I know they’re out there…preparing for their next victim. Like a
festering malignancy, they have plagued the sport of bodybuilding for
what seems an eternity. But, like fat and fiber post-workout, their time
has come. They know this, and stand in fear at this very moment. The
time comes, yea, is now come, that the Journal of Hyperplasia Research
will reveal a whole new world. A world of logic and understanding. A
world of science and integrity. A world without pseudo science.
JHR has officially embarked on this mission, dedicating this next year
to the unveiling of mysteries. Enter: Destination: Dismantling
Fallacies. To commence this momentous occasion, the following journal
entry will systematically annihilate numerous pseudo-arguments spewed
directly from the mouths of ignorance.
Recommended
Readings
February - Dedicated to the Dismantling of Fallacies
Scientific Investigation into the Rationality of Carbohydrate
Consumption Criterions in Correlation to Post-Training Anaerobic
Depletion Patterns: A series of sub-divisional essays.
Photo
Explanation:
A typical Pseudo Scientist contemplating the damage he could do, if he
only had a brain
Introduction
Logic is
the science of evaluating arguments. An argument is a group of
statements with one or more premises, which claim to support the
conclusion. There are good arguments, and there are bad arguments. The
goal of logic is to design a system that distinguishes pseudo arguments
from logical arguments. This journal entry will accomplish just this.
Webster’s
dictionary defines pseudo scientists perfectly with the synonym “sham”
as follows [2004]:
1 : a
trick that deludes : HOAX
2 : cheap
falseness : HYPOCRISY
3 : an
imitation or counterfeit purporting to be genuine
synonym
see IMPOSTURE
They
define imposture as:
1 : the
act or practice of deceiving by means of an assumed character or name
2 : an
instance of imposture
synonyms
IMPOSTURE, FRAUD, SHAM, FAKE, HUMBUG, COUNTERFEIT mean a thing made to
seem other than it is. IMPOSTURE applies to any situation in which a
spurious object or performance is passed off as genuine <their claim of
environmental concern is an imposture>. FRAUD usually implies a
deliberate perversion of the truth <the diary was exposed as a fraud>.
SHAM applies to fraudulent imitation of a real thing or action
<condemned the election as a sham>. FAKE implies an imitation of or
substitution for the genuine but does not necessarily imply dishonesty
<these jewels are fakes; the real ones are in the vault>. HUMBUG
suggests elaborate pretense usually so flagrant as to be transparent
<creating publicity by foisting humbugs on a gullible public>.
COUNTERFEIT applies especially to the close imitation of something
valuable <20-dollar bills that were counterfeits>.
In other
words, pseudo scientists are false scientists—counterfeits. They claim
to be the real thing, but in reality, they are nothing. Pseudo
scientists manipulate the feeble-minded through numerous fallacious
arguments and advertising schemes.
People
likely to fall prey to these lies are: newbies, individuals looking for
an easy way out, and those without a strong foundation in logic and
science.
There is
a multitude of problems with individuals that fall prey to pseudo
science. If they believe the false lies claimed by these deceivers, they
will inevitably fall into a state of depression. For instance, hundreds
of advertisement adds make bold claims such as, “I took [insert a
supplement] and gained 50 pounds of muscle and lost fat in 3 months!”
Or, “After using [insert a weight lifting machine] for 3 months, in
combination with a proper diet, I was able to shed 30 pounds of fat, and
achieve my goal of competing on stage. Thank you [insert products name]!
If I can do it, so can you!” Surely the reader is familiar with this
unscientific jargon. Now, the young scientist who falls prey to this
will find him/herself on the verge of quitting, soon after they discover
that gains will never come this easy. This sport is hard work, and if
you are looking to become a pro in a few short years, you’re fooling
yourself. There is no easy way out, and anyone who thinks so is in for a
big disappointment.
It takes
years of hard work and dedication to reach a high level of fitness.
Learning one’s body is an exact science. To elaborate, the reader must
understand the principle of individuality. All humans (save for
identical twins) are markedly different in their fitness capacities.
There are variations in metabolic rate, neural and endocrine regulation,
muscular growth, height, structure, etc. This is why people respond
better to certain programs than others. With this in mind, it takes time
to learn what works best for an individual. Therefore, a judgment should
not be made after mere months, or a year of training, as bodybuilding is
additive. The athlete should seek for mastery over their body, but to do
so, they must have patience.
Now, a
pseudo scientist will take this and completely miscue it. Though humans
vary in genetic capacity, this is not an excuse to have fat and fiber
post-workout under any circumstances. It means that within a scientific
framework, the athlete should make proper adjustments according to their
bodily needs. This includes testing carb cycles, high volume, moderate
volume, shocking methods, periodization; etc. Moreover, all of these
variables can be manipulated through training. This means the athlete
can manipulate their genetics! Incidentally, this is what the Journal of
Hyperplasia Research is all about. Indeed, we do not concede to excuses,
nor do we submit to "so called" genetic limitations. We scientifically
analyze them, and work to shape the human body into a machine prepared
for any fitness task at hand. Enter: Hyperplasia. For more on this
concept read,
An Introduction to Hyperplasia Magazine.
There are several other ways to manipulate genetics; as the reader
ventures further into this journal publication, many more will come to
the surface.
It also
takes a long time to develop ones full capacity. The need for a constant
increase in training loads for adaptation leads to extremely demanding
training programs. For instance, load for elite athletes is roughly 10
times that of beginners having 6 months experience. Elite weight lifters
(Bulgarians) lift around 5,000 tons a year. The load for novices is only
1/10th this level! Moreover, it is noted to take 8+ years to reach an
elite (professional) athletic status [Vladimir, 1995]. In other words,
there is no easy way out.
Another
problem in taking pseudo scientists’ word as gospel is the consumption
of potentially harmful supplements. People will often ask, “Has anyone
ever used [insert a supplement]? I just bought some, and I was wondering
if anyone had an opinion on it?” A question like this should be asked
before purchasing the supplement—not after. This person may just have
wasted his money. Moreover, numerous times people actually take
supplements before knowing what they do! For instance, “I just took this
supplement this morning, and it seemed like my heart was going to
explode! Does anyone know what it does?” This person could have died
from taking the word of a pseudo scientist.
Young
bodybuilders also may follow horrible programs, and end up wasting
months because they followed bad advice.
The stage
has been set. It should be evidently clear why JHR is working with such
vigor to vanquish these lies. The rest of this article will analyze
multitudes of pseudo “scientific” arguments, that the reader may be able
to recognize, and refute pseudo science when confronted with it.
Unscientific
Mantras in the Entertainment Industry
A popular
pseudo argument is to follow after famous movie stars or athletes, as
they must know what they are doing since they are so successful. This
next section will analyze just a few of these arguments while displaying
the logical fallacies committed throughout.
Specificity
From
Rocky chasing chickens, to Muhammad Ali training under water, the
specificity hypothesis has been violated for decades in the sports
community. This fallacious mantra has been repeated so many times, one
may actually confuse it with science. However, it is far from it. To
elaborate, here is a quote from,
Energetic Transference Occurring in the Biosphere Part III: Lactate
Clearance and Anaerobic Training Adaptations.
Training
adaptations will be viewed as specific to imposed demands placed on
participants. Henry (1950) proposed the specificity hypothesis,
suggesting that the attributes, which underlie an activity, are specific
to that activity, and not transferable (task specific). Sawyer et al.
(2002) suggests that an attribute is the underlying capacity within an
individual, which allows for the expression of skill (these are
presently viewed as genetically predisposed, and typically unaffected by
practice). The statistical evidence highly supports these concepts
(Sawyer et al., 2002).
It is
important to understand that greater transfer, even at the level of
energy systems will be realized when training is specific to the
criterion task. For example, riding the stationary bike will produce
cardiovascular adaptations, but they will not enhance the extraction of
the extra oxygen delivered when training the upper extremities (known as
arterial venous difference). Maximum Oxygen uptake by an organ is
described by Fick’s principle. Fick’s principle states that the amount
of Oxygen utilized by a tissue is defined as the product of blood
traveling to that tissue and the extraction of the oxygen delivered.
Therefore, adaptations, from a physiological level occur both centrally,
peripherally, and at the cellular level itself. These adaptations occur
through increased and specific capillarization, increased mitochondria
number as well as specific enzymatic activity.
Therefore
if a participant seeks to increase mitochondrial density, and therefore
enhance the arterial venous difference, they will need to train the
upper extremities in an aerobic fashion.
Further,
it is important to also understand that these adaptations are also
specific to the actual task itself. Biking while standing will activate
the motor neuronal pool, as well as various musculatures in a differing
manner than biking while seated. Moreover running on a horizontal
surface will activate musculature in a different pattern than running on
an incline. It is for this reason that coaches will benefit by training
their athletes for the event that they will have to face. If a
cross-country team is used to running horizontal, and then are faced
with running on an incline type of hilly surface, they will be seriously
under matched. Therefore, the following recommendations, and adaptations
will be heightened when done specific to the task. This factor should be
assumed throughout the remainder of the paper.
The
specificity hypothesis is a subject JHR plans to thoroughly discuss in
the near future. But for now, suffice it to say, swimming in a pool for
increasing sprinting speed goes against all science and logic. The
logical fallacy committed when a pseudo scientist claims methods such as
this must be best since the “pros” do it, will be discussed further on.
Drugs and Sports
Perhaps
the most dangerous influence famous athletes can have on pseudo
scientists and their followers are promoting drug use. The following
quotes demonstrate just a few poor influences given by the sports
community:
"We
worked hard, but we had a good time. After the muscle-shocking sessions,
we drank wine and beer and got drunk and carried on like the old-time
weightlifters sometimes it be came pure insanity." ---Arnold
Schwarzenegger [Wilson, 2003]
"Steroids aren't as bad as some people make them out to be.
Steroids, if used the right way with human growth hormones, can have a
profound effect on your life. We're supposed to be built to live 120-130
years, and a combination of steroids and human growth hormones, if taken
properly, can add 30 years to your life." ---Jose Conseco [Nick, 2003]
“In
emphasizing that his lifestyle choices, rather than the failed tests,
had driven his decision to retire from football, Williams told the
Herald that he sees nothing wrong with smoking marijuana—that in fact,
it's "just a plant." He also said he admired reggae singer Bob Marley,
who was reputed to smoke it every day before his death.” ---Report from
an ESPN article on Ricky Williams recent retirement, and subsequent
failed drug test [2004]
In the
future, this journal publication will be dedicating entire articles to
showing how dangerous drugs such as alcohol are. But for now, it is
sufficient to say that they have no place in this sport.
They are not only catabolic, but they are dangerous, and often times
illegal. More importantly, recreational drug use is a direct violation
of Gods’ Law.
Now,
getting back to pseudo scientists, what is so sad about these quotes is
that the weak minded use statements just like these to justify their
disgusting lusts. To demonstrate this, here are some sample quotes. The
names will be left unidentified. Each quote is from a different
anonymous pseudo scientist [Forums, 2002-2004].
"We worked hard, but we had a good time. After the muscle-shocking
sessions, we drank wine and beer and got drunk and carried on like the
old-time weightlifters sometimes it be came pure insanity."
-Arnold Schwarzenegger
”Didn't he gain 1/4 of an inch on his thighs after that session? If
alcohol seriously affects gains, how was this possible?”
“People
drink and smoke to have a good time. Millions of people have a good time
with alcohol or weed in moderation. Why can't you? Works both ways.”
“In the
movie "Pumping Iron" with Arnold, after he wins Mr. Olympia he smokes a
joint.”
“So we've seen Arnie with a joint after a workout, maybe the
effects dull the burn”
Now, here are some examples of influential athletes (not
professionals, however) who smoke, and were used as examples to justify
its use:
“Hey, [Insert name of influential athlete], you smoke weed
sometimes, right? If you do you are a great example of weed not hurting
gains.”
After
this negative influence responded yes, the pseudo scientist replied:
“And you still managed to get huge, so I guess it can't hurt that
much!
How sad…here is yet another example; same scenario, different
negative, yet equally popular influence:
“I smoke pot probably more often than I should” ---Anonymous
influential non-pro athlete
“[Insert name of aforementioned influential athlete], you are in
great shape, so its not hurting you too bad. I say that if you are gonna
do it, then enjoy it! If you feel guilty about it, then stop. It is a
personal decision, but if you make that decision, don’t feel bad about
it, cause then what’s the point? (this little fella looks kinda stoned.
haha)”
In support of this, another pseudo scientist replied:
“[Insert name of aforementioned pseudo scientist],
I agree with you 100%. No one…could have said it better…”
In response to this:
“Thanks…it nice to get some recognition.”
I am sure it is. Fools make a mock at sin: but among the
righteous there is favor Proverbs 14:9
It is truly disheartening to see such myths spread by the ignorant.
The folly in these “evidences” used to support drug use will be shown
throughout this journal entry—though they should be exceedingly evident
to anyone reading.
Fat and Fiber
Post workout
The current author is unaware of any famous athletes who advertise
the wholly ignorant, logically invalid, and completely unscientific
protocol of fat and fiber post-workout. However, if this barbaric method
is brought into question, the writers of JHR will most happily oblige.
For a systematic refutation of this heretical doctrine read,
Scientific Investigation into the Rationality of Carbohydrate
Consumption Criterions in Correlation to Post-Training Anaerobic
Depletion Patterns: A series of sub-divisional essays.
Ghost-Written
Articles
It is a sad fact that numerous of the articles pseudo scientists
cite as evidence are in fact ghost-written. That is, they are claimed to
be written by pro bodybuilders, but are in fact written by some clown
pretending to be a pro. The following quotes will display this:
Garrett Downing answers this question as follows [Body Build]:
It varies. In many cases, the articles are ghostwritten, much in the way
many biographies are by celebrities. A professional writer will
interview the celeb extensively, in this case, the athlete, and write
the article in first person, having gotten a solid sense of how the
athlete trains, his philosophy, his verbal style, etc. They might be
assigned to do a particular bodypart with a particular athlete, but the
info really is what we do, how we train, who we are, etc. There are some
athletes who are able to write their own articles. I believe Shawn does,
Tom Prince can write well and maybe some others. And, some years ago,
former pros like Lee Labrada and Andreas Cahling wrote their own. I gave
it try myself. I wrote a short piece with my wife on couple's training
in M&F, and we went through the same process any freelance writer would
- pitch the story, submit a summary, receive a assignment & deadline and
then write the article, which was then edited by their staff before
publication. It was a good experience. There is no way that every person
who is talented enough to be a pro athlete, could also be able to write.
So, the system works quite well - the readers get as close to the
horse's mouth, as possible. Know that I speak for FLEX and M&F. The
other mags, well, I won't comment too much. I have seen articles
attributed to me in them, for which I have no recollection of the
interview.
Here are
some more quotes from around the bodybuilding community:
Several companies will pawn off articles, and journals clearly ghost
written to take up space, or sell a product. Those who are
impressionable will do whatever the ghost writter says, because they
believe Bodybuilder X is the one actually making the statement. Its sad.
[Wilson, Jacob, Forums; 2003]
I am constantly bombarded by people saying, "I just read in (You pick
the magazine) that Bodybuilder X (You pick the bodybuilder) do 20 sets
for curls! Do you think that is a good program? I'm thinking about
trying it. He's got huge arms." Magazines are fun to read and quite
entertaining, but don't believe everything you read.
I've been on the inside so you can take this information literally. I
don't want to single out any one source of information, but let me tell
you that I wouldn't be surprised if each and every bodybuilding
publication embellishes from time to time. Most of the articles you see
with famous bodybuilder's names attached to them are "ghost written"
This means that the bodybuilder did nothing more than allow the magazine
to use their name.
I remember while at one major national contest in my youthful years, I
was approached to be filmed for an extremely popular video journal. I
was really excited and agreed. During the filming they had us perform
several exercises, many of which I never did on a regular basis. Then
later, I was asked to describe my workouts. When I did, I didn't mention
the exercise we performed during the filming. The show host then asked
if I ever performed the exercises we did earlier in the gym. I replied,
no, not really. He then asked if I could just talk about them. I said,
"Sure."
This video journal came out and the exercises were included as "MY
WORKOUT PROGRAM!" I couldn't believe it! My friends and I laughed until
we cried. "Uh, Steve, I've never seen you do those before." It was a
real eye opener to all of us.
Here is the moral to the story. Magazines and different forms of media
are here to inform us, but also to entertain. The bottom line to them is
selling magazines and products. They won't sell vary many magazines if
every month they put the exact same training routine, diet, and
supplement program in them. I'm not saying that there isn't great
information in certain publications from time to time. There is. What I
am saying is don't think that everything you read in print is exactly
what "Bodybuilder X" is doing. Use some common sense when formulating
your training program. [Guru, Steve; 2000]
Most of
the articles are ghost written anyways, and the training and nutrition
advice isn't all that sound.
[King,
Joe, Forums; 2003]
It is
now probably common knowledge that most of the training articles
supposedly written by bodybuilders in the magazines are in fact ghost
written and are usually hype driven. [Cosgrove]
The
problem is that most of these articles are written by ghost writers.
These ghost writers create the articles. Then the pro bodybuilder (who
is under contract with the specific magazine publisher) is credited with
the article. They throw in a few pictures, put their name at the end and
voila! And the mags sell like crazy. Please believe me. I'm not making
this stuff up. This is common knowledge in the bodybuilding world.
[Following Pros Routine, Newsletter Archive]
Seven Exercises
You Should Avoid
There was a recent
flex magazine article supposedly written by pro bodybuilder Bob
Cicherillo [2003] 2000 NPC USA Super-Heavyweight and Overall Champion.
He titled his masterpiece “7 classical exercises you should avoid” and
said that the most important one was squats! It was also claimed that
barbell rows, bench press, skull crunchers, barbell curls, and, hold
your breath…dead lifts, should be avoided! This is quite typical; lower
the standard, and more people will reach the standard. It's just a way
of appealing to the masses rather than catering to only the most elite
athletes.
Of course, newbies
would love this because they can train like wimps and still get great
gains. But once they find out this article was written by a pseudo
scientist, they will sorely regret that decision.
Dorian Yates
There are numerous
articles out where Dorian Yates “writes” some girlie man workout, which
supposedly got him his colossal calves, such as 2 sets of seated calf
raises and 2 sets of barbell calf raises. These articles are laughable,
and again, just appealing to the masses. In order to be freaky, you must
train freaky—period.
For a complete
analysis of this myth read,
So You Want To Be Freaky? and
The Greatest Training Method Of All Time!
Appealing to the
Masses
For more typical
examples of appealing to the masses read,
My Humorous Observations about Lazy
People and How The Fitness Industry Preys on Them.
Fallacies
Fallacies are bad
arguments, which can be deceiving because they usually contain bad
reasoning beyond just false premises. These are often referred to as
“non sequitur,” which means in Latin, “it does not follow.” In other
words, the premises, whether true or not, do not actually support the
conclusion.
The next section
will analyze numerous fallacies committed by pseudo scientists. Though
specific examples will be given, this can be applied to hundreds of
different arguments.
Arguing from
Ignorance
This tragic fallacy is perhaps the most commonly committed among pseudo
scientists. Often times, people claim because they are ignorant of a
method, it must not be valid. Or conversely, because they have only seen
one method, it must be true.
Some examples are:
“I don't recall reading about one professional bodybuilder listing a
proper post-workout shake in their diet. Therefore, pros don’t have
proper post-workout shakes”
“I have never seen this method, so it’s not effective.”
A person’s ignorance has no bearing on the truth whatsoever. This is
equivalent to saying, “I have never heard that driving drunk is illegal;
therefore, it is not.” This is usually accompanied with a multitude of
other fallacies, such as appealing to unqualified authority. It is
impossible to argue against such faulty logic.
Contradictions
Another problem with using ghost-written articles to
justify a method is that they are incredibly diverse. You could support
almost any method from these articles. As such, it is impossible to
determine what method is best according to the “pros”. Let’s look at
some examples:
Workout nutrition: Jay Cutler recommends a high fructose
carbonated liquid post-workout [Stiefel,
2004]; while Flex Wheeler strictly forbids having fructose post-workout
[2004]; a flex magazine article [Stoppani, 2003] recommended half of a
maltodextrin (40-80 grams) and whey protein shake 30 minutes before a
workout, and to sip the rest during the workout; then to have 50 grams
of protein and 40-100 grams of dextrose immediately post-workout; then
they recommend to have another post workout shake 1 hour later
consisting of 20-40 grams of maltodextrin, and an equal amount of whey
protein. That is a whopping 220 grams of simple carbs in a matter of
hours! He also stresses in his notes that the most important meal of all
is having glucose right before your workout. Another issue of flex
[2002] recommended a get big drink containing various forms of
carbohydrates. One common trend is that virtually every single issue of
flex magazine recommends simple carbs post-workout, along with an easily
digested form of protein. To quote them, [2002] “as FLEX readers should
know by now, taking a drink containing essential amino acids and carbs
immediately after training enhances anabolic metabolism in muscle that’s
been exercised.” So even from these ghost-written articles, pseudo
scientists could not support fat and fiber post-workout; only horrible
forms of simple carbohydrates such as coke.
Moreover, in contrast to the aforementioned
sugar tip pre-workout, a flex roundtable demonstrated numerous
contradictory results [Stiefel, 1998]. In this article, various athletes
and scientists were asked what they recommended pre-workout. Debbie
Houck (a personal trainer; clients include Ms. International Yolanda
Huges) recommends low glycemic carbohydrates such as grapefruit and
sweet potatoes along with a source of protein such as steak, and some
fats.
Chris
Street (flex science editor) recommends eating whatever you like! And
Milos Scarvey recommends having complex carbs such as oatmeal. So what
will it be—dextrose, or oatmeal pre-workout?
The contradictions go on and on, ranging from
only doing HIIT workouts, only doing high volume, a combination of both,
etc. One could conjure up numerous doctrines from such sources.
Such instability demonstrates the shaky
foundation upon which pseudo scientists base their methods.
Ad Hoc
Modifications
In 1919, Karl Popper made a scientific breakthrough, in
establishing that in order for something to be a theory, it must be
falsifiable, and many theories in that day—and currently—were/are not.
The fallacy committed when scientists do this is called an ad hoc
modification; this is when you keep adjusting your hypothesis to fit
the evidence.
Evolution is the prototypical example of an ad hoc
modification. Here is an example from Al Gore (1992):
Human evolution, of course, is responsible for our very long period of
childhood, during much of which we are almost completely dependent on
our parents. As Ashley Montagu first pointed out decades ago, evolution
encouraged the development of larger and larger human brains, but our
origins in the primate family placed a limit on the ability of the birth
canal to accommodate babies with ever-larger heads. Nature’s solution
was to encourage an extremely long period of dependence on the nurturing
parent during infancy and childhood, allowing both mind and body to
continue developing in an almost gestational way long after birth.
Hilarious…Neanderthals—a supposed evolutionary ancestor to
humans, but in reality, just downgraded human fossils—have larger brain
cases than modern humans! By Al Gore’s own standards evolution is false.
And how does Gore know this stuff about natures plan? You want to know?
He made it up. This is the problem with evolution: it’s not a scientific
theory. Evolution predicts nothing—it accommodates.
Al Gore could turn this around and say disease and suffering prove
evolution is true, because only random chance could produce that, not a
loving God—showing his ignorance of the fall. Or, he could point to any
design in nature and say evolution did it. But there is no proof for
this claim whatsoever. The problem with evolution is that it does not
predict, but rather, accommodates; therefore, it is not a theory. It’s a
completely self supporting hypotheses—one big Ad Hoc fallacy.
Professor Peter Medawar, a renowned
British scientist, a biologist, and winner of two Nobel Prizes states (Ungred,
1982), "I think Popper is incomparably the greatest philosopher of
science that has ever been." And in his autobiography Unended Quest,
Karl Popper writes (Ungred, 1982), “I have come to the conclusion [that]
Darwinism is not a testable scientific theory, but a metaphysical
research prograinine - a possible framework for testable scientific
theories . . . This is of course the reason why Darwinism has been
almost universally accepted. Its theory of adaptation was the first
nontheistic one that was convincing; and theism was worse than an open
admission of failure, for it created the impression that on ultimate
explanation has been reached.”
With the foundation laid, the ad hoc fallacy can be applied
directly to pseudo scientists.
Now, some may claim that the previous discussion of
grouping athletes influencing pseudo scientists to consume drugs, to
ghost-written articles influencing them to have ice cream post-workout,
is a red herring. But this only displays the opposition’s ignorance of
logic.
A pseudo scientists that uses, for instance, what the
“pros” do to support their program, are living examples of ad hoc
modifications. What’s interesting is some of these same people also have
asked for science to support some claims, while on the other hand, used
pseudo science to support another. Their hypocrisy is truly astonishing.
To elaborate, how do these individuals choose which “pro”
to replicate? For, as shown above, the “pros” in ghost-written articles,
have an astounding variability in their program design. So who is to say
which pro is the correct one to follow? No one—it is completely
arbitrary, and the person may choose to follow whomever they wish.
Moreover, if they happen to see a scientific theory which fits with
their ideal scheme, they can use this for support as well. The problem
is they make no true prediction which can be falsified, and therefore,
lack a scientific theory. They are essentially a living ad hoc
modification.
Appealing to
Unqualified Authority
An appeal to unqualified authority is when the arguer cites
an authority that lacks credibility or is unqualified. The source cited
may be unqualified for various reasons such as: prejudice, lacking
credentials in the perspective field, a motive to lie or give
misinformation, etc.
Pseudo scientists use this fallacy on a constant basis. And
it is perhaps the most destructive one of all (discussed next). One
example may be:
The owner
of [insert any supplement/brand name] says that it is perfectly safe.
Furthermore, his advertisement ads have several claims of people gaining
50 pounds of muscle and losing fat in a month on it! Therefore, it must
be a safe and effective supplement.
Clearly, this owner is completely biased. If this
individual had admitted that his supplements were dangerous, it would
have opened the door for the government to put regulations on them,
which would then cause his company to lose money. Thus, because this
individual has a clear motive to lie, they should not be taken at face
value. This is appealing to unqualified authority.
Another common example is in reference to big people.
Pseudo scientists often source their vast experience with bodybuilders
to support their ad hoc modifications. It may go like this:
The biggest guy in my
gym says having milk is optimal post-workout. This guy is a monster, so
obviously he knows his stuff on nutrition! Therefore, milk is great
post-workout!
Typical…Just because someone is huge does not make them a
scientific expert in everything. It does not mean they know sensory
motor; it does not mean they understand sports psychology; it does not
mean they understand nutrition; it simply means they are big.
Conversely, some individuals relate being huge to being a stupid jock.
Both are fallacious doctrines. To come to any other conclusion just
from outward appearance is fallacious, and a typical form of appealing
to unqualified authority.
This is also perhaps the highest form of disrespect one
could give to the writers of JHR, and the thousands of scientists who
have dedicated their entire lives to understanding the numerous
variables in the field of kinesiology. Moreover, the writers of this
publication and numerous other experts in the field of kinesiology are
bodybuilders themselves.
Now, think about it for a minute; does the aforementioned
fallacy sound familiar? I’ll give the reader a minute to ponder…that’s
right, it’s called racism.
Stereotyping
Stereotyping is the fallacy of attributing a characteristic
to all members of a certain group, or an individual in that group. This
fallacious doctrine ignores the individuality of people, and assumes
that all members of a given population must share the same traits
displayed by all, some, or perhaps few members in a group. Placing a
trait on someone before even knowing them is an act of pre-judging
(prejudice) and subject to error.
Now, no matter what the person’s intention was, or whether
the given stereotype was meant as a compliment, it is still dangerous,
fallacious, and often an offensive doctrine. Incidentally, stereotyping
is the essence of racism.
Racism is a prejudice against people from other so called
‘races.’ This ideology incorrectly classifies humans by superficial
characteristics such as skin, eye shape, etc. Most often, this results
in the justification of disdain for other people. Examples of this have
been seen for ages through groups such as the Ku Klux Klan.
However, when thoroughly investigated, the idea of different races has
been shown to be a complete myth. For instance, the DNA of any two
people in the world would differ by only 0.2%. Furthermore, only 6% of
this can be linked to racial categories [New Scientist, 1995]. Another
topic is skin color, which is one of the most popular methods of
determining race. However, we all have the skin
pigment known as melanin. Simply put, the more melanin you have, the
darker you will be; the less you have, the lighter you will be; hence,
different skin colors [American Broadcasting Corporation News, 1998].
But this is by the same means—melanin—just more or less. Race is also
designated by certain features. For example, Asian eyes differ from
typical Caucasian eyes. This is not a different attribute, but as with
melanin, more of the same feature. You see, fat plays a prime role in
the shape of the eye. Asians typically have more fat around their eyes,
while Caucasians tend to have less, producing different shaped eyes.
But again, it’s just more or less of the same feature, nothing new
genetically [American Broadcasting Corporation News, 1998].
Additionally, all people groups can interbreed showing biological
differences are very small. Practically all secular scientists now
believe that all humans came from one original population. Moreover, a
large amount of scientists would claim that, biologically, there is only
one race—the human Race. All humans today are in fact classified under
the same title homo sapiens sapiens [New Scientist, 1995].
Race is cultural, but biologically fallacious. For instance, ABC News
science states [American Broadcasting Corporation News, 1998], “What the
facts show is that there are differences among us, but they stem from
culture, not race.” This same news paper again states, “More and more
scientists find that the differences which set us apart are cultural,
not racial. Some even say the word ‘race’ should be abandoned because it
is meaningless.” The current author is certainly one of them. The term
is highly fallacious. The article continues, “We accept the idea of race
because it’s a convenient way of putting people into broad categories,
frequently to suppress them…the most hideous example was provided by
Hitler’s Germany. And racial prejudice remains common throughout the
world.”
Furthermore, a scientist at the advancement of science convention in
Atlanta in 1997 stated [Holtz, 1997], “Race is a social construct
derived mainly from perception conditioned by events of recorded
history, and it has no basic biological reality.” A 1998 article in the
Journal of counseling and development [1998] argued that the word,
“race” should be discarded as it is completely meaningless.
Dr Douglas C. Wallace, professor of molecular genetics at Emory
University School of Medicine in
Atlanta,
states [2000], “The criteria that people use for race are based entirely
on external features that we are programmed to recognize...” Simply put,
the only reason we make a big deal of these minute differences is
because we have been trained to do so in our secular society.
Now, relating this back to the topic of discussion. It is
clear that pseudo scientists are once again committing a horrible
fallacy. As discussed previously, they most commonly stereotype
bodybuilders; therefore, promoting a dangerous, fallacious ideology. The
current author would implore anyone doing this to abandon such puerile
acts.
Supplement
Reviews
For a refutation of numerous fallacious supplements, review
Joe King’s master pieces this month,
Divergent Fat Burners I and
Divergent Fat Burners II.
“Don’t knock it
if you have not tried it”
This fallacious argument claims that if you have not tried
something, you do not have to right to discredit it. By that logic, if
one wants to see if jumping off a bridge will kill them, they’ll have to
do it to find out!
What these individuals do not understand is that empirical
data can give the athlete assurance that a protocol is not optimal—i.e.
science has unequivocally displayed that fat and fiber post-workout is
poison. How science does this will be discussed more further on.
False Cause
Fallacy—Isolated Examples
Unscientific jargon is often spewed out of the mouths of pseudo
scientists in the form of isolated examples. This is perhaps used more
often than any fallacious argument.
This is known as anecdotal evidence and holds
zero bearing in the scientific
community. When pseudo scientists use isolated examples to prove
something, this is known as a false cause fallacy.
A false cause fallacy transpires when the link between the premises and
conclusions depends on an imagined casual connection that probably, or
does not definitively exist.
A type of false cause fallacy is known as an oversimplified cause.
Consequently, this is the most oft committed fallacy in this category.
This argument takes place when a multitude of causes are responsible for
an event, and the arguer selects one of them as the sole cause.
A great example would be Jay Cutler. A pseudo scientist would claim,
“Jay has coke which is high in fructose post-workout, and look how huge
he is! That must be the best post-workout shake, because he obviously
got great gains on it!” This ignoramus ignores the thousands of other
reasons why Jay is huge. This includes: diet, drugs, training for
numerous years, hard work and dedication, genetics, etc. There is no way
to conclude anything from such an isolated, unscientific example.
Results clearly demonstrate that having fructose post-workout is
foolish; if he in fact does have this (which cannot be determined from
unreliable sources) than he is without a doubt hurting his gains
immensely. However, this can be overcome by a multitude of other
factors.
Another vital aspect about science is that it must be controlled, and
replicable. In other words, these results must be repeated in a
controlled experiment, by other scientists with various set variables to
conclude causality. Repetition assures that it was not a fluke, and
making the experiment controlled eliminates the chance of committing
hundreds of fallacies (namely, an oversimplified cause).
Another fallacy is the post hoc ergo propter hoc, which
means, "after this, therefore on account of this" This is another type
of false cause fallacy.
This fallacious argument presupposes that because an event precedes
another, it caused it. This is not sufficient evidence, however, for a
casual connection. For example, if a black cat crossed your path, and
later you tripped and hurt your leg, that does not prove that black cats
are bad luck. This type of fallacy is the foundation for superstitions
such as wearing a “lucky” shirt every squat day.
Here are a few common examples of the FC fallacy put to practice:
“I cut out my post-workout shake the last two weeks and am
starting to notice some more cuts. This must mean I am burning fat!” Or
it could simply mean you lost subcutaneous water due to a rapid decrease
in muscle glycogen. For every gram of muscle glycogen 2.7 grams of water
are stored in the cell due to increased osmolarity. By cutting out
his/her post-workout shake this individual would lose water rapidly,
which certainly would contribute to added definition.
This is also why people think the Atkins diet works so
well. They go on it and immediately lose 5 pounds of water weight in a
week due to low carb dieting, notice more cuts, and assume that this
method is effective for burning fat. But it is not only an ineffective
form of fat-burning, but hazardous to ones health. For more on this,
study
Endocrine Insanity Part III.
“I was doing 20-30 sets of biceps for the last year and saw
slow gains; then, this guy told me I was overtraining. So I cut my sets
down to 7, and my biceps look bigger after just two weeks! I am sticking
with this for now on.” So many people fall prey to this lie. There are
numerous problems with this. First, one should never stick with the same
program year round. To optimize gains, a periodization split should be
designed. This subject will be revolutionized very soon in future issues
of JHR. For now refer to,
The Greatest Training Method Of All Time! Second, this method is known as tapering, and is very effective in the
short term if used correctly. This, again, will be discussed very
soon in this journal publication. Thirdly, overtraining can be achieved
through numerous means, and is dependent on the amount of stress the
participant’s body can handle. In this scenario, a close analysis should
be taken on the athlete’s fitness level, diet, sleep, supplements, and
all other factors involved.
There are numerous other examples, but, as clearly displayed, using
isolated examples to support anything is completely illogical. However,
studying trends in modern day sports and in the history of sports is
mandatory for any scientist. From here, an accurate experiment can be
designed to see whether or not these methods are effective. But skipping
the scientific method and going straight from observation to conclusion
is foolhardy, and subject to error.
“I Can’t Ignore
the Results”
In order to justify fallacious protocols, some pseudo scientists have
claimed that from their “vast” amounts of studies from ghost-written,
fallacy-laden articles, they simply, “can’t ignore the results.” If only
these individuals would take a moment to contemplate the magnitude of
their hypocrisy. Here is a translation of this statement:
-
I can ignore the
clear evidence that numerous articles in supplement magazines are
ghost-written.
-
I can ignore the
fact that I am committing hundreds of fallacies to support my
protocol.
-
I can ignore the
fact that there are hundreds of contradictions from athletes in
these articles.
-
I can ignore the
fact that I am a living ad hoc modification, and may choose whatever
protocol I wish.
-
I can ignore all
scientific and empirical data.
-
But I can’t
ignore the illogical, unscientific, wholly ignorant dogma I choose
to selectively accept.
What a sad existence…
Answering a Fool
According to their Folly
Proverbs 26:5
Answer a fool
according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own conceit.
Ignoring the fact that there are numerous ghost-written
articles, which give contradictory advices; the false cause fallacy
being committed; that pseudo scientists are not omniscient; and
therefore, cannot possibly tell what every pro really does; and the
numerous other aforementioned fallacies. And instead, taking the
presupposition that say most pros do follow a certain protocol,
and that these accounts are indeed accurate. Even with these
assumptions, the folly of this “scientific” analysis by pseudo
scientists is still glaring.
The argument says:
I simply can’t ignore the numerous accounts of professional
bodybuilders using similar protocols and getting excellent results.
Therefore, [insert a fallacious method] must be best.
This fallacy is known as appealing to popularity, derived
from the Greek word ‘Ad Populum.’ Its form is like so:
-
Most people
believe X
-
Therefore, X is
true.
A person succumbs to this fallacy when they accept a
certain claim being true, simply on the account that most people do it,
or support it. Consequently, this fallacy is often the pillar for
advertisement. Here are some examples to accentuate the fallacious
nature of this:
-
Millions of
people smoke, including athletes, and still live long healthy lives;
therefore, smoking is perfectly healthy.
-
It used to be
common for Americans to have slaves, and we are the greatest country
in existence, and pre-dominantly Christian. So having slaves is not
morally wrong.
-
Most people
believe the earth is flat; therefore, it must be flat.
-
Everyone lies;
it’s not that big of a deal.
-
Of course you
want to use [insert a product]. Why, 80% of Americans use this
product!
-
There are
millions of abortions every year; obviously it’s ok to have an
abortion.
It is interesting that evolutionists use this same tactic.
Concerning this, Don Batten and Carl Wieland, writers for
AIG—the number one creation science site in existence—in response to the
question, ‘How would you react to people who say that evolution must be
right because most scientists agree with it?’ state [1998]:
I don’t
think it’s very sensible to say that. Major breakthroughs in science
often occur when people don’t believe what the rest believe. Science
progresses as new ideas replace old ones. It’s the radicals who often
make the breakthroughs.
Dr Jonathan D. Sarfati, one of the top creation scientists
in existence and an incredible logician sums this section up nicely:
Take
courage that if their best arguments are slander and appeal to
authority, then it shows that they haven’t any rational answers. One
thing to ask them is, since when is truth decided by majority vote?
Straw Man
A straw man fallacy is committed when an arguer sets up a false argument
against their opponent, and utterly crushes it. This person then claims
the argument has been demolished.
A pseudo scientist may claim that this article somehow seeks to
discredit historians or the act of observing and studying the athlete;
however, this is a straw man argument.
Anyone who has studied this journal publication knows that the authors
are in fact intense intellects of historical exercise science. Indeed,
history has its place in the scientific community. In fact, observation
is the very groundwork upon which science was founded—enter the
scientific method.
Scientific
Method:
Observation
Formulating an Hypothesis
Predictions
Tests
The problem with pseudo scientists is that they observe, and come to an
often erroneous conclusion from there; thereby, leaving themselves open
to a multitude of fallacies.
Science seeks to take an observation and come to a logical conclusion by
eliminating the possibility of numerous fallacies and sampling errors.
By following the scientific method, a conclusion can boldly be affirmed.
Knowlden (2004) gave a perfect example of how to apply the scientific
method:
The scientific method entails using 1) Observation, 2) Formulation of a
hypothesis, 3) Making predictions via the hypothesis, 4) Using
experimentation to test these predictions.
Under such a model, the scientific conclusion
via experimentation shows that high GI carbohydrate post-workout
predictions are well-founded.
The science demonstrates high GI
carbohydrates are optimal post-workout in regards to:
·
Increasing anabolic hormones
·
Increasing glycogen synthesis rates (recovery)
·
Increasing protein synthesis rates (hypertrophy/ hyperplasia)
·
Allowing maximal fat oxidation to transpire
These are but a few of the predictions
made regarding this prototype of post-workout nutrition that have been
confirmed by science. This selection is most profound in light of this
journal entry.
It is now well-established that
hypertrophy athletes following body building programs should incorporate
high GI carbohydrate sources following a training session for maximal
recovery and anabolic enhancement.
For a free lesson on how to study history read (Wilson,
2004),
Hippocrates - Was He Hardcore?
Reasoning
To avoid wasting time with pseudo scientists, it is
advisable to attempt to reason with them. Try and get a standard by
which to determine truth. For instance, if they say they go off science,
after engaging with an individual for a while, you may ask, “If I
explain from a scientific standpoint why fat and fiber post-workout is
poison, will you stop taking it?” If they respond yes, then continue the
discussion. If they respond, “Of course not! I will continue to take it
no matter what you say,” or say this indirectly, by, for example,
completely ignoring the clear evidence provided, leave the debate and
stop wasting your time.
Burden of Proof
Ultimately, the burden of proof falls on the readers to be
responsible with their bodies. As such, though pseudo scientists have
done a great job of deceiving the masses, it ultimately is every
individual’s responsibility to find the truth out for themselves. This
article seeks to inform the reader of these many deceptions, that he or
she may make educated, logical decisions in their bodybuilding career.
I would implore the reader to constantly think logically as
a scientist. Ask questions; seek to understand why you are doing a given
program, and the logic behind it.
An example of a careless action, which shows no
responsibility, is purchasing a supplement, and often times using it
before even knowing what it does, or the possible side effects! Here
is a general rule of thumb: never take a supplement, do a workout
program, or follow anyone’s advice without at least having some idea
behind the method. Don’t take this the wrong way, it takes years to
become a master in this field, but you should at least have some general
knowledge on the topic, and ask reliable sources what their thoughts are
on the matter before doing anything. If you cannot find an adequate
answer to your question, always take the safe side, and do not take a
supplement—for instance—when you do not definitively understand that it
is safe.
Laying the
Foundation
Therefore whosoever heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them, I
will liken him unto a wise man, which built his house upon a rock: And
the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat
upon that house; and it fell not: for it was founded upon a rock. And
every one that heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them not, shall
be likened unto a foolish man, which built his house upon the sand: And
the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat
upon that house; and it fell: and great was the fall of it.
--- Matthew 7:24-27
One who builds his scientific foundation upon pseudo
science is like the foolish man above who built his house on the
sand—such a foundation is destined to fall. It is the goal of this
article to give the reader a proper foundation upon which their
scientific minds may take root in and grow. As the apostle Paul says,
“That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried
about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning
craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive. Ephesians 4:14” It is a
sad fact that millions of advertisers cunningly seek to deceive the
feeble minded; however, with this foundation in place, the reader need
no longer fear these deceivers. Now, the reader will see right through
these lies, and simply laugh when confronted with them.
The true foundation a scientist must base their decisions
on is empirical, logical, scientific data. Pseudo science has no place
in this community.
Now, in the near future, JHR will be delving into the
vigorous nature of scientific experiments, and why the hundreds of
journals we source each month in our articles are so reliable. This
entry will just give a little taste of how trustworthy these results
are, and why a scientists should base their foundation upon them.
Integrity of JHR
Staff
The rigorous nature and reliability of true science can be
displayed no better way than through, The
Journal of Hyperplasia Research. This section begins with
a quote from Mr. Knowlden on the goal of JHR [2004; Hyperplasia Havoc]:
Science seeks to find
truth in the universe, and does so with a series of questions, from
which testable predictions are made, which ultimately reveal the verity
of hypotheses.
"What is truth?"
This very question
was asked of Jesus, at His trial by Governor Pilate.
Inquiry of the
absolute truth is the aspiration of science, and thus the quest of
JHR.
It has always been
the motto of both myself, and my esteemed colleagues, to seek the truth
at all costs, and dismiss psuedo-science that is spewed from the mouths
of ignorance.
The Journal of
Hyperplasia Research shall foster the dissemination of basic and
applied research as it interacts to the sphere of hypertrophic/hyperplastic
expansions, through theoretical outlets.
President Wilson adds [2004; dismantling fallacies]:
Thousands of lives
have adopted the scientific lifestyle presented and outlined in our
pages. Moreover, numerous fallacies have been vanquished. We stand for
true, scientifically derived knowledge, as opposed to opinionated,
unsubstantiated rubbish.
Several occurrences have stewed in the ABC research
studio as of late. Indeed, research beyond the bodybuilder’s wildest
imagination has been conducted.
Ours is a world which
will not give in nor relinquish its position. We will not back down; we
are here to stay, and most importantly to explode. We are, in a phrase:
Scientifically Hardcore.
The scientists of this publication have dedicated their
lives to this sport. Each and every answer; each refuted myth; each
scientific journal entry is the result of thousands of hours of
scientific hard-core investigation. Additionally, we peer review each
other’s work, and have other experts do the same for us. This includes
our editor, and fellow JHR writer, Tuf. Moreover, we are constantly
keeping up to date with the top scientific data, as it presents itself.
Each issue in this journal is backed by literally hundreds of the top
scientists in the world, performing empirical, logical, scientific
experiments. Further, if anyone has a question or dispute about the
information presented here, as long as they come with respect and in a
logical manner, they can freely discuss it live with the authors of this
publication any time they wish in our online forums.
JHR has made its goal very clear; there
