Is physiology of muscle growth a pseudoscience?

Question

It seams that there is no actual scientific research in the physiology of muscle growth. All the studies done are far from scientific since all of those are statistical studies, the results of which are questionable.

The methods of such studies have been widely criticised by many experts and also a lot of those contradict each other, for example there are studies that claim that 8-12 repetitions are optimal for muscle growth while others claim that repetition number doesn't matter. In addition to that, there are many variables that are not considered for the experiments.

Lastly, another problem of such studies, as with any type of statistical study, is the failure to explain why the results are what they are. Why does that certain number of repetitions is better, what happens inside the muscle? What are the biological processes that occur during a specific type of training.

Statistical studies are not meant to prove something but rather to either confirm a theoretically proven theory, which in those cases does not exist, or to gain some insight about which direction to head in order to prove the theory and again none of those studies does that. So my question is, are all those experiments done actually scientific or pseudoscience?

Answer 1

Muscle growth physiology is not a pseudoscience as researchers are using scientific methods to collect and analyze data and make logical deductions.

It is true that our knowledge of muscle growth is limited and the statistical studies do not explain and prove the results, but this does not make the field non-scientific.

It would be called pseudoscience, if researchers were using methods that are either logically or scientifically wrong, which is not the case.

As far as contradicting studies are concerned, I have seen quite a few myself, this is mostly due to the fact that, as you mentioned, we can't know all the variables, and there is of course some error. This however doesn't imply that non-scientific methods were used.

I agree that statistical analysis is a poor method to actually prove a physical phenomenon, but sometimes it's the best we have, biological phenomena are extremely complex and hard to model.

Answer 2

I do not agree with your insistence on a mechanism. In 1964 the U.S. Surgeon General published a report where he concluded that smoking causes cancer. At that time the mechanisms behind this was not understood. However there was statistical evidence in the form of a study with over 1 million subjects that showed that smoking and cancer were highly correlated. That meant that either

• A. smoking causes cancer
• B. cancer causes smoking
• C. another third factor causes both smoking and cancer

B. was easily be ruled out by only including those who reported to have smoked for some time prior to getting cancer. From what I understand C. was ruled out by adjusting for plausible third factors.

However I agree with your sentiment that much of the research within this field is low quality (underfunded but performed according to scientific methodology). Looking at the metastudy linked by JustSnilloc I see some problems with many of the studies included:

1. The number of subjects is too low

3 of the studies have n = 7, 9 and 11. I doubt much trust can be placed in the results of a study with so few subjects. There is appearantly a statistical method called MBI that lets you conclude with high certanity from extremely small sample groups. This method has however been disproved and the only field where it is being used is sports science.

2. The timespan of the study is too short

For untrained subjects in particular the "newbie effect" causes hypertrophy and strength increases almost regardless of protocol to begin with.

3. It test the wrong hypothesis

It does not test the hypothesis coming from experience in the bodybuilding and strength communities: 3-5 repetitions are ideal for strength whereas 8-12 is ideal for hypertrophy. Instead it typically compares 8 repetitions with 20 repetitions. There seems to be a general problem with papers being produced by people with little or no practical weight training experience: Rippetoe: The Problem with “Exercise Science”

4. The methodology in the included studies are too different.

I also question the value of pooling many studies with slightly varying experiments in a metastudy. As an example say that study A says that 15 reps are better than 10 reps for hypertrophy in the leg press for young men. However study B says that 5 reps are better than 12 reps for hypertrophy in the bench press for women over 40. What are we to conclude from this? The statistical method used to combine all the studies seems highly complex. It also seems to involve a lot of weights and assumptions. I remember the quote "With four parameters I can fit an elephant". Meta-analysis seems to have been used to generate some strange conclusions. This paper questions the use of meta-analyses to evaluate resistance training: "In conclusion, considering the large number of variables involved in resistance training and the methodological inconsistencies in the current literature, it seems impossible to make comparisons of different studies or include different studies in the same analysis".

To me it seems that within this field a lot of reasearch is produced, but much of it is low quality or not really relevant. There may be a problem with funding. There seems to be enough funding for running journals and doing peer reviews etc. but maybe not enough funding to actually do long running experiments with a large number of subjects. Instead many resort to trying to extract more info from existing studies by doing meta-studies of questionable quality.

It may also be that such experiments have been conducted by large olympic teams in the past (USSR in particular) but never published. The result may now be common knowledge among top level coaches and they see no need to rerun the same costly experiments.

Answer 3

This is not much of a fitness question, but a question about what constitutes science and whether a specific body of research is scientific.

One of the most common distinctions between science and pseudoscience comes from Karl Popper, who is perhaps familiar to you from your physics background. For Popper, what makes science different from pseudoscience is that tests or experiments have clear point of demarcation that distinguish in a black and white way true from false. All statistical hypothesis tests are therefore scientific (because they have a clear demarcation in the critical values that distinguishes true from false unambiguously), but things like astrology and tarot reading are not.

Is research on muscle growth scientific? According to this simple presentation of Popper's view, yes - absolutely. In fact, any body of research based on null-hypothesis significance testing is, so long as the critical values are clearly specified.

There are of course other ideas, but I would recommend you to the SEP article for a better review.

Perhaps at the heart of this question is a concern about the quality of the research being conducted. Being scientific doesn't imply that the research is high quality or substantively correct. That being said, the methods being used are similar to the clinical methods used in my current field (education) and other fields in which I am familiar. I would suggest that carrying over your own field's lens of what constitutes proper research methods may not be appropriate to other fields.