What Is Bro-Science, Exactly?

Off Topic
1

So we all use the term from time to time to call out one someone’s bullshit about training and nutrition, but what defines broscience? This is what I found from urbandictionary.com:

“Broscience is the predominant brand of reasoning in bodybuilding circles where the anecdotal reports of jacked dudes are considered more credible than scientific research.”

But I think it’s evolved to become more elaborate and harder to spot. I think the definition needs to include those instances where people misuse
scientific research, either making fallacious generalizations (usually based on abstracts), taking the study out of context. There also seems to be a lot of nitpicking into the research to only take the parts that would prove one’s point.

It has indeed become a very elaborate matter and I think we’re all guilty of being broscientists from time to time and of believing and passing along broscience facts.

2

To sum it up bro science is bullshit that sounds smart. Like most slang words this can describe a wide range. Some bro science is outdated science. Some is half truth and some is wishful thinking and some is pure bull shit that sounds hardcore and smart. examples : squatting or training legs increases serum testosterone and increases gains, vitamins burn fat, compound exercises make unnecessary isolation exercises, spot reduction, etc.

3

My general understanding based on following internet discussions is that something is broscience when it disproves your point but is real science when it affirms your point.

4

[quote]T3hPwnisher wrote:
My general understanding based on following internet discussions is that something is broscience when it disproves your point but is real science when it affirms your point.[/quote]

^lol that’s great.

My interpretation, especially in the internet age of every keyboard expert being able to pull up various studies, is any rationalization for a training or nutrition approach that despite possibly having some history of anecdotal stories in support of it, isn’t backed by, or is even disproved by, at least a single study that will get touted about constantly so people can argue with each other and thereby make themselves out to appear more knowledgeable.

S

5

/thread

6

Broscience is an art. To doin it right you have to paint a picture using a palate of scientifical information. To create that image you have to be a visionary, not a scientist. Thats why a lot of it doesn’t match up with reality. The science just hasn’t caught up with the vision, which is often peripheral- and the ideas are pretty far out.

Like an M.C. Escher print.

7

[quote]T3hPwnisher wrote:
My general understanding based on following internet discussions is that something is broscience when it disproves your point but is real science when it affirms your point.[/quote]

LOL funniest post yet.

8

From the perspective of my gym.

Bro science is when you walk into the locker room, to see one guy putting on baby oil before he begins to lift. Not only does this make him look more jacked, but it conveniently leaves the equipment so greasy, you need a seatbelt to lock yourself in so you don’t slide off the pad this asshole just used.

It also means that when you go to take a piss, you also notice the empty Androgel packet on the urinal, only to see him complain about the cystic pimples on his shoulders.

It means you think you’re a badass when your pasty white 12" bicep has flame tattoos on it.

It means you look uber cool while trying to sprint on a treadmill with skinny jeans on.

FML

9

When you say “real talk,” before you declare something.

10

[quote]rrjc5488 wrote:
When you say “real talk,” before you declare something.[/quote]

11

[quote]The Mighty Stu wrote:

[quote]T3hPwnisher wrote:
My general understanding based on following internet discussions is that something is broscience when it disproves your point but is real science when it affirms your point.[/quote]

^lol that’s great.

My interpretation, especially in the internet age of every keyboard expert being able to pull up various studies, is any rationalization for a training or nutrition approach that despite possibly having some history of anecdotal stories in support of it, isn’t backed by, or is even disproved by, at least a single study that will get touted about constantly so people can argue with each other and thereby make themselves out to appear more knowledgeable.

S[/quote]

Yeah but anecdotal evidence has it’s value, right? I think the problem begins when bros try to justify their anecdotal knowledge and findings with irrelevant or otherwise outdated scientific facts.

12

[quote]eaboadar wrote:

[quote]The Mighty Stu wrote:

[quote]T3hPwnisher wrote:
My general understanding based on following internet discussions is that something is broscience when it disproves your point but is real science when it affirms your point.[/quote]

^lol that’s great.

My interpretation, especially in the internet age of every keyboard expert being able to pull up various studies, is any rationalization for a training or nutrition approach that despite possibly having some history of anecdotal stories in support of it, isn’t backed by, or is even disproved by, at least a single study that will get touted about constantly so people can argue with each other and thereby make themselves out to appear more knowledgeable.

S[/quote]

Yeah but anecdotal evidence has it’s value, right? I think the problem begins when bros try to justify their anecdotal knowledge and findings with irrelevant or otherwise outdated scientific facts.[/quote]

Oh I truly believe that anecdotal evidence has value, especially in the absence of actual scientific study of the subject matter. Vince Gironda, Bill Pearl, Arnold, and the like were fairly astute in paying attention to what seemed to work, and yet none of them had degrees in anything related to physical development nor moonlighted as scientists after a hard day’s work in the gym. If you think about it, except for recent years, I don’t think many of the issues we as gym rats concern ourselves with have been on the high priority list of what needs to be deeply examined by mainstream science.

Sure, muscle growth is relevant to people with wasting diseases and the like (I have one client who suffered for a long time with MS, and packing on LBM has been a serious concern), but I can’t imagine becoming ‘hygoooge’, or getting bodyfat down to single digits, getting big pharma backing expensive studies.

It’s only now that supplement companies, that stand to profit from sales of OTC means of assistance, have taken a financial interest, that I think we’re seeing a shift in quotable research. Also, like you mentioned, outdated research is always going to be a questionable issue. Forget how long ago some studies may have been conducted (and possibly since disproved), but how many times (even on these forums, where I think the majority of posters are fairly intelligent) has someone posted a study to support an argument only to have it dismissed due to limitations, or obvious flaws in its actual design?

S

13

I’m in the gym and overhear one college kid next to me telling his buddy that “your body’s natural instinct is to store fat on a guys stomach as a defense mechanism. If you get punched in the stomach you want a little cushion there to soften the blow right? That’s why it’s so hard to get abs.”

^^that.

That right there is bro science

14

[quote]gregron wrote:
I’m in the gym and overhear one college kid next to me telling his buddy that “your body’s natural instinct is to store fat on a guys stomach as a defense mechanism. If you get punched in the stomach you want a little cushion there to soften the blow right? That’s why it’s so hard to get abs.”

^^that.

That right there is bro science [/quote]

100% valid though.

Same reason that women have some on their backsides. They never get abs back there.

15

[quote]SkyzykS wrote:

[quote]gregron wrote:
I’m in the gym and overhear one college kid next to me telling his buddy that “your body’s natural instinct is to store fat on a guys stomach as a defense mechanism. If you get punched in the stomach you want a little cushion there to soften the blow right? That’s why it’s so hard to get abs.”

^^that.

That right there is bro science [/quote]

100% valid though.

Same reason that women have some on their backsides. They never get abs back there.
[/quote]

Nice.

16

[quote]MaximusB wrote:
From the perspective of my gym.

Bro science is when you walk into the locker room, to see one guy putting on baby oil before he begins to lift. Not only does this make him look more jacked, but it conveniently leaves the equipment so greasy, you need a seatbelt to lock yourself in so you don’t slide off the pad this asshole just used.

It also means that when you go to take a piss, you also notice the empty Androgel packet on the urinal, only to see him complain about the cystic pimples on his shoulders.

It means you think you’re a badass when your pasty white 12" bicep has flame tattoos on it.

It means you look uber cool while trying to sprint on a treadmill with skinny jeans on.

FML[/quote]

A guy at your gym puts baby oil on before he lifts? U srs?

17

Everything I have ever said is bro science. I was going to mention something along the lines of what Stu said. Some people know their stuff and don’t need credentials and may have some flawed bro sciency way of explaining it. Others I see, even contributors to this site, will make claims and source some type of outdated material to prove their opinion, like the majority of opinionated essays ever written you are taught to prove your own point.

Just training consistently for years and hearing all the contradictory studies done and flaws in the research, it makes you think that a majority of knowledge on training can be described as bro science. The human body’s response to stimulus through exercise is always changing and depends what you eat your leverages, sleep, hormones, ect… so many variables to getting an ideal body. Also when you start out anything works then once you get further ahead you have to figure out new methods.

I’d listen to a guy with zero degress who can squat 700 pounds than a physique trainer guru with 20 degrees but doesnt look like they can squat 300. It’s science man to be skinny and I have all the answers because i studied 4 years of old materials of how the body moves through space!That being said my view of science is that society creates and tries to find what it wants to hear through science.

Sometimes it is directly skewed to make you believe something that is not true. I am aware that there is true scientific evidence for certain aspects of training, but there are many different methods to attaining goals, never just one way. Be skeptical of the gurus.

18

[quote]Jlabs wrote:
Everything I have ever said is bro scienceâ?¦.

…a majority of knowledge on training can be described as bro scienceâ?¦.
[/quote]

These are actually very interesting points!

19

My impression of broscience has always been something that a young, inexperienced, but still considers himself knowledgeable lifter thinks.

It may not even be incorrect, but this individual uses things that other people have told him or even things that just make sense to him in his own little world and speaks them as if they are the holy grail of lifting info/advice.

Basically, anyone who goes around feeling confident about what they know about fitness/nutrition/whatever when they are yet to confirm it through a reliable source (articles or other sources, or at least an experienced lifter who knows what they’re talking about) but still feels free to tell everyone what they “know” like they’re the foremost authority on the subject. That individual is using broscience. Again, the broscience could be correct, it just has to do with the nature of how sure he is about it vs. whether he SHOULD be so sure about it.

The central theme of broscience, as far as I’m concerned, is having an undying confidence you know little to nothing about based on nothing but how sure you are of yourself.