I guess you could say that this is an op-ed piece. However, my objective in discussing the concepts of evidence-based versus experience based interventions in health and fitness is not to diminish either one. It’s simply to explore and celebrate each of these paradigms.
To set the stage, an evidence-based approach is one which is research-supported. On the other hand, an experience-based approach is one which has been found to work for you, and/or others, whether or not it is backed by research. Clearly, there is significant merit in both of these arenas.
When we describe any process as being evidence-based, we are essentially stating that a sufficient amount of research has been conducted to demonstrate the efficacy of said process. This is rooted in the scientific method which begins from an observation or curiosity that turns a question into a hypothesis. This hypothesis is then tested via an experiment in which the methods, results, and conclusions are communicated as the study is published in peer-reviewed literature. When a finding, or result, is replicated multiple times by different researchers, it is generally considered to be reliable, or evidence-based.
There are multiple phrases which guide this process such as “the goal of science is to be less wrong over time” and “all models are wrong, but some are useful.” The principle of ongoing research is to always be aware that “we accept that we are incorrect in our assumptions somewhere, we’re just not always sure precisely where our errors in thinking are located.” Or something like that. Thus, scientific evidence is always in a state of refinement, and that’s what makes it intriguing and useful.
Yet here’s where we need to be thoughtful in the way we receive and apply evidence. In the most basic of viewpoints, evidence is evidence. It proves that what was being studied, works or is true, in the exact context of the specific study. Outcomes can be reliably reproduced as long as all the real-world (or at least most of them) conditions match that of the research. But are they valid, or transferable, to you or a specific population? Maybe so, maybe no. That’s because a lot of the research we utilize as evidence in health and fitness is filled with nuance. For example much (not all but certainly a lot) of nutrition evidence is based on either rodent research or epidemiological (survey-based) data. Don’t get me wrong, both of these can provide valuable insights, but they don’t usually lead to indisputable evidence. Then there’s the issue with population specificity with regard to exercise. Age, gender, genetics, sociocultural aspects, personality, and geographic location can make the findings with one group less transferable to another. A classic example here is that a significant portion (again, not all but much) of exercise related studies are conducted on college-aged subjects. Consequently, the findings of those investigations may not quite fit the general, geriatric, special, or Lifetime Athlete populations.
Leading researchers readily accept these points and work tirelessly in the advancement of science, and thus in the context of our focus, human health and performance. But there seems to be a contingent of thought leaders and media influencers, including some with advanced degrees, who delude the public by presenting their own biases with great conviction. They take advantage of their perceived position of authority and often contradict each other, leaving you unsure of what to believe.
Regarding any evidence-based claim in health and fitness, here’s what we should keep in mind. Is the information being provided based on research that involved double-blinded, randomized, controlled trials on human subjects with the specific population characteristics that apply to you and I? Have those findings been replicated multiple times by accredited researchers/institutions and published in peer-reviewed journals? Are there numerous real-world examples of this research being utilized successfully by the target population? When the answers to those questions are “yes” we can most probably trust the evidence and utilize it with success. Or at least proceed with caution. Sort of a “trust but verify” situation in which you use yourself as a test subject, regardless of the results someone else got. The thing to avoid is “blind faith acceptance” of any doctrine and jumping from one hot idea to the next.
The preceding information brings us to the other component in this conversation and that’s experience-based methodology. Practices which you have found to be effective that may or may not be completely evidence-based or currently popular. For decades, when I noticed that a client did something unique with exercise, diet, or lifestyle I would ask “Why do you do that?” And they would educate me by saying “I have found that this (practice, etc.) works really well for me.” There wasn’t always a study, influencer, or trend backing up their choices.
Generally, within each of us, there are unique underlying properties – usually related to genetics, lifestyle, and preferences – which at least in part explain our training methods and behaviors. You learn through trial and error, aka experience, what works best for you and your needs or goals. This can be a selection of evidence-based criteria, some customized shaping of the evidence, or even something for which there is little evidence available.
Examples abound. The evidence suggests that an intermediate trainee requires from 10-20 sets per bodypart or muscle group per week for an optimal stimulus to muscular hypertrophy. However, Jim has always found that he gets better results on half that weekly volume. Karen, on the other hand, responds best to 20+ weekly sets. Both fit the classification of intermediate, but each thrives outside the evidence-based range. Terry feels best on a diet which is lower carb and higher (saturated) fat, yet her bloodwork reveals no undesirable lipid profiles regarding cardiovascular health. Paul does fine on less sleep than what the norms represent. Tina likes a minimalist shoe for everything. Jay does best with maximalist footwear all the time. Todd loves HIIT. Sarah prefers low-intensity steady-state cardio. And so on.
The thing that Lifetime Athletes need to be aware of is essentially a funneling effect which occurs with aging. This is easy to describe. Picture a funnel which represents the precision with which we apply our health and fitness practices. The top, or entrance, to the funnel identifies youth, and the bottom, or exit, is characteristic of the later decades. When we’re younger, almost any training or diet that we pour into the funnel can produce good results. Or, said differently, we can get away with a lot of indiscretion. But with each advancing decade, how we apply our practices to our own unique organism, needs to become more and more precise as our needs and tolerances narrow down. Specific foods, macros, calories, and meal patterns begin to matter more. And with training, we need to fine tune volume, intensity, frequency, and recovery. We apply the evolving evidence intelligently. And we rely upon our experience to further shape our processes. This is instinctive wisdom.
Ultimately, my message today is to value evidence-based methods and experience-based approaches equally. Have an open mind but be a little skeptical. Vet your sources. Test theories, workouts, and diets carefully. Take the advice of others, no matter how well-meaning, with the proverbial grain of salt. If it works (referring to your training and diet, etc.), don’t feel the need to fix it. But recognize that what worked best when you were 20 may not be ideal when you are 60. Change isn’t always easy to embrace but it must be accepted. Optimizing the journey of LIFE is all about customizing your interventions so that not only is “You Do You” a truism…You Know YOU is of paramount importance. Combine evidence and experience and Kick Ass for LIFE. Thanks for joining me today.