Anecdotes, Observations, and Bro-Science

I’m guilty as hell when it comes to spreading the use of the term “bro-science”. I don’t know for sure that I was one of the originators of the term, but I strongly suspect I was. This isn’t a bad thing all around; people need to be more aware of how they’re thinking about topics, instead of just repeating things or making things up like most fitness “professionals”. The term “bro-science” is a convenient way to package up a specific collection of fallacies that are almost always trotted out in any debate argument over exercise-related subjects.

“Bro-science” itself was a term originally coined to note the complete absence of science and/or logical reasoning to back up a claim – the “bro” came from the habit of people on forums referring to everyone else as “bro”, and since it was usually one of these guys making the argument, the term just kinda stuck.

The definition is straightforward:

Bro-science is when someone makes a completely unsupportable claim, not backed by either science or any form of reasonable speculation, and when challenged on that lack of support, the person instead points to his pictures, his lifts, or the phenomenal number of Olympic athletes he’s trained as support for the claim.

As you can see, “bro-science” has a very specific meaning, and there are very specific criteria that must be present for the word to apply. In effect “bro-science” is a particular kind of distraction fallacy, a red herring that introduces irrelevant information in order to move the burden of proof away from the person making the questionable claim.

Bro-Science is Not Anecdote

This needs to be said more than anything else, because the term is getting out of hand. It’s not bro-science when someone shares an anecdote. It’s not bro-science when a lifter shares methods and approaches that have given him results. Bro-science is not what happens when somebody disagrees with you, or because you don’t understand the research you’re citing.

Bro-science only happens when someone basically makes up some bullshit, then instead of conceding it’s made-up bullshit, tries to make up excuses for why he’s right because he’s big/lean/strong.

Anecdote is perfectly valid, especially if it’s a user-end kind of anecdote. Listening to high-performing athletes is almost always a good idea, because you can at least get some direction even if copying the exact program isn’t a good idea. If there’s no research to give us hard data, and there really isn’t when it comes to programming, anecdote is usually all we have to go on. Anecdote is not a problem, and it should never be a problem as long as we realize what anecdotes mean.

Bro-science enters the picture when a claim blatantly contradicts known, testable science. Working your abs doesn’t bring out “cuts”; that’s been tested and shown to be false. The body doesn’t spot reduce fat. Bro-science happens when a guy claims doing crunches brings out the cuts in his abs, and then says “just look at my abs” as proof.

Bro-science shows up when a claim is assumed to be correct because of pictures or lifts; it ignores causal relationships and relies on non-sequiturs. If the phrase “well it worked for me” enters the argument, especially if accompanied by pics and/or lifting numbers, that’s real bro-science.

The Fitness Industry Needs Some Bro

“Bro-science” has proven itself to be a double-edged sword. Now it’s easy to dismiss anything you don’t like, by claiming it’s bro-science.

But that’s just not true. Genuine bro-science requires genuine bro.

On the other side of the coin, we actually do need a little measured amount of bro-logic from time to time, because we just can’t rely on science for the answer. Theory is not complete enough to tell us a whole lot about practice, especially when it comes to strength training.

If you rely on research exclusively, you end up doing things like squatting high and never benching with your elbows past 90 degrees because some physio completely misinterpreted a study and decided that a full range of motion was dangerous. In that regard, even physios have their own Bro-Science – just repeating things without any form of analysis, and then appealing to research when you call them on it – even when the research they’re pointing to doesn’t actually back them up.

This kind of practical gym-experience isn’t bro-science, though. It’s just learning. It’s observing how things work, testing what gets results, and then refining your workouts accordingly. You don’t need a study to tell you things like this; personal anecdote, if approached rationally, can tell you far more then appealing to poorly-applicable studies.

To me, it’s not about the actual “science” component, in the sense of needing real research to back up any and every claim. Anything discussing physiology, especially if it contradicts physiology, should be scrutinized from that angle. Anything dealing with “lifting weights” need not apply.

Instead, you should be science-minded. You can still approach weight training rationally and empirically. That’s not bro-science just because it’s anecdotal. It’s only bro-science if you’re completely 100% right because you’re the strongest person in the conversation.

Keep it in its place, people.