The problem with popular science-based fitness content

Since the advent of sites like YouTube, science has been becoming more and more of a part of popular fitness content online. Which is fantastic. Science-focused content creators like Jeff Nippard and Milo Wolf have started amassing huge audiences and spreading the good word of evidence based thinking.

And in the last year or so, Mike Israetel has exploded in popularity, landing himself appearances on some very popular podcasts like Diary of a CEO and Chris Williamson.

So, what on Earth could be the problem? I've refined my concerns into 3 main points.

1. Misuse of the term 'science'

Recently, many of these popular creators have begun perhaps taking certain liberties around words like 'science'. For example, creators like Jeff Nippard and Milo Wolf started creating 'tier list' videos, ranking the best exercises for each muscle group.

Interestingly, these creators came up with radically different choices for some exercises. For example: lunges. Jeff ranked it 'B', whereas Milo ranked it 'D'.

How about leg extensions? Jeff gave it an 'A', whereas Milo felt it only deserved a 'C'.

This is just one example that really gets at a major issue with some of the 'science based' content that these creators are making. These are just opinions with no real science behind them.

The idea that a leg extension or a lunge could be considered worthy of a measly C or a D grade for quad hypertrophy is patently ridiculous. If anything, science seems to regularly remind us that details like exercise selection actually matter very little relative to progressive overload, specifcity, nutrition, sleep etc.

If we were being intellectually honest, most exercises would get about the same grade as long as they are done through a full range of motion and trained hard. Alas, that doesn't make for high performing YT videos. Which takes me to my next point..

2. Social media is at odds with science-backed advice

Social media algorithms primarily reward content that is novel, has hot takes, and uses black and white thinking ('the best programme' etc.).

The problem is that's basically the antithesis of science in a complex system like human biology. Most of what science supports working is pretty fucking boring stuff that has been said for decades: do strength training, train close to failure, eat fruit and vegetables, get enough sleep, drink mostly water, use mostly compound lifts with full ROM etc.

Additionally in complex systems, there can never be a universal 'best' or 'worst' way of doing things. There are simply too many factors at play, all of which will change significantly one person to another. Merely asking the question of what is the best programme, exercise, technique, food etc. is a sign the person has no idea just how implausible that is to answer.

And yet, that content does fantastic. And so it is my concern and assumption that great science-based creators will start to dilute their message more and more in the name of bigger paydays.

3. Science's reputation and the audience's results suffer

   
   

Now, I want to be really clear in saying that I see zero problem with a coach having an opinion about what exercises they like most, their preferred training split, etc. We all have to have an opinion, or we'd never be able to make a programme.

But when it's an opinion, we need to SAY it's opinion. Don't say your opinion that leg extension suck is 'ranked using science'. These creators have a big responsibility to carry the flag for science with integrity. Why? Because the fitness industry and society at large is already incredibly distrustful of science and will jump on any 'aha, I told you' opportunity to dismiss it.

Additionally, these guys may or may not be aware that the VAST majority of their audience are young guys somewhere in the beginner to intermediate stage of training. In other words, the kind of people who are desperate for reasons to hyper-fixate on tiny details and overlook the basics. These guys don't need to be worrying about 'optimal' exercise selection. They need to be told to stick to a programme, train at an appropriate intensity, eat better, and go to bed on time.

The stuff that works for training has remained largely unchanged for decades now. Let's be honest about that.

After all, it's backed by science.