You're Not Science-Based

I never thought I'd find myself saying this, but the so-called "science-based" lifting movement has become a deeply embarrassing spectacle.

Reason #1: "Science-Based" Influencers Don’t Understand Science

At the heart of the issue lies a fundamental misunderstanding of science itself. Many self-proclaimed "science-based" influencers seem oblivious to what science actually is.

Science is not a repository of static truths. It is a process - a dynamic method of inquiry designed to interrogate the unknown. It helps us derive facts—like the boiling point of water under standard atmospheric pressure—but those facts are always subject to revision as our methods and understanding evolve. What was once accepted—like the belief that smoking promoted health—has been overturned by the relentless pursuit of better evidence.

At its core, the scientific method demands humility, curiosity, skepticism, and an openness to change. A scientific mindset thrives on recognizing the limits of knowledge. This is an indispensible tool because it allows for course correction and ultimately progress.

Paradoxically, many "science-based" influencers display a rigidity that runs counter to these principles. They project an air of certainty, as if science is a fixed doctrine rather than a perpetually self-correcting enterprise. This irony—a group supposedly rooted in science embodying anti-scientific dogmatism—is both troubling and, frankly, absurd.

Reason #2: The "Science-Based" Crowd Is a Dogmatic Cult

The antithesis of science is dogma—an unyielding adherence to principles declared as absolute truth. And yet, the "science-based" fitness crowd often operates as a dogmatic cult, branding their opinions with the veneer of authority while stifling genuine inquiry.

Consider some of the actions and claims that circulate in this cult:

• Ranking exercises as though they can be universally categorized by tier, as if science decrees such a hierarchy.

• Declaring the deep stretch as the most growth-promoting phase of any movement, unambiguously and without context.

• Asserting that lat pull-downs activate precisely 60% of the lats.

• Proclaiming certain exercises as the unequivocal "worst" for specific muscles (e.g., leg extensions for quads or triceps pushdowns for triceps).

These statements, presented as scientific gospel, betray a misunderstanding of the scientific method. Science thrives on nuance, probabilities, and ongoing investigation—not blanket proclamations. Exercise science, particularly as it pertains to hypertrophy, remains in its infancy. Yet the confidence with which these influencers speak often far outstrips the evidence available, creating an environment of shallow certainty rather than intellectual rigor.

Reason #3: Bros Are More Science-Based Than Anyone

A common trope among the "science-based" crowd is deriding "bros" as uninformed caricatures, blindly lifting weights without the intellectual sophistication of their evidence-driven counterparts. This stereotype is not only reductive but also patently false.

In my experience, the archetypal "bro" often embodies the true spirit of scientific inquiry far better than their self-styled "science-based" critics. Here’s why:

To be truly scientific is not to pepper your arguments with PubMed citations or adorn your content with the words "science-based." It is to approach the world with curiosity, skepticism, and a willingness to learn through experimentation. Many seasoned gym-goers exemplify these traits.

Consider the biggest, most experienced lifter at your gym. They’ve likely spent years testing hypotheses on their own body, adjusting variables like volume, frequency, intensity, exercise selection, and exercise execution, observing results over time. Their humility often stems from direct experience: the recognition of how often they’ve been wrong and the necessity of keeping an open mind to continue progressing.

Ironically, these qualities—curiosity, adaptability, and humility—are what the scientific method demands. And yet, the loudest voices in the "science-based" movement often lack them entirely.

The Role of Cognitive Bias and Tribalism

The embarrassing state of the "science-based" lifting movement is further compounded by pervasive cognitive biases and tribalism. Confirmation bias—the tendency to favor information that confirms one’s preconceptions—runs rampant. Influencers cherry-pick studies that align with their beliefs while ignoring contrary evidence.

This behavior is exacerbated by tribalism. People often affiliate themselves with a particular "team" or ideology, which reinforces echo chambers where dissenting views are dismissed outright. Instead of fostering a culture of open inquiry, the "science-based" crowd often devolves into insular groups, more concerned with defending their identity than pursuing truth.

The Illusion of Expertise

Another layer of this issue is the illusion of expertise. Access to scientific studies does not equate to understanding them. Many influencers lack the critical thinking skills needed to interpret research, leading to overconfident and often misleading conclusions. They mistake the act of citing studies for genuine expertise, perpetuating a shallow understanding of complex topics.

True expertise involves not just knowledge, but the wisdom to recognize its limits. Without this, the "science-based" movement is rapidly becoming a parody of itself.

So, What Do We Do?

Complaining without offering solutions is unproductive, so here are practical steps we can take to improve the state of the industry:

1. Distinguish Entertainment from Education: Real education doesn’t tell you what to think; it teaches you how to think. Be wary of hyperbolic content masquerading as "scientific." For example, Renaissance Periodization—despite its contributions—more often provides entertainment, rather than education.

2. Challenge Hyperbolic Claims: When encountering sweeping statements, ask probing questions: How was this conclusion reached? Are there exceptions? Is this presented as probability or certainty?

3. Evaluate Thought Leaders Critically: Use these criteria to assess influencers:

   • Can they articulate counterarguments to their own claims?

   • Do they provide context, or do they traffic in absolutes?

   • How do they handle disagreement? Are they defensive or open to dialogue?

   • Can they admit when they’re wrong or when their views have evolved?

4. Embrace Uncertainty: Recognize the beauty of uncertainty. Intellectual growth requires sitting with discomfort rather than clinging to premature answers. This mindset fosters genuine inquiry and progress.

5. Think for Yourself: Before asking a content creator for answers, take a moment to formulate your own thoughts. You don’t need to be "correct" immediately, but the act of thinking critically is essential for intellectual growth and recognizing misinformation.

Ultimately, the fitness industry’s relationship with science needs a course correction. True scientific thinking is a mindset, not a marketing tool. If we aspire to improve, we must resist the allure of shallow certainty and commit to the far more challenging—and rewarding—path of genuine inquiry.

-Ben

P.S - if you'd like to join my membership, click here to start a 7-day free trial.

P.P.S - if you're a personal trainer and want to join my new mentorship group, you can save 60% off (ends soon) by clicking here.