Scientific Evidence vs Real World Experience: When the Wheels of Science Meet Real World Traction

On this site, I've used various scientific studies to back up my claims. When I talked about supplements--such as creatine, protein powders, and pre-workouts--I backed up my claims with peer reviewed research. Likewise, when I discussed matters regarding diet--such as protein, carbs, fat, and food choice--I also used scientific literature as a source. However, when it comes to practical recommendations that are based upon solid research, real world results must serve as the ultimate barometer of success.

Just because a scientific study says that X supplement yields Y results in Z group of people, many mistakenly believe that if they use X on themselves, they will also see Y results.

Such an assumption is a mistake-and-a-half.

Broscience vs Proscience

Many people seem to posses undue reverence for science, and conversely, many people seem to lack faith in real world experience.

Broscience serves as an excellent example of a form of real world experience that many people (including myself at times) like to ignore; due much in part to the stigma attached to broscience: That it is nothing more than gym myth and lore and premised upon little to no actual evidence. To a certain extent, this stigma holds some partial truth. 

For instance, take broscience spewed from the mouth of a 20 year-old wannabe gym-rat who reads tons of muscle-building magazines, and who makes religious pilgrimages to GNC in order to buy the latest and greatest supplement to hit the shelves. The advice gleaned from this guy will more often than not be based upon little real world experience and a lot of hearsay (a.k.a., myth).

On the flip side, take broscience (or in this case, proscience) from a guy who has 20 years of hard-earned experience training both himself and his athletes. Much of the advice gleaned from this guy will likely be based upon a mix of scientific evidence and real world results; both of which, when combined, create an atmosphere of creative innovation tamed by the need to produce consistent results.

From which of the above people do you think I'm going to accept advice? I think you know my answer.

Don't go over to the dark side of the gym!

Scientific Results vs Real World Results

If you take a moment to think about it, scientific studies are really nothing more than glorified observations. We consider scientific observations weighty because they're "peer reviewed," and we often disregard anecdotal observations because they're not "peer reviewed." 

This is an example of yet another mistake-and-a-half.

In reality, there are a lot of pretty bad (and I mean really bad!) peer reviewed scientific studies out there. Real gems are hard to come by, but even when you do find a gem, you have to polish it so that it can really start to shine. The same analogy holds true for anecdotal observations. 

FYI, not going to happen!

Using All the Tools in the Tool Bag

In my experience, you need the best of both worlds. You need good peer reviewed and published research, and you need real world, anecdotal experience. Scientific research can serve as good starting place for creating practical recommendations. These practical recommendations, however, must first be fine-tuned (polished) by experience in the trenches. 

In that same vein, it's often a good idea to test your anecdotal experience against the scientific literature.

You need to polish scientific evidence with real world results, and you need to polish real world evidence with the scientific method.

Now go forth, and polish some gems!