>Science from 20 years ago: Do 10-20 reps of plyometrics>Science now: Do 4-6 reps of plyometricsWhat gives?
>>77224997Science is supposed to change that's the whole point is that it is supposed to be a continuous challenge then correct format.How that information can be translated to practical contexts is a diffent matter and why you see so much scattering in recommendations. Even when they were sourcing the same exact information.
Starting Strength never changed. Focus on your compounds and stop being a fag
>>77225007>Science is supposed to change that's the whole point is that it is supposed to be a continuous challenge then correct format.So you're saying scientific facts don't exist.
>>77225012SS also never worked.
>>77225015You have to stop being a fag first
>>77225013They exist for as long as they're undefeated. Most of the time though they're added onto since we're "in the ballpark" already on most things. Even relativity had to be added onto.
>>77224997it's trying too hard to be a religion, and is not satisfies with just being a method. ironically, religion used to be a method before it was turned into a science.https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=MPHyR92MQic
>>77224997Because sports and diet are pseudoscience that leech into biology for credibility They're business models
>>77224997because science is only allowed to be published when the people sponsoring the science approve the results.
>>77224997If in doubt, the older stuff is correct. Everything after the Cold War is basically make-believe, if you think about it
>>77224997Imagine taking a nutrition class in university. The class is easy and digestible -- fairly straightfoward (amino acid profiles, fat types, and carbohydrate types... vitamins and minerals). Then take somebody who thinks such an easy subject is instead *complicated* because they are a moron so they decide to get a PhD in nutrition. What you have are a bunch of tards perhaps with the worst of the replication crisis not getting any funding other than coca cola companies paying them to do studies that sugar is good for you.
>>77224997They do not change, it just seems like that because youre a wannabe pretending to be into science, reading completelyissleading abstracts of irrelevant studies made by retards with a phd. "scientific facts" whatever that is supposed to mean, dont change every few years.also>>77225025this
>>77225013yeah dude that's like science 101, did you not learn this in grade school? even the things we consider to be "scientific fact" we're technically only 99.999% sure are true
Scientific process means falsifying alternative hypotheses by experimentation, to leave only the null hypothesis standingThe more rigourously you falsify the alternative hypothesis/es, the more robust the "fact" of the null hypothesis isSo maybe somebody ran an experiment where they compared 10-20reps of plyos versus 10-20reps of normal lifting, and found favourable results for the plyos (in whatever context)And then more recently somebody compared 4-6reps plyos vs 10-20, or 4-6 vs 4-6 normal, or whatever, and found favourable results for the 4-6 plyosIt iterates, hopefully narrowing toward a practical conclusion i.e. fact
>>77225013>>77224997Explain what you think a fact is
>>77224997sports "science" and nutritional "science" are not scienceeven the biggest studies in those fields have such flawed designs that they wouldnt even be accepted as a masters thesis in any other field
>>77224997disregard science it's too complex just do whatever good coaches tell you. you don't need to build a full mental model of the human genome bro youre not in the gym to earn your phd just learn the basic reliable tools and lift
