There are 2 camps in health and fitness:
-Naturopaths, holistic practitioners and clinicians. This is art. It is common sense, holistic, naturalist, born of personal experience and experience helping real people.
-Medical doctors and researchers. This is science. It is data-driven, research-backed, facts > feelings, outcomes > mechanisms. Born of a lab.
It is very similar to the yin/yang, feminine/masculine duality of Taoism
In Myers Briggs it is Intuiting vs. Sensing
Each camp tends to villainize the other – which is what you need to do to get attention on social media
In my view, both of these camps are pursuing truth. And both methods for how they do it produce insight.
An integration of both of these is essential to arriving at the most complete understanding possible.
An ideological person says things that completely exclude the other camp from being capable of producing any insight.
So an intuitive person might say something like, “Research studies can’t be trusted because they are funded by corporations. The only things we can really know come from common sense and subjective wellbeing.”
On the other hand, a sensing person might say something like, “The only things we can really know are produced by a formalized scientific method. Studies are way more reliable than common sense and subjective wellbeing regardless of how they are funded.”
So who’s right?
Question your beliefs
Research operates on a set of beliefs or assumptions. We assume that we are able to produce reliable outcomes by hypothesizing, controlling variables, etc. Many assume that if a person cites a PubMed ID that whatever they say afterwards carries absolute authority. This becomes problematic because we have such a multiplicity of research studies, and they produce contradictory findings often. Many findings fail to replicate when an experiment is iterated. And, it is true that many studies are funded by corporations. Not that long ago we had doctors endorsing cigarettes.
Clinical practice operates on a set of assumptions as well. Many clinicians use subjective wellbeing as the only measure of their impact. While a source of insight, this can be a rather poorly controlled experiment. Clinicians who want deeper insight into their impact would do well to incorporate data. I had a recent experience with naturopathy that was woefully unhelpful and confusing.
Whichever side you tend towards, know your assumptions and consider that the other camp might be onto something.
Which methods are more reliable depend entirely on the context.
I am a clinician, first and foremost. I work with individuals. Many of them are athletes but some are not. I work with most of my clients for multiple years.
We incorporate data AND subjective assessment. We look at weight on the bar and RPE. We look at times and energy levels. While all humans have physiological similarities, there are also differences that determine how we respond to stress.
I stay aware of what research is producing, AND I pay attention to my client’s subjective experience.
So, if you look up to a clinician who only uses subjective wellbeing to gauge results, or has a blanket distrust of all research, and is unaware of the latest findings, I would add a degree of skepticism.
Similarly, if you are looking up to a researcher who does not have a clinical practice, then I would add a degree of skepticism.
I like to incorporate both objective, hard researchers and holistic practitioners. I like researchers like Layne Norton and Mike Israetel. I also like practitioners like James FitzGerald and Paul Chek.
Inevitably, every person will have their own underlying beliefs.
Send me a DM with who you trust for health and fitness insight.
