← Back to context

Comment by krick

2 hours ago

Not sure why it gets attention here. The "finding" is the long standing assumption as it is, absolutely nothing new discovered here. It could be notable if it was of some particularly high quality, but here it is 20 untrained individuals doing some dubious exercise regime for 10 weeks and finding out that on average one dubious exercise pattern wasn't particularly better than the other, and overall exercising seemed to be good for all of them, although inter-personal coefficient of variation is up to 28.3%… Like, really? That was the study that impressed 211 upvoters?

These journals keep publishing such studies, because there is nothing better to publish in this branch of, uhm, "science", and I would even argue it's not a bad thing, because something is better than nothing, and it's basically impossible today to do more impressive research in this field (because testing humans is far costlier and logistically more complicated than writing equations and running simulations on your PC). But it's funny that it gets someone's attention.

Indeed. "Science-based" lifting become quite popular in the recent years, but the actual science behind it is quite loose with a lot of methodologically weak studies, small samples etc.

This seems like an overly cynical take. Is there no value in empirically confirming an assumption? Especially in the exercise world where other long held assumptions ended up being bro-science nonsense?

> although inter-personal coefficient of variation is up to 28.3%

Why does that matter? Isn't the entire point of this study's design to eliminate the variability between test subjects?