I am dedicated to bringing you the truth on all things training, nutrition, and supplement related. I am also dedicated to giving you guys info in a way that makes reading a lot of the boring science details easier and more fun. One of the roles I find the most critical is cutting through all the BS that is out there to give you the real science-backed advice you need to get bigger, stronger, and leaner.
I always stay up to date with the latest cutting-edge science published in peer-reviewed journals and presented at scientific meetings all over the world. Many of the studies I get directly from my colleagues doing the research. Some of the studies I have conducted myself. But published science is not always the be-all and end-all of what works in the gym. It also has to hold up with real-world application in the gym. And as you will see in this two-part series, sometimes broscience actually trumps published science.
We sometimes get it wrong. In fact, I was involved in planning a study on creatine with a colleague of mine at a university on the east coast. We had to abort the study because the scientists on the IRB (internal review board) reviewing our study proposal were afraid that giving subjects creatine was too dangerous! Yes, can you believe that even in 2012, there were scientists who had no clue about creatine despite all the research showing it to be safe and effective?! This is what I am talking about when I say sometimes you should ignore the advice of these "experts" as they are not really experts on the topic they are offering advice on.
So in this article, I will be putting broscience up against published science on the topic of nutrition and supplementation to see who emerges the winner. To see how "conventional wisdom" stacks up against real science when it comes to training check out part two of this series, Real Science vs. Broscience: Training.