Science is a methodical and systematic way of processing and producing knowledge. Science is the offspring of philosophy, which was conducted in many different ways worldwide as part of various cultures. Philosophy was initially an oral tradition in which knowledge was passed word-of-mouth from the knowers to the learners. Bro-Science in gyms worldwide is one in which knowledge is transmitted by discussion and conversation between lifters. Bro-Science is also a derogatory word that denigrates the “authority” by which gym-rat wisdom is subverted by those appealing to other authoritative sources of the “best” programming, lifting technique, nutrition, recovery methods, etc. However, in general society, science is not a unified thing or monolithic method for generating knowledge.

The Evolution of Science

Different kinds of science exist because different goals, rules, and procedures exist for different sciences. Wilhelm Dilthey (1980), a German philosopher, said that there is a need for human sciences that parallel the natural sciences but allow for different rules of evidence. His point was that people have minds, which are the cradle of knowledge and understanding.

However, the division between natural and human science further branched into life sciences (biology, zoology, physiology, etc.), physical sciences (physics, chemistry, astronomy, etc.), and applied sciences (engineering, medicine, aeronautics, etc.). The human or social sciences branched into psychology, sociology, history, political science, etc. While experimental science is regarded as the “gold standard” of inquiry, experiments are not practical or feasible for every science and every topic being studied. However, this article is about Bro-Science and its underlying epistemology. Well, there is not precisely one set of rules for knowledge about building muscle, strength, athleticism, and weight cutting.

Nevertheless, there is much information about these things, from formal sports physiology, sports psychology, sports nutrition, and Bro-Science. Shurley et al. (2019) provide a historical sketch of strength coaching and its struggles and achievements in integrating practitioner knowledge with academic research results. The dialog between the formal science and praxis of strength is far from reaching its peak. However, Bro-Science remains a reference for gym folklore knowledge and ideas and is a caricature of “Mr. Know-it-All” at every local commercial gym.

What Sets Bro-Science Apart

The pillars of science are observation and logic. That means, what counts as evidence must be observable directly or indirectly, and the information must be processed for general patterns using the rules of logic. Science is methodical in this way, but it systematically records observations (data collection) and uses a logical process (analysis) to break down the data for better understanding. The goal is to produce general knowledge useful to society or some portion of society. Bro-Science, by nature, is regarded as anecdotal and, therefore, not methodical, systematic, or employing logical rigor. Logical rigor does not necessarily mean stats. Various rules of logic apply, not just in analyzing information but in synthesizing what the analysis means – the interpretation.

But Bro-Science involves truisms and knowledge based on unrecorded experience that often makes sense. Does a person’s workout log count as “data” for systematic analysis? It would have no staying power to haunt the local gyms worldwide without some level of veracity or believability. Logic also comes in different forms and power levels to make knowledge claims.

The Role of Abductive Reasoning in Strength Training

Logic is the set rules of thinking with sound reason. There is deductive, inductive, and abductive reasoning. Deductive reasoning concludes many observations. Inductive reasoning is making generalizations from a few well-examined comprehensive exemplars. And abductive reasoning employs the best explanation from available examples (Walton, 2014). What is important to note is that the kind of logic needs to fit the goals of any inquiry. We make many decisions daily based on abductive reasoning, not immutable and timeless “Truth.” Even philosopher Soren Kierkegaard said, “Faith is dubious by definition; otherwise, it would be certainty” (Strathern, 1997). Yet human beings can do many things based on and motivated by faith. I would suggest that abductive reasoning exercises a degree of faith in the available evidence. 

Many strength training principles developed in abductive reasoning until academic institutions and scientists formally studied strength training methods. When academics started entering the strength community, practitioners did not always welcome them with open arms (Shurley et al., 2019). The practitioners had invested time, sweat, and blood into developing their methods. Even with contemporary scientific research, art is applying ideas to strengthen training, building, and performance in competition. Even from reading scientific articles, using concepts in programming, lifting techniques, and recovery often amounts to abductive reasoning when putting it all together. Bro-Science is practiced in the gym because the best explanation wins the day.

Gym Folklore and Academic Research

Every bit of information in articles, blogs, vlogs, manuals, etc., can give a perspective, but only part of the story. Over time, however, one starts to see those points of consensus and general agreement patterns among sources. Louis Simmons of Westside Barbell was well-known for reading, re-reading, and dialoguing with anyone and everyone about strength (Fahey, 2019). Louis Simmons was an applied scientist who employed principles of physics, physiology, psychology, sociology, and more in his laboratory gym. Was he a Bro-Scientist? Well, due to the pejorative nature of its use, I would not say so. Interestingly, Shurley et al. (2019) have not mentioned him once in their history of U.S. strength coaching.

Yet, Louis learned from top international scholars and experts and proliferated his coaching method as far and wide as possible. Perhaps early on, he was a Bro-Scientist like all the rest of us, but his curiosity and tenacity to learn were phenomenal. Much of what was developed and discarded at Westside was derived from abductively reasoned strategies and tested on a few faithful test subjects.

Bro-Science: Practical Wisdom or Myth?

All knowledge is personal knowledge and is only known when it is subjectively embraced. As any trained scientist will tell you, with all the methodological precision and procedural care, all scientific research relies on some degree of certainty, accuracy, and confidence. There is no 100% for complex issues requiring scientific inquiry. Everyday decision-making makes abductive reasoning sufficient to navigate life. For example, no scientific studies might show that ingesting essential amino acids (EAAs) works. What does it mean to “work?” Are we talking about superior hypertrophy, strength gains, performance boosts, or what? Absorption of nutrients is a necessary step to “gainz,” and EAAs are not only pre-chewed but pre-digested protein components. They save your body a lot of biochemical steps. But hey, that is abductive reasoning!

Sometimes, the stringent rules of study design remove any potential for nuanced impacts on the observable physical level. For something to make what is regarded as a “just noticeable difference” and be “statistically significant” generates results with a goal of a formal degree of certainty rather than practical truth.

As the sciences were developed during the Enlightenment, the aims drifted from truth-seeking to acquiring certainty. Philosophy has always pursued truth and understanding the immutable Laws of the Universe. However, in contemporary science, there are even debates about what “reality” means (Chalmers, 2013). Again, the higher-level logic and discussions about the nature of the universe are not so helpful in guiding the best way to improve your Total.

Understanding The Science Behind Strength Training

Oftentimes, what works is not understood, and how or why it works long after its use has produced results in everyday experience over time. The use of White Willow Bark for pain control is a good example. It was used for 3500 years before we understood biochemically that Aspirin is a non-steroidal anti-inflammatory (Desborough & Keeling, 2017). This is the value of all scientists studying in academic institutions. More and more research might give us insights into how and why things developed in the gym work, and these insights provide us with information about their applications. Perhaps something we attribute to the placebo effect today will work out to have a “scientific explanation” about how or why it works in the future. 

Finally, there are certainty and confidence levels to consider, and these must be considered contextually. Abductive reasoning is accepting knowledge based on it being the best explanation or understanding (Walton, 2014). This is crucial because most daily decisions are made by abductive reasoning. Science has historically taken abductive explanations and formulated hypotheses for testing from them. So, humanity discovered that the Earth is not actually flat in a cosmological sense. But if you are laying concrete, you want the 10’ x 12’ Earth upon which you lay the pad to be flat. The frame is important to the application, and many practical problems are solved without scientific inquiry informing them. Bro-science is often abductive reasoning applied to the training experience.

The science-based crowd will use anecdotal as a pejorative to question the training method or procedure. Inductive reasoning is when one takes a small data set and applies it more generally. Many coaches and personal trainers make professional decisions inductively because, over time, they have found certain things seem to work for a more general application. Finally, deductive reasoning is used in scientific experiments to support the hypothesis. However, these results might have very narrow applicability, which begs whether they are worth all the effort research requires.

Final Thoughts

In conclusion, abductive reasoning was used by early strength and body-building athletes. Their critiques claimed that weightlifting made one slower, stunted the growth of children who lift, and more. Well, scientific inquiry has corrected many of these issues.

However, those like Terry Todd continued to use what he knew, built on it through academic work and training experiences, and ultimately contributed much information to our knowledge base today (Rogue Fitness, 2021). I know many things Todd and others developed began in a process we call Bro-Science. The point is that abductive, inductive, and deductive reasoning are epistemologically different and serve various practical purposes. This is why there is consensus in the strength sports community that all training exercises and techniques should have a purpose. The purpose you assign to what and how you do can be based on abductive, inductive, or deductive processes. What is the cash value of the information that matches your goals and the costs of giving a new thing a try?

References

  1. Chalmers, A.F. (2013). What is this thing called science, 4th ed? Hackett Publishing. 
  2. Desborough, M.J.R. and Keeling, D.M. (2017). The aspirin story – from willow to wonder drug. Br J Haematol, 177: 674-683. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjh.14520
  3. Dilthey, W. (1988). Introduction to the human sciences: An attempt to lay a foundation for the study of society and history. Wayne State University. 
  4. Fahey, M. (dir.). (2019). Westside versus the world [Documentary]. Independent Film.
  5. Rogue Fitness, (2021, Nov. 3). The commissioner of strength (video file).YouTube.com. Retrieved: https://youtu.be/dgqdmIKH-1E?si=YeCcjgk98INVpzr3
  6. Shurley, J.P., Todd, J., & Todd, T. (2019). Strength coaching in America: A history of the innovation that transformed sports. University of Texas.
  7. Strathern, P. (1997). Kierkegaard in 90 minutes. Ivan R. Dee.
  8. Walton, D. (2014). Abductive reasoning. University of Alabama. 

Dr. Rodger Broomé, Ph.D., is a psychologist and recreational powerlifter. He spent 22 years in Law Enforcement and Fire and Emergency Medical Services before retiring to become a professor and practitioner. As a fire training captain, Dr. Broomé was the primary strength and conditioning trainer for 8 basic training academies for recruiting firefighters in the Salt Lake Metro Area. While in the fire service, he competed in the USPF and WABDL as a 220 lifter and then took a hiatus to attend graduate school.

After graduate school and a career change, Dr. Rodger Broomé has reinitiated recreational competition and contributed to his local powerlifting community with his knowledge of lifting and performance psychology. He is a state-level referee and seeks opportunities to help lifters succeed in their endeavors as powerlifters. Dr. Broomé's psychology practice has focused mostly on helping young athletes with motivation, focus, goal setting, mental skills, psychoeducation, and integrating their mental game into their physical training and play.