Intuition, Conventional Wisdom, and the Comments Section of Your Favorite Newspaper

Over the past 10 years, lay publications, including the New York Times, Washington Post, and Wall Street Journal, have done an excellent job of covering some of the fascinating and paradigm-shifting exercise science research that continues to be published.  Not a week goes by that I don’t see an article by a journalist that adroitly summarizes the key findings and application of important (and often complicated) exercise research.  This is a good thing.

Although I’ve usually already read the original research study that the article discusses, I still enjoy reading the lay articles appearing in these publications.  However, without exception, I avoid the comment section.  It took me years to learn this lesson.  The comment section reveals how illogical exercisers are in their approach to exercise (and how poor our intuition really is).

It usually goes something like this:

Preeminent scientist publishes a brand-new study. 

Journalist writes about that study.

The reader (who feels validated by the research) comments, “We really needed a study to prove THAT?!  I’ve known THAT for 30 years!” And then what follows is a summary of that reader’s workouts for the last 30 years. 

The reader who disagrees with the research has a different response: “I don’t care what the study says, I’ve been doing XYZ in my workouts for 30 years, and it works for me!” Again, a fitness resume is included. 

Whatever the article says, the reader (at least the online commenter) either already knew it and thought the research was so obvious it didn’t need to be performed OR the reader vehemently disagrees with the research study’s outcomes. 

The reason we conduct exercise science research is that often, common sense, our intuition, and conventional wisdom are wrong (and sometimes, they are right). 

A very short list of conventional wisdom/intuition that has been proven wrong and right over the last 10-15 years includes…

Intuition/conventional wisdom was wrong:

• 3 sets of an exercise are better than 1.

• 4 workouts a week are better than 2. 

• Lifting weights fast makes me fast.

• My strength training should mimic whatever I’m going to do in real life.

• Heavier weight is better for muscle size and strength.

• Lighter weight is better for muscle tone and endurance.

• Cardio is the ticket for fat loss.

• As I age, my goal should be to stay active, I shouldn’t be focused on strength.

• Training to muscle failure will increase injury risk.

• Strength training is unsafe for people with high blood pressure.

• Free-weights are better for REAL results when compared to machines.

Intuition/conventional wisdom was right (it was harder to come up with this list!):

• Strength training is the key to healthy aging.

• Protein is pretty important for building lean muscle.

• Strength train to prevent athletic injury.

• Intensity/effort matters.

• Combining strength training with a bit of cardio is probably the best way to ward off a host of chronic diseases.

Take home message: Whether it proves our assumptions right or completely shifts our previously held paradigm, connecting scientific research to our workouts is an enlightened and result-producing approach to exercise. 

Final thought: If you want to lose faith in humanity, read the comment section of nearly any online publication.  On the other hand, if you want to restore your faith in human nature, go watch a marathon (a paraphrase from Kathrine Switzer, the first woman to run the Boston Marathon).