The Confidence of Ignorance Myosynthesis

Page 1 of 8

Myosynthesis
Topics include chaos, epistemology, and biological systems theory. Occasional discussions of exercise.
Start Here Squat Every Day Hire Me Buy Me a Drink Bio

The Confidence of Ignorance

June 7, 2012 [See parts I
(http://www.myosynthesis.com/two-minds-flame-war),

II III

(http://www.myosynthesis.com/cliques-certainties), (http://www.myosynthesis.com/fuzzy-science)

and

if you haven't already.]

The Problem with Bro-Science

To watch most internet discussions, youd think that science was a contest to see who could fish the most abstracts out of Pubmed. In areas as fuzzy as exercise and nutrition, there just isnt enough research, and what is there doesnt cover a sufficient breadth, to be the final answer to all our questions. If you eliminate any evidence without a DOI number, youve crippled your knowledge base. Thats as shameful as any puffed-up Curl-Bro ranking knowledge by weight class.

http://www.myosynthesis.com/confidence-of-ignorance

2013-07-09

The Confidence of Ignorance Myosynthesis

Page 2 of 8

The internet has taken to calling Bro science on any sort of trial-and-error gymobservations, with unfortunate consequences. It isnt Bro science when someone discovers, through trial and error, what works for their circumstances. If thats the case, then I have bad news for you: so is most everything we consider foundational in exercise science. If someone has trained with a particular program or a particular style of training, and theyve genuinely gotten results with it, then that is the end of the argument. I will add a necessary caveat here: we have to distinguish genuine results from what I call gym delusions. A gym delusion happens when someone mistakes, say, feeling winded, or puking, or having sore muscles or a case of rhabdomyolysis for actual long-term results. A gym delusion means that the thing being done isnt actually leading to measurable results like larger muscles, bigger lifts, or lower body-fat. Thanks to a hyper-active System 1, the immediate feeling is substituting for measurable results.

When a natural-born fitness model of either gender has gym delusions, we see the birth of the real Bro science: Im right because I look great. The delusional training or diet in question isnt even remotely the reason for their physique, but for a storycraving System 1 it doesnt matter. People read this argument and immediately rebut with genes dont matter, these people work hard. I have no doubt of that at all; almost every good athlete Ive ever known, in any activity, has worked incredibly hard. Theyve also come with the right genes and the right circumstances to allow that hard work to pay off. Pointing out good genes and contingencies of life is not a criticism, and it doesnt detract from the fact that they work hard; its just a fact, and an incredibly important fact when were considering what is and isnt worth doing. When someone looks good, or is very strong, or whatever else, and they credit that outcome with all the things that didnt actually lead to it (and downplay all the really

http://www.myosynthesis.com/confidence-of-ignorance

2013-07-09

The Confidence of Ignorance Myosynthesis

Page 3 of 8

important things that did but were out of their control), then weve got a myth in play. Buy into that and youll do all the right things, follow all the rituals and buy all the right powders and pre-workout totems, and get none of the results. Its a cargo cult made of supplements and uninspired workouts that dont do anything useful. The difference in the gym-delusion and the billion-dollar Bro-science industry, and the idea of scientific trial-and-error, isnt so much what we do but how we treat the findings. Bro-science treats knowledge as a matter of personal authority where reality must shape itself to what you know rather than testable ideas which you can evaluate on your own. Most of the relevant science is either a guy in a labcoat watching athletes, or else details; interesting, to be sure, but not quite what wed call prescriptive information. You arent going to build a workout around the phosophrylation of mTOR or the action of calcium ions during myofibril contraction (please dont). Most of the things we actually do in exercise and in diet are based on an incomplete scientific picture, which we then assemble into a picture of reality with a lot of educated guesses. Thats how it has to be, and this, too, isnt terribly troubling, but this is also why we must keep our storyteller brain on a leash: the assembly process is where the defects creep in to the final product. Even those of you who think youre science informed are constructing a picture of weight-training and nutrition based on partial best-guess information. Your picture is most assuredly subject to the unconscious biases that influence all of us, and is consequently shaped by your own history and experience. As Ive been arguing this isnt a problem per se, but it does suggest that the arrogant, self-righteous, and condescending attitude that dominates internet communities probably isnt the best way to approach the quest for performance-improving knowledge.

http://www.myosynthesis.com/confidence-of-ignorance

2013-07-09

The Confidence of Ignorance Myosynthesis

Page 4 of 8

Things arent always as they seem, and our own emotional attachments to our beliefs are often the biggest obstacle no matter what information we draw upon. For these reasons, Ive increasingly tried to avoid making judgments without careful deliberation, and I certainly dont want to take a position because its the trendy thing to do.

The Charitable Skeptic

One of the biggest problems with the internets culture is the way no one has any time to hear out an opponent. Everything is an instant knee-jerk reaction, and often a jump to the worst-case interpretation of a vague statement. Its not that people are stupid (no matter how much it seems that way). Too often that line is a substitute for what we really mean: this person doesnt agree with me. Sometimes the disagreements can involve factual details, but a surprising amount are matters of context and perspective reason and logic dont enter into it. The scary part is that even the people we hold up as smart intelligent, well-educated, even thoughtful are not only capable of all these things, but better at doing it. We like to hold people up on a pedestal, the implication is that we should do no such thing. No human being is above the biases of his or her own mind, and bringing up reason or critical thinking in an argument only demonstrates that this point has been missed. I dont exclude myself from this. Im acutely aware that I do all these things, and that unless I constantly remind myself, Ill fall back into this pattern. Its a sobering realization, and not an easy thing to correct. I think that the awareness, and striving to constantly remind ourselves, is the best thing any of us can do to work around these limitations.

http://www.myosynthesis.com/confidence-of-ignorance

2013-07-09

The Confidence of Ignorance Myosynthesis

Page 5 of 8

What Ive outlined in this series is how, when left to its own devices, your brain will lie to you. Shortcuts, simplifications, and outright fabrications are the path of least resistance for a lazy brain. I maintain that we are all capable of not doing this, but it requires a kind of self-awareness and willingness that a good many folks lack. Like any skill, it takes practice, and you cant practice a thing if you dont know its there in the first place. Knowledge of the natural world is there, and a process of science as a mode of thinking can, in my thinking, give us all the relevant details to the degree that we need them. This means understanding what science is as a methodology, rather than treating it as a collection of abstracts that you pilfer at your leisure to justify a belief youve only arrived at thanks to your peer-group. It means understanding the difference in truth and likelihood. It means understanding the limitations and distortions built into your own faculties of understanding. It means considering the blind-spots in the knowledge you do have, and making good use of reason to fill them in wherever possible and concede that youre guessing when it isnt. For those of us just trying to lift some weights and not be fat, this takes away so much pressure. In science you cant rely on what I saw as evidence. The whole point of the scientific method is to distinguish whats really happening from the influences of our personal biases. Science has to be as objective as possible to rule out the impulses of System 1. Thats science, though, and the needs of science need not reflect what you do at the gym or in the kitchen. Whereas a really strong guy I know did it isnt sufficient to lay out universal rules for training and eating, theres absolutely nothing stopping you, personally, from trying it out to see what happens. This is not Bro-science; this is a personal experiment. Just dont make the mistake of assuming that, because you got results, it must therefore be a universal law of How To Train; humans are too variable (http://www.myosynthesis.com/cortical-lottery-dopamine-activity-setpoint) for that.

http://www.myosynthesis.com/confidence-of-ignorance

2013-07-09

The Confidence of Ignorance Myosynthesis

Page 6 of 8

When interpreting science, we have to remain skeptical. Being skeptical of the outrageous and unsupported is the foundation of science and arguing with an eye towards learning is how scientific knowledge improves. Ive got no issue with holding results to a high standard. But skepticism needs grounding. Do we challenge anything and everything just because we can? Or do we should we come into it with preconceptions that lead us to favor some ideas and reject others? Should we not think constructively and work to reconcile the supposed contradictions in conflicting research results? Without that grounding, you end up with what looks more like mindless questioning just for the sake of questioning; when skepticism is taken to the extreme, nothing can be true. There comes a point where questioning is less about discovering truth and much more about preserving your ego by defending the views in which you are invested. What we dont want is for scientific discussion to slip into eristics
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eristic).

We need a position to be skeptical from.

Despite the accusations I get as being too science focused, I give tremendous weight to the observations of real lifters. Theres a reason Im so interested in the history of weight training I think that the doing, especially when you look at early to mid-20th century strength athletes, generates a wealth of information; the similarities, the common things that all these lifters and insightful coaches converged upon, establishes a framework. Research then comes along and fills in the rough edges. I think that bodybuilding with caveats is a great place to look for knowledge on building muscle, and this is why I pay attention to what bodybuilders do. I think powerlifting is a great place to look for knowledge on getting stronger, and thats why I pay attention to what powerlifters do. When I parse a research paper, I take that real world position as my default: is this useful, in a pragmatic go-to-the-gym sense? Does it add to the picture? Is there anything here that could make my training more effective?

http://www.myosynthesis.com/confidence-of-ignorance

2013-07-09

The Confidence of Ignorance Myosynthesis

Page 7 of 8

Usually there isnt its not every day that you get an Einstein to overthrow Newton but you never know. I wouldnt expect fundamentals to change, but then again I certainly got a shock when I discovered that max squats every day was a fine method of training. If new data challenges a long-held assumption, it might be that theres something youve missed. Sometimes youll find things that shine a new light on the old picture. You wont find that if youre too busy using reason and being right to extend any benefit of the doubt. Take this on-going argument about whether light-load sets to failure
(http://www.myosynthesis.com/intensity-training-failure-muscle-gain)

can

stimulate

muscle growth. You can easily mesh these results with a model of muscle hypertrophy that treats growth as a function of tension-time overload. Make the muscle do more work in such a way that recruits and fatigues a wide spectrum of muscle fibers and it grows. This accounts for a tremendous breadth of Things That Work, including meat-and-potatoes heavy training and lighter pumping work that bodybuilders like. Furthermore, it remains agnostic to any particular mode or method. Heavy works, light works; its about getting the muscle to do more work under the right conditions. I think thats a good model, in that I can explain it on a biological level and it also accounts for the considerable variation between the training methods of all the Big Bros. But even this a bias one which Ive freely admitted and am well aware of, but a bias nevertheless. I could well be drawing a connection where there is none. I dont think I am, for reasons of the biology involved, but whether this is true (in the scientific sense of being very likely) or just my personal story is not something I can say with certainty. All I can do is keep experimenting on myself and paying attention to what happens when other people try it.

http://www.myosynthesis.com/confidence-of-ignorance

2013-07-09

The Confidence of Ignorance Myosynthesis

Page 8 of 8

The only position that makes sense to me any more is charitable skepticism. Keep an open mind, but only as far as there are uncertainties or vague points in the facts or their interpretation. Dont assume that youre more reasonable, or even more informed, than the other guy. People might be more clued in than you think, even if theyre saying things which are outrageous at first glance. At least make the attempt to be constructive, rather than aggressively negative. The last thing you want to do is be arrogant about a point of dogma only to find out that its not as certain as you thought. You can be wrong no matter how rational you think you are.

Like what you read? Share it.

Email

Print

Pocket

Twitter

Tumblr

Google +1

Subscribe via RSS or by email

Subscribe

Previous: Fuzzy Science Next: The Limits In Your Head (CNS Fatigue) RSS Twitter Tumblr Google+ LinkedIn All content by Matt Perryman. You're free to share and reuse any of my content without asking as long as you play by the rules.

http://www.myosynthesis.com/confidence-of-ignorance

2013-07-09