The good, the bad and the science-based lifter - How the pursuit of “optimal” has had the opposite effect

The good, the bad and the science based lifter - 

How the pursuit of “optimal” has had the opposite effect

Over the last few years – “Science based training” has become one of the most powerful marketing labels in fitness. Programmes, influencers & coaches routinely justify their methods with reference to studies, charts & academic language. On the surface, this sounds like progress, less bro-science, more evidence & better results. What could be wrong with that?

The issue is the trend has drifted far from its original purpose. Instead of helping lifters train better, “science-based” has just became a branding shortcut – a way to sound authoritative and stand out in the industry as the voice of reason. 

This isn’t an anti-science rant. Science absolutely has a place in training. The problem is how it’s being used – and more importantly how it’s being sold.

Science is brilliant at telling us what tends to work on average – it can help us answer questions like

Does training volume matter?

Is progressive overload important?

Does proximity to failure play a role in hypertrophy?

What science can’t do is tell you exactly how you, as an individual, should train week in, week out for years on end. 

Most studies 

Use beginners or recreational lifters

 Are run for short periods, strip away fatigue, stress, lifestyle and injury history

Control variables that can’t be controlled in real life.

That doesn't mean the research is useless – but it does mean applying it blindly is a mistake

The false precision trap

One of the biggest problems I see is false precision. Common advice you’ll hear is things like

“10-20 sets per muscle per week is optimal”

“This rep range builds more muscle”

“This exercise is inferior to this one”

Whilst factually correct, where’s the nuance? Let’s break each down as an example

“10-20 sets per muscle per week is optimal”

Great helpful starting range for beginners and intermediates, people training with moderate intensity and people who have good recovery and simple schedules

Where it stops working is with advanced lifters who accumulate fatigue faster, people squatting, benching and deadlifting heavy year-round & lifters with high daily stress, poor sleep and/or manual jobs.

Some people grow on 6-8 hard sets. Others need 20+. The number only makes sense when you factor in load, proximity to failure, exercise selection & frequency. Ten shite sets don’t beat 5 quality ones.

“This rep range builds more muscle”

Rep ranges matter, but not in isolation

Lower reps with heavy loads build a lot of muscle if technique and intent are high. However, they are often limited by joint stress and recovery.

Higher reps can be easier on the joints but can break down if you gas out.

Muscle grows from mechanical tension over time, not a magical rep number. If the lifter can apply tension consistently within a rep range and progress, it’ll work. I like to let the exercise dictate the rep range. I won’t be smashing a heavy set of 5 on a lateral raise for example. 

“This exercise is inferior to this one”

Exercises are rarely inferior – they’re context dependent.

An exercise may be “sub-optimal” if it aggravates a joint, limits load progression or just generally doesn’t feel pleasant for the lifter

But that same exercise might be perfect for someone else looking to accumulate volume, develop skill or manage fatigue

If someone can load it, control it, recover form it and progress on it. It’s a good exercise.

Training isn’t a spreadsheet. It’s a stress response system. Change one thing and it affects everything else – load, technique, recovery, performance, motivation and even confidence under the bar

When people take a single study and turn it into gospel, they’re confusing evidence with certainty.

Real training is messy – and that’s ok

In the real world –

Sleep varies

Stress varies

Calories vary 

Workload varies

Motivation varies

Your joints don’t give two fucks what a meta-analysis says. Your nervous system doesn’t read PubMed. And your progress doesn’t happen in neat little 8-week blocks with perfectly controlled variables

Good coaching isn’t about hitting theoretical “optimal” numbers. It’s about making smart adjustments based of what you’re seeing in front of you

Bar speed slowing, someone coming in off nightshift absolute cooked, people spending the weekend smashing cans, technique suddenly breaking down, people having bad days. These things don’t show up in a study. But they are so important.

Good coaching is pattern recognition

This is where the experience comes in.

Good coaches don’t just dogmatically follow rules – they recognise patterns:

When volume is too high

When intensity is the limiter

When someone needs to send it

When someone needs to be held back

You don’t learn that from studies, you learn it by working with people over time and paying attention to outcomes.

Calling this just anecdotal misses the point. Every applied training method started as an anecdote before it was ever studied, dismissing experience because it isn’t published is just as silly as ignoring science altogether.

Why science-based sells so well

It’s a fantastic marketing label. It sounds authoritative, ends an argument quickly and fits perfectly into short form content.

But nuance doesn’t sell, certainty does.

Social media rewards simple rules, not context. So complex ideas get flattened into slogans that sound smart but lack flexibility. That’s how you end up with lifters obsessing over tiny details – like wearing a fucking seatbelt for leg extensions and using a Bluetooth handle for lateral raise – while ignoring the basics that move the needle. 

People who are just getting into lifting thinking 2 sets of a single arm cable row with about 14kg will grow them a big back typifies exactly what I’m talking about here.

 That works for an absolute unit who must factor in recovery due to them being so strong, you don’t need to worry about recovery when you’re doing barbell rows with 60kg so for the love of God please go and do that first.

Advanced lifters feel this the most

Beginners can make progress on almost anything. Intermediates need structure. But advanced lifters are a different story

They need – Individual loading strategies, long term fatigue management, exercise selection that respects joint health and training that keeps them mentally engaged. 

Most research doesn’t cover this population in any meaningful way. Applying beginner focused evidence to advanced lifters often leads to plateaus, burnout or injury – not because science is wrong, but because it’s being oversimplified, 

The sensible middle ground

The answer isn’t rejecting science. It’s putting it back in its proper place. And using my favourite word of all time – nuance.

Science should

Set boundaries, highlight likely effective methods & help avoid obvious mistakes.

Coaching should

Individualise these methods, adjust based on feedback & prioritise long term progress over short term “optimal” outcomes.

At the end of the day, results are the final judge. Not how well your programme aligns with a chart on Instagram.

Science is a tool, not an identity, not a personality & not a weapon.

Use it to guide decisions, not to replace thinking.

Respect experience without being dogmatic.

And remember that training is a human process, not a lab experiment.

If something works consistently, keeps you healthy and moves you forward. It doesn’t need a study to justify it

That’s not anti-science

That’s just good coaching.