I recently got to write an article for Men’s Health Magazine which was a really fun opportunity given that I used to be a full-time writer and have read Men’s Health since I was a teenager!

The article was published in this month’s issue of the mag and is all about whether or not we can “out think” hard work. In other words: just how useful is all this “science-based” training, in reality? Is it just common sense to follow the science when it comes to exercise selection, rest times, intensity, etc. Or is that just a distraction?

Worse, is all this “science based” training just another marketing ploy that influencers can use to gain false authority?

You can read the article HERE, by the way.

This is the big debate raging on fitness YouTube right now. But, as is often the case, I think the truth lies somewhere in the middle. Moreover: I think that all this debate is really missing the point in many cases. In fact, I think proponents on BOTH sides largely miss the way that these studies are meant to be read, making the whole debate somewhat pointless.

So let’s deconstruct the arguments and try to make some sense of the situation, shall we? And in so doing, let’s see if we can get to the heart of the problem and blow this whole thing wide open.

The Benefits of Science-Based Training

I used to say “science” just means “evidence.” In theory, science is about testing theories – hypotheses – in order to find out if they’re accurate.

So, when someone says “I don’t believe in science” what they’re really saying is “I don’t believe in evidence.”

And, I mean, to each their own. But when that science denialism motivates someone to reject life-saving medicine in favour of alternative remedies, it can actually be a very dangerous stance to take. Worse if you start convincing others of that viewpoint.

I’ve always looked at homeopathic remedies sold in pharmacies in disbelief. People talk themselves into taking something that has never been shown to work in any capacity because they don’t trust “big Pharma.” Even though the homeopathic remedies are just as ridiculously overpriced.

And the same goes for supplements aimed at gym goers or exciting new training methods. We need science to tell us not to waste our money on things like BCAAs or Turkesterone, for the most part.

I mean, maybe we shouldn’t need it, but we kind of do.

We can’t say anything definitively (we’ll get to that) but we can certainly look at a lack of credible evidence for a supplement being effective and decide to wait until there’s more data. Because otherwise… why not take literally any old thing and just hope it works?

Likewise, science tells us that there is no such thing as “spot reduction.” That is to say: you can’t target fat loss around the belly by doing only exercises that target the belly.

Science-based training also CAN tell us when something actually does work. For example: we know that occlusion training – restricting blood flow to a particular muscle as you train it – actually can be beneficial for seeing greater gains with lighter weight.

Science-based training shows us that cold exposure can encourage recovery but that it also blunts hypertrophy when used straight after training.

Also Read: Cold Showers Are Overhyped

And this is what science-based training sets out to do. It lets us separate the wheat from the chaff, call out charlatans, and find the methods that work, versus the ones that don’t. And it lets us discover new, cutting edge strategies to potentially gain even greater performance.

What’s not to like?

But then again… maybe it was science based training that introduced us to BCAAs and turkesterone in the first place?

It was someone reading a study that seemingly showed these things could be useful for the general population building muscle and then running with it before there was sufficient evidence. Cue the sweeping claims and the countless expensive supplements.

And this is the problem with science-based training. It’s not the studies themselves or the idea of using science to guide our training – it’s the way those studies are applied and over-applied.

In theory science-based training can show us the optimal angle to perform incline dumbbell presses for upper pec activation. It can show us the ideal number of sets and reps for hypertrophy. It can show us the ideal amount of time to rest between sets and the optimal amount of volume we need before we see diminishing returns. We can find the best cadence for lifting, number of exercises per muscle group, etc. etc.


Except… can it, really?

The Fatal Flaw in Science-Based Training

Because that brings me to the point I really wanted to make in this video: most studies just can’t be used to guide our training.

And it’s not for ANY of the reasons that most videos focus on. It’s not because of poor design. It’s not because of insufficient sample sizes. It’s not because so many studies are focussed on animals. It’s not because of inherent bias.

This is missing the point and misunderstanding precisely why science-based advice seems to contradictory and so fragmented.

Even if you created the most perfect water-tight study, it still could not be used to tell you precisely how to train. And it should not be used in that way, either.

Why not? Because of something called: moderating variables.

To understand these, we quickly need to brush up on the types of variables to see how moderating variables differ from confounding variables or independent variables.

Know Your Variables!

Variables are conditions and factors that can be adjusted and measured in our experiments.

So, let’s imagine a study that shows that low reps build more muscle than high reps. The study takes two groups and measures their quads both before and after the study. During the study, the participants are prescribed leg extensions for either three sets of five or three sets of 30.

In this study, the rep range is the independent variable – the variable that we’re adjusting in order to measure its effect. Quad growth is the dependent variable – the variable being affected that is showing us an effect.

Participants from both groups are matched as evenly as possible, so that they have a similar average age. Similar average experience etc. The researchers also need to control for other factors by making sure that the participants use a similar range of motion in their reps, use a similar rest time, use a similar tempo.

If the participants in one group were using full range of motion and all the others were using a short range of motion (partial reps), that would be considered a confounding variable. You could no longer say with certainty that the observed outcome was the result of rep-range alone. It’s unlikely this would happen, but it’s possible, and so you can’t rule it out.

So, to prevent this from happening, researchers should teach the participants to use full range of motion in both groups thereby removing the confounder. Now range of motion becomes a controlled variable, instead.

A lot of studies do make mistakes like this. Arguably most will miss some of the important confounding variables and will thereby have limited usefulness.

I mean, how many of these studies strictly control range of motion and tempo?

But as I said, that’s missing the point and that’s where all this discourse around science-based training is just going round in circles.

Because IF the study controlled all the variables, a science-based fitness creator might see this study and make a video with the title:

“Science Finally PROVES That Low Rep Training is Superior!!”

You can’t argue with the science, after all! And anyone looking at the study in the video would be forced to come to the same conclusions.

But that would also be a mistake.

Because the very act of removing confounding variables means you’re also removing potential moderators: a variable that can alter the results. More precisely: a variable that could alter the direction or strength of the effect shown.

Put it this way, what if, hypothetically:

• Low rep training works best with a large range of motion
• High rep training works best with a short range of motion

The study, as designed, would never tell us this – even though it has by all accounts been designed well. And so somebody might be training high rep with a short range of motion and getting great results, wondering why a science influencer is telling them that their method doesn’t work.

Science hasn’t PROVEN anything useful, in this case, and it can’t be used to guide our training.

And it gets way more muddy. Because there are way more potential moderating variables that would once again change up the results.

What if the researchers had chosen to target a different muscle group. Say the biceps. Different muscle groups contain variable ratios of fast twitch fibres to slow twitch fibres… so it’s very conceivable that this might affect the results. Here, muscle group selection is a pertinent moderating variable.

How about tempo? Maybe high rep training works best with a faster tempo?

Now we could say that:

• High rep training works with short range of motion, low weight, and faster tempo. But only for certain muscle groups.
• Other muscle groups respond better to lower rep ranges with long range of motion, slower tempo, and greater weight.

This goes as deep as you want it to. What if:

Someone who has previously been doing a lot of very high rep range work has developed more blood supply to the muscle. They thereby now actually get greater results from low rep training than they otherwise would have done?

What if doing both high rep training and low rep training used simultaneously would result in the very best results of all?

If this is true – and it probably is if you ask me – then none of the studies comparing the two will EVER discover the most powerful option for building muscle.

And that’s before we’ve considered all of the really obvious stuff: like individual differences such as age, sex, experience, genetic predispositions.

It’s not only that different things work for different people, it’s that there are countless different ways to utilise every technique which may make it more or less useful for any given person. Which simply doesn’t get captured when we adhere closely to studies.

By making studies watertight, we also make them far less nuanced and, thereby, not particularly useful.

But to be clear: the researchers are not at fault, here. The fault lies with the influencers and the articles that proclaim:

“METHOD X IS BETTER THAN METHOD Y!”

This is never the intended purpose of the research and most credible scientists will just roll their eyes at such sweeping claims.

Training variables are not “better” or “worse.” Rather, their effectiveness is moderated by countless interacting factors. The most interesting of which are actively removed in good experimental design.

And this speaks to a general human tendency to oversimplify things. We love our categories and our direct causal relationships because they’re easy for our brains to understand.

That’s not how things actually work. In nature, there are no categories. Only multi-factorial spectrums.

So, What Do We Do?

So, what are we to do?

Do we just ignore science-based training entirely? Are we supposed to just go with whatever the bros recommend?

As I discussed at the start of this article, there certainly are scenarios where studies and research can be useful and help us to navigate these murky waters.

Moreover, reading the studies can be really interesting. I talk a fair amount of science on this channel because I love learning about human performance and how the body works. And, crucially, understanding a bit about the nervous system, about the chemistry, about the biomechanics… that all helps me to implement my ideas.

I studied psychology at university and focussed a lot on neuroscience. Understanding how the nervous system works let’s me look at a study and figure out what’s going on – why we might be seeing the results we’re seeing. It helps me come up with new ideas to try. Likewise, this taught me to better read, interpret, and critique studies.

But you also have to view these things through a lens of common sense – which is so often missed. Sometimes I get the very strong sense that the researchers don’t actually train or fully understand the purpose of what they’re testing. Having a combination of common sense, first-hand experience, and an understanding of the body let’s you cut through the noise.

This is one of the best ways to look at science: as a tool for understanding what we’re seeing and for interpreting it.

But when it comes to your actual training, there is another deep truth that most people just completely neglect as they get lost in the weeds: we don’t need to optimise.

These studies are aimed at top level athletes and coaches who want to squeeze out 1% extra performance in a very narrow field (often). They are aimed at rehabilitating people with very specific injuries and conditions. And they are intended to add to a general body of knowledge to be referenced for future research. They’re not meant to dictate what we do in the gym.

Because, as I’ve said in a previous video, you can get very good results with high reps, low reps, rapid cadence, slow cadence, heavy weight, light weight. You know this is true because of the countless people arguing for each method as though their lives depended on it.

Your job is to find the training style that works best for you individually. That you respond to, that you’re able to implement, and that you enjoy.

And remember: if it’s working for you and you’re seeing growth… it is science. We don’t build muscle through magic, so it must be science!

For me, the key has always been finding a way to feel the stimulus. With practice, you learn to feel what’s working. Sometimes that means getting more of a stretch, sometimes it means getting a pump with more reps. With experience, you can make nearly anything work.

SUPERMOVER – SuperFunctional Training 3 – JANUARY SALE

SuperMover offers a full training program, 200 page ebook, and 26 video tutorials to help you build an elite, athletic physique.

$55.00 Original price was: $55.00.$40.00Current price is: $40.00.

Shop now


And when someone says that longer rest periods would be optimal… how about you don’t worry about that until you stop getting results? When you’re competing for Mr Olympia THEN you can worry about the perfect angle for your incline dumbbell press.

This is the big distinction I’ve been trying to make on the channel lately: the difference between fitness and niche bodybuilding. If you want to get fitter – and that includes getting a really decent physique – you don’t need to worry about ANY of this.

As I said in my Men’s Health article: the only results that matter are yours. The rest is just noise.

Related Posts

• 

  How Training LESS Can Mean MORE Gains
  How Training LESS Can Mean MORE Gains
• 

  The Absolute Batman Program: Absolute Power
  The Absolute Batman Program: Absolute Power
• 

  INTRODUCING… SUPERFUNCTIONAL TRAINING 3: SUPERMOVER!
  INTRODUCING… SUPERFUNCTIONAL TRAINING 3: SUPERMOVER!
• 

  Quadratus Lumborum: Why This Forgotten Core Muscle is SO Important
  Quadratus Lumborum: Why This Forgotten Core Muscle is SO Important

One Comment

1. Aaron says:

   December 25, 2025 at 5:16 am

   The reason you are the only “fitness expert” I take the time to pay attention to is that you are as scientific as most would like while keeping things fun, and exciting.

   Reply