EVIDENCE BASED LIFTING VS. BRO KNOWLEDGE

EVIDENCE BASED LIFTING VS. BRO KNOWLEDGE 

By Shane Robert

There seems to be a schism in the fitness industry that I don’t quite understand. I certainly don’t know where, exactly, that it started, or why it has become such a focal point, but it does seem to take up a lot of space on various social media outlets. I’m talking, of course, about science or evidence-based lifting (and nutrition, to a lesser extent) versus…I don’t know exactly what it would be called. Bro lifting, I guess. At the very least, it boils down to using exercise and nutrition research studies to determine how you should train versus letting experience and decades of anecdote guide you. Proponents on both sides argue that their camp is superior to the other. Both, in my opinion, are wrong.

There are no facts in science. At least that is what I was taught. Science is based on evidence,  not proof. It relies on that evidence to build knowledge, which can lead to a highly supported theory, rather than absolute certainty of proof. What is understood through science today, therefore, is based on thebest available evidence. If new discoveries, or ‘evidence’, are made, old theories can be adjusted or even replaced. The knowledge that builds those theories is dependent on observation, and we can never be 100% sure that our observations are completely accurate or that our understanding of reality is perfect. The appendix, for example, was once considered to be useless, but later research showed it does, indeed, have a function. Every scientific theory, even one that seems to be a ‘fact’, is understood to have a finite range of validity. Inside that range, it is indistinguishable from true; outside of it, it may no longer be true.

Bro lifting has no constraints. It doesn’t have to be open to change and, I think, we’ve all seen this in action. This is how you get dogmas about only training a certain way or only eating some limited number of foods when cutting. However, bro lifting benefits from the power of time and large sample sizes. This is the ultimate anecdote and personification of “success leaves clues.” Over a long enough span of time (and with a large enough population pool) the things that really work have a tendency to stick around. As much as many revere the old Soviet System as being so science based, it was at its simplest, a giant analysis of anecdote and averages.The success that the Soviets and other bro lifters have had, is clear that this style of lifting isn’t without validity.

Why are these two camps at such loggerheads? Again, I can’t say for sure. From my perspective, they don’t differ all that much in the end goal and outcome—they just take different routes to get there. Both are valid while both also struggle with making broad generalizations to the population writ large that they call “facts.” Both tend to forget the very important fact that they are dealing with individuals.

The role of exercise science is, or should be, to gather evidence. Bro lifting's role is to take that admittedly limited science and see how applicable it is to larger populations. Your role, as the individual, is to synthesize the two and apply what works for you. Current science seems to show that higher volumes are more beneficial for hypertrophy than lower volumes. I think we can all intuit this to a point. However, that doesn’t mean it’s necessarily better for you. Someone like Dorian Yates, famous for lower volume, extremely high effort training, said he tried the higher volume routines that were popular in his day and benefited little from them. Only when he turned to ‘high intensity’ training did he start to build his famous physique. Bro lifters will say that squats are not only the best leg exercise, they build overall mass and strength better than just about anything. Though that might be true, if your back is jacked up every time you squat or your knees hurt, despite having good technique, it’s likely that squats aren’t really the exercise for you.

The need to individualize applies to nutrition as well. Science can say whatever it wants, if you don’t feel well eating a certain food, well, don’t eat it. There currently is a lot of debate on whether seed oils are good, bad or neutral. For me, I don’t really care what the evidence seems to indicate, I always feel bad when I eat them. Therefore, I don’t eat them. If you are a hard working athlete that has a high training volume, science would indicate that you would benefit from high(er) carbohydrates in your diet. If you don’t feel well eating like that, then don’t! It may not be ideal, but emphasizing fats over carbs might just be how your body operates best. Conversely, if you’ve been stuck in a low-carb cult for a while now and your training is suffering, it might just be that you need more carbs in your diet.

I don’t know why there needs to be so much animosity between bro lifters and evidence based lifters. Both agree on more than they disagree and neither has all the answers that each person needs. The only person who has those is each person, learned through trying things, assessing how you react and, when something doesn’t work, trying something new. Both science and bros might have advice that helps you find the missing piece of the puzzle that is you.