If there is one thing I hate across the spectrum in lifting and nutrition, it is the belief by some people that studies give irrefutable "proof" that the things they hold onto and build a philosophy around are science, and fact.
"Look, this guy says that guy is full of shit, and here's the studies that prove why."
People consistently find studies that support their theories and beliefs, and ignore anything that refutes them. Of course, the people who disagree with them hold on to the studies they were refuting, and round and round they go.
Basically they look like kids on the playground fighting over who won at "tag" or hide-n-go-seek........
"No, I WIN!"
"NO ME! YOU'VE GOT STINKY TEETH AND PEOPLE WITH STINKY TEETH CAN'T WIN! YOUR STUDIES ARE SHIT!"
There's less of this in the strength training world, and more of it in the nutrition and dieting area, I think. I think that's because testing what works for you takes less time in strength training, and of course people that keep training for an extended period, tend to eventually gravitate towards the things that work best for them. That is, if they are a good lifting "detective".
Not to mention that well, lifting is pretty simple. Over time, there has to be more weight on the bar. How you choose to do that is going to vary from time to time, because your recovery ability, strength levels, and life stress will dictate different needs. So will injuries.
However in terms of dieting, it's a constant world of confusion. One "scientist" or "guru" fights another "scientist" or "guru" about what works, and what doesn't. It's really the fitness version of World of Warcraft.
It's essentially semi jacked nerds with inflated intellectual egos debating the minute details of every study, and why this one particular details cancels out that entire study, so forth and so on.
For some reason, and maybe it's just me, but I feel like most bodybuilders figured this out a long time, and all of the decades of results they had are basically ignored.
In the 70's, guys did simple keto diets with what they call "refeeds" on Sunday. They got lean, and lost fat.
In the offseason, they ate as much as they could handle to grow. And they did.
In the 80's, the entire philosophy shifted, and guys went to low fat, higher carb. Annnnnnnnd, they got lean and lost fat.
In the offseason, they ate a ton of food so that they could grow. And they did.
Now, there's confusion all over the place about how to get lean, or who is full of shit because some study done on 22 grandma's that were full blown diabetics, etc. so forth and so on.
Again, the guys who get big and then get lean for a living (mainly bodybuilders) and have mastered that process, get completely ignored in the equation, because people want WANT to argue over some god damn studies.
Wendler has a great quote he used in regards to "studies"....
"Alwyn Cosgrove once said that if you took a lifter and had him perform a 1RM in the bench press, and then later the same day had him perform a full bench press workout complete with assistance lifts followed by having him test his 1RM again, the said lifter would test lower. Thus, you've just proven that weight training makes you weaker.
So take each study you read with a huge amount of skepticism and understand that humans always have an agenda."
People cherry pick the fuck out of studies all the time in order to support their belief or agenda, then often ignore the real world results because it runs counter to what a study "proved".
Jesus fucking christ. This is akin to saying that people who played NBA basketball got really fucking tall.
I'm not saying to completely dismiss studies or "science" in regards to lifting and eating. I am saying it's a good idea to ensure that you remain skeptical, especially if it runs counter to all of the real world results you have seen, or have experienced for yourself.
I don't know of a single bodybuilder that didn't have to eat less food to get in contest shape.
I also don't know of a single one that didn't have to eat more, in order to gain mass.
I know, it can't be that simplistic.
"You see, Paul it's not that simple. This study here...."