Broscience

[BenT]

This made me laugh:

BROSCIENCE

A sarcastic term implying that the time tested, muscle building wealth of knowledge developed and utilized by successful, experienced bodybuilders is inferior to the continually shifting hypotheses of articulate, textbook-savvy 155lb. chemists with little or no real world first-person experience to substantiate their conclusions. The term "Broscience" is oft repeated on bodybuilding and fitness oriented internet forums in an attempt to demonstrate online dominance as a substitution for success in the arena of actual bodybuilding.

Professor Shnootgarten: What are you drinking there?

Tommy: Just a protein shake with some carbs; I need to get my 350 grams daily.

Professor Shnootgarten: According to the 30 pubmed studies that I’ve downloaded, any amount greater than 22.341 grams of protein post workout is superfluous for greater protein synthesis. Additionally, insulin spiking, if that’s your intended objective, is neither necessary nor helpful toward replenishing glycogen stores unless, of course, your focus is high rep, time under tension endurance tolerance rather than maximal load, low rep hypertrophy stimulation.

Tommy: Dude, over the last 8 years, I’ve gone from a 148 pound weakling to a 220 pound beast doing the same stuff that worked for my dad, and you’re a buck fifteen and have never actually seen the inside of a gym.

Professor Shnootgarten: Well, according to last year’s in-vitro study of skeletal-muscle glycogen phosphorylase done at the University of Stuttgart School of Bio-Organic Chemistry Deluxe...

Tommy: Spare me the science lesson Mr. Wizard; you’ll change your mind next week when new studies reveal the opposite conclusions. You can take your research and your weak pale self, and I’ll take the 500+lb.deadlift that I got with hard work and a little help from broscience.

(http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=broscience)

[JacktheThriller]

never heard such a term ever. scientists could probably do much better at weightlifting if they cared, its the difference between hammering nails with a rock (ignorance) and hammering with a hammer (science), probably going with the hammer on this one

[Praetorian]

Agree 100%...a very misused term even on this board by a few intellectually challenged members. The fact of the matter is studies are rarely produced involving BB's or athletes in general thus the conclusions reached are far from accurate regarding these populations. Spewing garbage like "ill take medical journals over drug abusers information" is indicative of this as well. There isnt a medical journal on the planet that describes proper drug protocol for BB or athletes...years and years of experience with these compounds and athletes along with a vast set of knowledge when it comes to biochemistry, anatomy and physiology, as well as nutrition will generally advance an open minded , intelligent individual much further than any MD or proposed scientist.
Hmm look at that CN Tower a few scientists say...you know why dont we create a hypothesis and do some studies on metallurgy and concrete strengths, maybe some statistical analysis comparing other structures to see how best to build something like that....OR....says the 50 year old mason....why not just ask the f**king guys who built it!!!!
P

[swolegantor]

I believe science will eventually lead us to the best knowledge as far muscle growth, strength and fat loss is concerned. However, as long as they keep performing 8 week studies on a bunch of 23 year old college kids who have never worked out in their life I don't think we will find the answer.

[Praetorian]

I believe science will eventually lead us to the best knowledge as far muscle growth, strength and fat loss is concerned. However, as long as they keep performing 8 week studies on a bunch of 23 year old college kids who have never worked out in their life I don't think we will find the answer.

Dont get me wrong...science is absolutely necessary to achieve optimal results...the issue lies in how it is interpreted and applied to achieve these results. There will never be a scientific study on optimal aas or hgh dosages to achieve the highest anabolic activity..thus we need to understand how these compounds work and how they can be applied to achieve the desired results. Much of this information will come from trial and error over years of experience...not from a medical journal. We can take data from medical and scientific sources and extrapolate on the outcomes with athletes...but thisis far from accurate without real life experience as a guide.
P

[buildinthaskinnys]

Dont get me wrong...science is absolutely necessary to achieve optimal results...the issue lies in how it is interpreted and applied to achieve these results. There will never be a scientific study on optimal aas or hgh dosages to achieve the highest anabolic activity..thus we need to understand how these compounds work and how they can be applied to achieve the desired results. Much of this information will come from trial and error over years of experience...not from a medical journal. We can take data from medical and scientific sources and extrapolate on the outcomes with athletes...but thisis far from accurate without real life experience as a guide.
P

yes but synthetic versions of naturally produced hormones and peptides affect people differently on a case to case basis, and this is where "broscience" comes into effect, a good example is where one guy can say (and there has been studies confirming this(I know, I know)) that taking a nandrolone didnt affect his libido at all, but than this will activate a horde of "bros" to attack him because of the time tested and true "everybody" gets "deca-dick"! BROSCIENCE!!!. This probably isnt a good example, but truthfully how scientific is it really? Alot of the information that is around is based upon someone else passing it down to a number of other people with each person adding a little something of there own to it, to make there mark so to speak. Honestly it drives me nuts.

[kloan]

i see guys using it all the time when someone posts an opinion that sounds too close to 'facts'... its frequently used on bodybuilding.com.... go figure.

[Praetorian]

yes but synthetic versions of naturally produced hormones and peptides affect people differently on a case to case basis, and this is where "broscience" comes into effect, a good example is where one guy can say (and there has been studies confirming this(I know, I know)) that taking a nandrolone didnt affect his libido at all, but than this will activate a horde of "bros" to attack him because of the time tested and true "everybody" gets "deca-dick"! BROSCIENCE!!!. This probably isnt a good example, but truthfully how scientific is it really? Alot of the information that is around is based upon someone else passing it down to a number of other people with each person adding a little something of there own to it, to make there mark so to speak. Honestly it drives me nuts.


Yes true...you are speaking of anecdotal evidence....which can be very misleading, inaccurate, or completely wrong. The issue with anedoctal evidence is again the interpretation...which is a huge variable...case in point the 240iu bogus Saizen kits...not GH at all...but many guys raved on how great they were...basically with little to no experience in training, or peptide usage....this is why intepretation i so important.
P

[CanadianIron]

yes but synthetic versions of naturally produced hormones and peptides affect people differently on a case to case basis, and this is where "broscience" comes into effect, a good example is where one guy can say (and there has been studies confirming this(I know, I know)) that taking a nandrolone didnt affect his libido at all, but than this will activate a horde of "bros" to attack him because of the time tested and true "everybody" gets "deca-dick"! BROSCIENCE!!!. This probably isnt a good example, but truthfully how scientific is it really? Alot of the information that is around is based upon someone else passing it down to a number of other people with each person adding a little something of there own to it, to make there mark so to speak. Honestly it drives me nuts.


I think that people would say they effect everyone differently, but if there were actual studies, you'd find that MOST people respond the exact same way to given compounds at certain dosages. You can never really know how someone is training/eating when they take 500mg of Test and say it doesnt do anything for them. I think without a real knowledge base bro science is all we have beside our own experience.

[Praetorian]

I think that people would say they effect everyone differently, but if there were actual studies, you'd find that MOST people respond the exact same way to given compounds at certain dosages. You can never really know how someone is training/eating when they take 500mg of Test and say it doesnt do anything for them. I think without a real knowledge base bro science is all we have beside our own experience.

True this is why testing is done on new drugs to see how people react. The majority will react the same and some will develop sides which is normally a very low percentage. The problem with saying things will affect everybody differently is we have really no idea of what each person is taking in addition to that compound.
P

[JacktheThriller]

rarely in science will u find ur specific situation, science says under these conditions x does this to y, this can be replicated by holding on those conditions, its are job to test the findings in the field and expand the range of conditions

[buildinthaskinnys]

I think that people would say they effect everyone differently, but if there were actual studies, you'd find that MOST people respond the exact same way to given compounds at certain dosages. You can never really know how someone is training/eating when they take 500mg of Test and say it doesnt do anything for them. I think without a real knowledge base bro science is all we have beside our own experience.

Studies aside you would have to agree that at high dosages, dosages that doctors would deem dangerous, (these being typical bodybuilder dosages) this is where the threshold is more transparent to how people are affected. There is and extreme right and left when people are on high dosages, from what i have seen anyways, my point is that some can handle more with less sides than others and this is another failure of broscience.

[buildinthaskinnys]

Yes true...you are speaking of anecdotal evidence....which can be very misleading, inaccurate, or completely wrong. The issue with anedoctal evidence is again the interpretation...which is a huge variable...case in point the 240iu bogus Saizen kits...not GH at all...but many guys raved on how great they were...basically with little to no experience in training, or peptide usage....this is why intepretation i so important.
P

This is a good example, and here is another I bought "igf" from a canadian online company years ago and could swear that I was growing from it, until one time I took it and passed out momentarily, even though I was taking plenty of carbs with it, it turns out, that the igf was merely icing sugar, no word of a lie, and that would be why my blood sugar skyrocketed in a matter of seconds.

[BenT]

Drugs do affect different groups differently - right now a successful drug is one that has a positive effect in most of the population while only a few have negative side effects (I'm simplifying). Deciding which group you are in is more of an art right now than a science - you have family history x, your are in ethnic group y, you are not allergic to penicillin therefore you qualify to take the drug.

In the near future this will all change - really it is your genetics that determine whether or not you will respond in a certain way to a drug, and genetic tests for drug efficacy and toxicity are beginning to emerge (mostly in oncology) - a patient gets a genetic test, the test informs the patient whether they will have a bad reaction to the drug or whether or not it will even work.

It is unlikely that it will ever be that way for AAS. Wouldn't it be great if you could take a blood test that could tell you you're going to get acne from test or prolactin induced gyno from deca or anxiety from tren? You could tailor your drug regimen to give you the best results with fewest sides. Perfect. The reasons this will never happen are:

1. no pharma company or government agency is going to fund the development of a genetic test to tell bodybuilders if they should take deca or equipoise.

2. no underground group is going to spend millions of dollars to develop a test that will essentially cut out a percentage of their customer base.

3. how many bodybuilders are going to shell out hundreds or thousands of dollars for a test to tell them what steroids to take when they can just rely on 'broscience' for free?

[Neavris]

Isolating all variables is very difficult in physiological studies. No wonder they make a lot of mistakes. A few years ago, scientists were saying that holding a stretch instead of bouncing back and forth was better, few years later, the opposite was true. Now, both are as valid...

Some scientist shouldn't be believed and some others have proven that their methodology to find what work best for a given situation has been so rigorous time and time again that they don't need to lift their little finger for their result to be generally accepted and incorporated into most athletes regimen. Pre-workout protein or bcaa usage for example, this hasn't always been as widespread as it is now. Same for fish oil... hummm fish oil, been out for a week, can't wait to get more.