Science-based Training Demands Repeatable Outcomes

Science is at the forefront of the pop culture discussion these days thanks to the pandemic. We’re all discussing what science is and why it’s important on a scale we haven’t seen in our lifetime especially between non-science-minded folks. This, of course, begs the question as to what “good science” is. There might not be a better signature characteristic than this:

Good science is reproducible. 

What, then, would scientific training look like? Well, if training maintained this signature characteristic of “good science” the training methods would yield outcomes over and over again in a population of people. This seems simple enough, yea?

Well, you’d be surprised. What comes to mind for me immediately is the fitness influencer phenomenon. There is a part of the fitness world where physically attractive people take to being a coach or influencer in order to sell training. Ironically, this training often isn’t the culprit that explains their attractive features. In the cases that these influencers utilized their own methods to get as fit (or not) as they are, the important question is, “Can this training reproduce the results they’re touting?”

Few novelty training programs pass this basic test.

The reason being is that, despite the selling power of novelty, training isn’t that complicated. Therefore, tried and true methods aren’t remarkably divergent despite what the influencer selling booty bands is telling you. 

This isn’t a hypothetical, either.

This logical fallacy is repeatedly present when former collegiate athletes are hired to stand in front of the room at F45, Barry’s Bootcamp, SoulCycle, etc to sell exercises that didn’t get them to the front of the room. 

If a method only works for you, it’s not a method.