In my last post I proposed a theory that all the recent hype about “metabolic capacity” is really just a bunch of bodybuilders mislabeling work capacity. Reverse dieting –gradually increasing your caloric intake over time — is effective because as … Continue reading
I’ve mentioned before that I do not think physique competitors are accurate in calling themselves athletes. I say this because athletes train for optimal human performance, while physique competitors train for optimal human appearance. Looking good on stage very often necessitates … Continue reading
This article ran in the NYtimes this week. The author cites a single study on the subject, wherein women were trained in everything except pullups 3 days a week and then, SURPRISE, couldn’t perform a single pullup after 3 months. To find out … Continue reading
You know when something just sounds like it’s probably true? For example, you hear a trainer tell his client that doing 12 reps of bodyweight squats followed by stretching will create long, lean muscles, and (if you are a layperson with little knowledge of exercise physiology) you think, “Well, I guess that makes sense” and trust it at face value. Scientists have a term for that. It’s called face validity, and it is one of the reasons why so many fitness and diet myths continue to be perpetuated despite a mountain of evidence disputing them.
Even knowledgeable people, scientists included, are guilty of relying on face validity to evaluate theories about fitness and nutrition. For example, I recently came across this review article on appetite and exercise and realized that I fully endorsed the idea that exercise indirectly aids weight loss* by curbing one’s appetite (thereby making dieting easier) without ever actually delving into the research to determine if it was true. It just made sense to me, so I trusted it at face value. Turns out I’m wrong (kinda).