You’re Not Evidence-Based
By: Charly Joung, Broderick Chavez, and Dalton Franke
You’re not evidence-based…
… if you disregard anecdotal evidence in exercise science specific to hypertrophy (or any other aspect of human performance).
Yes, anecdotal evidence ranks rock-bottom on the hierarchy of true scientific evidence. However, in this particular area of study (sports science), that hierarchy could and should be challenged.
Here's why:
1. Studies in hypertrophy-focused exercise science are notoriously unreliable
If you asked scientists or researchers from other fields for their thoughts on the conclusions of studies in hypertrophy-focused exercise science, most would likely laugh.
First, many studies cited have sample sizes of two to three dozen participants, which is insufficient to draw meaningful conclusions. Studies with small sample sizes lack statistical power and fail to capture the variability found in broader populations, making their results unreliable.
Some people will point to meta-analyzes based on these studies. However, a meta-analysis is only as strong as the studies it includes (and the honesty of the person or persons evaluating the data set). In hypertrophy research, this often creates a “garbage in, garbage out” problem. When low-quality studies with poor methodologies are aggregated, the meta-analysis conclusions are equally flawed.
To make matters worse, publication bias amplifies the issue. Journals tend to prioritize studies with novel or significant results, leaving behind less exciting but equally important data. As a result, the available literature is skewed, giving an incomplete and often misleading picture.
2. Poor control variables
Hypertrophy doesn’t occur in a vacuum. Aside from genetic factors, variables like nutrition, sleep, stress management, and others play a huge role in your results.
Most studies fail to account for or track these control variables, making their results difficult to take seriously. Even worse, some variables are self-reported, which adds another layer of unreliability. The lack of diversity in study populations compounds this problem. Most research is conducted under highly controlled, artificial conditions that don’t reflect the complexity of real-world scenarios or individual variability.
3. Shoddy results and assessment
Even if the sample sizes were more significant and control variables were more thoroughly considered, there’s still the issue of a lack of blinding in many studies. While you can’t blind the participants in these types of studies, you can blind the assessors.
Unfortunately, some researchers choose assessors who share their biases. Whether intentional or not, this undermines the credibility of the results and raises questions about conflicts of interest. It’s no secret that hypertrophy research is a small community, and overlapping interests can subtly influence outcomes. Peer reviewers are often not blinded either, which adds another ethical concern and allows poorly designed studies to slip through the cracks.
Reproducibility is also a significant issue. Many studies in hypertrophy-focused exercise science fail to provide enough detail or standardization to allow others to replicate their work. Without reproducibility, findings remain speculative at best.
Fortunately (for real science), most of these studies fail to meet the basic standards of what would be considered a viable study. Unfortunately, for most information consumers, this is beyond their scope of understanding.
4. Don’t throw out the baby with the bathwater
“So, you’re saying science is stupid?” No, science is amazing, so it’s frustrating to see when people misuse it in this context. Studies and meta-analyses are the gold standard of evidence in most fields. However, in hypertrophy research, they are often hampered by small sample sizes, poor controls, and questionable methods, making them less trustworthy and more problematic to apply in practice.
What does this mean?
1. You should invest little to no mental energy in the latest hypertrophy-focused research studies until they meet basic acceptability standards, like appropriate sample sizes, proper controls, and blinded assessments.
2. You should consider incorporating anecdotal evidence into your decision-making. Real-world evidence from practitioners and athletes offers insights that many studies miss due to over-specialization and poor practical relevance.
3. You should track your progress using objective and subjective variables, analyze trends, and make decisions based on your findings (or simply hire someone you trust to guide you). By taking a hands-on, evidence-informed approach, you can overcome the limitations of the current research landscape and make more effective decisions.
If you’re looking to accelerate progress via true evidence-based coaching, book a free consultation today. We’ll discuss your goals and see if we’re a good fit for each other.
