somebody has an opinion does not make it factual, accurate, or correct.
That’s that’s the media talking. Despite pop-culture portrayals, progress in science and technology is not made by maverick outsiders or rogue outcasts struggling to be accepted by a bunch of crusty old professors. It’s certainly not made by people completely uneducated on a topic that spend a few hours reading on Google.
Put simply, your feelings have no place here. If you are not rather highly educated on a subject, your opinion is really not relevant. I don’t say this to be insulting; I say it as a matter of pragmatism. If you’re not educated on a subject, what gives you the ability to talk about that subject with any authority?
If the scientific establishment was ruled by feelings, humanity would still be trying to cure diseases by letting out all that pesky demon-inhabited blood. Science is in place for a reason.
This is not meant to deflate your self-esteem or whatever. It’s meant to point out that just because you think, or you believe, or you feel something, that does not mean you are right. That does not mean you should tell other people what they should be doing. Most importantly, it does not mean you should ignore people that are better-informed and better educated – certainly not with the excuse that it’s ‘your opinion’.
Information is just information. Yes, it can be biased, but unless someone is being intellectually dishonest, information will usually stand on its own legs. Information is not something that can be reduced to a matter of opinion.
Gravity is not an opinion (though I’ve been waiting for somebody on a forum to make that case). Light is not an opinion. And so on.
Why then would any other structured scientific discipline be a matter of opinion?
Consider this when you’re choosing to accept or reject your sources.
2008 November 3 | Comments Off
By Matt
I was recently reminded of one of my favorite articles.
It’s by Isaac Asimov, one of my favorite authors. Mr. Asimov died back in 1992, but occasionally one of his gems will resurface and I’m reminded again why I enjoy his work so much.
This article, titled The Relativity of Wrong, was written to demonstrate a crucial, but still poorly understood, facet of science: the idea that a statement or idea can be less wrong than another. What, you might ask, does this have to do with strength training?
As it turns out, it has plenty to do with it. More specifically, it has plenty to do with the volumes of information (and misinformation) that pervade the industry, and the poor (if any) reasoning ability that comes along with this. Since my schtick in this game involves using principles of logic and critical thinking to tear down idiocy, it’s very relevant.
Mr. Asimov’s frustration and subsequent rebuttal are in many ways parallel to what goes on in the fitness industry.
It’s unfortunate that the mindset that he, and others of his kind, so actively try to discourage is so rampant. It’s not just in the fitness industry; you see this all over. When you can’t even teach science in schools because of superstitious traditions, you’ve got a problem.
With the levels of bro-science and general anti-intellectualism at all time highs, I feel the need to occasionally interject things such as this in order to help chip away at some of the ignorant thinking.
Enjoy.
Continue »
