Thursday, May 22, 2014

Science Gets Bitch Slapped...or not.

Mark Rippetoe's recent article on T-Nation The Problem with "Exercise Science" is more of a condemnation of the university programs offering exercise related degrees than it is a condemnation of exercise science in general. He points out, and rightly so, that there is no program offered in the schools that will actually prepare a student to become a competent strength coach and he suggests some remedies for this situation.
In Greg Nuckols article Exercise Science: What Is It Good For? He does an in depth analysis of the scientific process and how it relates to the exercise field.
Both of these articles were excellent but, in my opinion, they both missed an extremely important point, that being: You get what you pay for. The tobacco companies employed some of the most highly payed research scientists ever to come up with reasons why cigarette smoking wasn't bad for you. Questionable at best but it begs the question of whether or not some exercise science tests and their results are not just the product of the needs of the groups funding the research. It would not do, for example, for an individual receiving research grants from Gatorade or Powerade to come up with a study that contraindicated those companies party line on hydration. It would make for a very short career.
So this, as with most things, is a "follow the money" scenario. The validity of any study is based entirely on who stands to gain from positive or negative results.
Just you all keep that in mind.
On a lighter note there have been several really good articles posted lately.
This one from Geoff Neupert on T-Nation.
This one from Pavel on Strong First
And I already posted the one from Al Ciampa two days ago.
So much fun and so little time.

3 rounds of patterning

3 x 10 @ 45/50/55

Crawling at the park
3 rounds of 1:00 on and :30 seconds off of Spiderman Crawls

...and out

No comments:

Post a Comment