Today's science that may be tomorrow's 'Bro-science'

Status
Not open for further replies.
We often have a joke about scientific theories that were once gospel but are now dismissed as 'bro-science'.

What do you reckon will be classed as hokum in 5, 10, 15, 20 years time?

I accept that theories can only be made and proved using the empirical evidence and methods that are available to contemporary scientists. But there must be theories and best practices out there that we currently follow that will be disproved eventually.

I don't have the background to offer an example although I do remember thinking that I needed 5-6 regular small meals a day which we now know isn't necessary. Perhaps we'll one day discover that fat can be turned into muscle or something equally fantastic .....
 


The 5-6 meals per day thing was never really based off solid evidence though to be fair. I think the whole 'time under tension' thing (in the sense that you need ridiculous slow reps) will take a while to fade away
 
Everything.

Lift heavy shit. Eat well. Rest well. Repeat.

That's basically it. Anything else will come and go in fad form and will reoccur at some stage. It's like owt else, at some point 4-4-2 will be back in fashion in football once everyone gets sick of "false 9's" :lol:
 
We often have a joke about scientific theories that were once gospel but are now dismissed as 'bro-science'.

What do you reckon will be classed as hokum in 5, 10, 15, 20 years time?

I accept that theories can only be made and proved using the empirical evidence and methods that are available to contemporary scientists. But there must be theories and best practices out there that we currently follow that will be disproved eventually.

I don't have the background to offer an example although I do remember thinking that I needed 5-6 regular small meals a day which we now know isn't necessary. Perhaps we'll one day discover that fat can be turned into muscle or something equally fantastic .....

Things dismissed as bro-science have rarely been based on anything more than tenuous anecdotal evidence.

If you're eating 5-6 regular small meals a day that's likely 3300-3600 kCal/day which is enough to make most people grow. It says nothing about the need to time them right for growth except to say it's easier to eat 5-6 600 kCal meals than it is to eat 3 1200kCal meals.
 
Things dismissed as bro-science have rarely been based on anything more than tenuous anecdotal evidence.

If you're eating 5-6 regular small meals a day that's likely 3300-3600 kCal/day which is enough to make most people grow. It says nothing about the need to time them right for growth except to say it's easier to eat 5-6 600 kCal meals than it is to eat 3 1200kCal meals.

I think it's probably more in reference to increased metabolism or the need to constantly intake protein.

It's usually easy to tell from the methodology whether a study has an real merit. But at the same time ther are also some labs/authors that have good methodology but persistently put out studies with ridiculous results that are completely different to other authors...
 
"Do you lift light weights for lots of reps to get big, Ronnie?" [Coleman]

"No, I lift the heaviest weight I can for as many reps as I can."
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top