Original episode & show notes | Raw transcript
This document provides an in-depth exploration of the concepts discussed in the “Empirical Cycling Podcast” episode on “bro science.” It is designed for an intelligent audience seeking a thorough understanding of how to identify and critically evaluate dubious claims in the exercise, sports, and fitness industries.
At its core, “bro science” is a term for misinformation and unsubstantiated advice that circulates within fitness and athletic communities. The podcast host, Kyle Helson, identifies its key characteristics:
A Kernel of Truth: Bro science claims often originate from a small, legitimate piece of scientific evidence or physiological principle.
Wrapped in Misinformation: This kernel of truth is then distorted, oversimplified, or extrapolated into a broad, inaccurate, and often absolute statement.
Makes Absolute Claims: A hallmark of bro science is the use of absolute terms like “always,” “never,” or “have to.” It presents a single, universal solution without considering individual differences, context, or nuance.
Relies on Anecdote or Authority: It is often passed down through word-of-mouth (“some guy at the gym said…”), emotional arguments, or appeals to a questionable authority figure rather than robust scientific evidence.
The podcast emphasizes that true experts, when faced with complex questions, rarely give absolute answers. Their typical response is, “Well, it depends,” acknowledging the multitude of variables that influence outcomes in exercise and sports science.
The podcast provides two classic examples to illustrate how bro science works.
The Claim: “If you want bigger muscles, you’ll lift more reps. And if you want firmer muscles, you lift heavier weights.”
The Kernel of Truth: This statement vaguely touches upon the concepts of muscular hypertrophy (growth) and strength development.
Hypertrophy: Traditionally, moderate rep ranges (e.g., 6-15 reps) have been associated with maximizing muscle size.
Strength: Heavier weights and lower rep ranges are primarily associated with increases in maximal strength. The neurological adaptations and increased muscle density from heavy lifting could be subjectively described as making muscles feel “firmer.”
The Misinformation: The claim creates a false dichotomy and oversimplifies the complex physiological processes of muscle adaptation.
The podcast points out that modern research shows the “classic hypertrophy rep range” is only slightly more effective for muscle mass gain than higher or lower rep ranges, provided the total intensity and effort are similar. Muscle growth can occur across a wide spectrum of rep ranges as long as sets are taken close to muscular failure.
The term “firmer” is subjective and not a scientific measure of adaptation. Both strength and hypertrophy training contribute to changes in muscle composition and tone.
The Claim: “If you want to go fast in the spring and summer, you have to spend months riding in the little ring in the winter.” (i.e., you must only do low-intensity, “base” training).
The Kernel of Truth: Performing a significant volume of low-intensity (Zone 2) training has numerous, well-documented aerobic benefits. As discussed in a previous episode mentioned in the transcript, these “base miles” are crucial for developing mitochondrial density, improving fat oxidation, and building a robust aerobic engine.
The Misinformation: The claim presents this method as the only way to get fast and universally applicable to all athletes, which is incorrect.
The podcast highlights the case of a time-limited athlete. Someone with only six hours per week to train will not generate enough aerobic stress doing only Zone 2 rides to see significant improvement. For this individual, incorporating higher intensity work is essential to drive adaptation.
This demonstrates that the optimal training approach depends on the individual’s goals, training history, and, critically, their available training time.
The podcast notes that with the increased accessibility of scientific research, bro science has evolved. It no longer relies solely on gym-floor anecdotes but now often co-opts scientific language and studies to appear more credible.
Cherry-Picking Single Studies: A common tactic is to cite one or two studies that support a particular product, supplement, or training methodology while ignoring the broader body of evidence.
Industry-Funded Research: The podcast specifically warns about studies funded by a supplement’s manufacturer. Such research has an inherent conflict of interest, as the goal is often to produce a positive, marketable result rather than impartial scientific inquiry.
Misleading Labels: Terms like “University Tested” are highlighted as being meaningless on their own. As the host humorously notes, placebos are “university tested” in nearly every clinical trial, but that doesn’t make them effective. The label says nothing about the quality of the study, its results, or whether it was replicated.
To arm the listener against sophisticated bro science, the podcast delves into a critical component of scientific literacy: understanding the standard of proof.
A fundamental principle of science is that results must be repeatable. A single experiment or study is never considered definitive proof. The findings must be independently verified by other researchers under similar (and sometimes varied) conditions to be accepted by the scientific community.
What it is: The p-value is a statistical measure used to determine the significance of a study’s results. It quantifies the probability that the observed results occurred due to random chance rather than the effect of the variable being tested.
The Threshold in Biology: In biological and biomedical sciences, the standard threshold for a “statistically significant” result is typically a p-value of less than or equal to 0.05 (p ≤ 0.05).
What This Means: A p-value of 0.05 indicates there is a 5% (or 1 in 20) probability that the study’s conclusion is wrong and that the results were simply a statistical fluke.
Why the Bar is “Low”: The podcast explains that this seemingly high margin for error exists because studying living organisms is incredibly complex. It is nearly impossible to control every variable in a human’s life (diet, sleep, stress, genetics, etc.) during a study. This inherent “noise” makes it difficult to achieve the extremely high certainty seen in fields like physics or chemistry.
The Implication: Because many studies just barely meet this p ≤ 0.05 standard, it is crucial to look for a consensus of evidence from multiple studies before drawing a firm conclusion. The XKCD comic mentioned in the podcast perfectly illustrates this: if you test 20 different things, it’s statistically likely that one of them will show a positive result by pure chance.
The podcast concludes with actionable advice for navigating the fitness landscape:
Be Skeptical of the “Silver Bullet”: There are no magic pills, secret workouts, or single tricks that guarantee success. Claims of a “silver bullet” are a major red flag and suggest the person is, at best, withholding information or, at worst, being intentionally deceptive.
Consider the Financial Motivation: Always ask who benefits from the claim. If someone is trying to sell you a specific supplement, program, or product based on their extraordinary claims, a healthy dose of skepticism is warranted.
Look for Consensus, Not Single Studies: Don’t be swayed by a single paper. Look for consistent findings across multiple, independent studies over time.
Embrace Nuance: Recognize that the correct answer to most complex training and nutrition questions is, “it depends.” True expertise lies in understanding the variables and applying principles to an individual’s specific context, not in proclaiming absolute, one-size-fits-all rules.