"Science-Based Training" as Subjective Value System

Listen to the Audiobook Version on Mixcloud

This question pertains to the idea that the subject can determine the value of the object, instead of the value of the object being determined by itself.

In essence, SBT allows the lifter to redefine the meaning of "success" or "value" or "optimal" based on subjective criteria.

Scientific studies, which are supposed to serve as objective data, are employed in a subjective capacity to support a pre-existing bias.

It is similar to the Body Positivity movement determining, subjectively or based on feeling, what constitutes "good health." The valid and "positive" idea that a person can be healthy or healthier, or in pursuit of improving their health, "at any weight," is taken to the extreme, such that a person can literally be "healthy" at any weight.

The objective value, of bodyweight, is trumped by the subjective redefining of what it means to be "healthy." I.e. healthiness becomes a state of feeling, which is inherently subjective and unverifiable, rather than a state of physical being, which is objective and verifiable.

In SBT, the objective criteria for measuring "optimality," which could be viewed as: larger body mass, superior athletic performance, and higher weight being lifted, are put aside and even denied by the subjective feeling that the "scientifically informed" or "study-supported" exercises, techniques, or other training variables that are believed to align with those scientific evidences.

Of course, it is possible that these techniques ARE scientifically informed. But then, the "value" of the activity, i.e. its degree of validity, usefulness, "optimality," is no longer dependent on being ACTUALLY EFFECTIVE, that is, PRODUCING REAL WORLD RESULTS, as we might call them, for either building muscle or increasing strength.

[A scientific experiment is not the real world. It is intended to allow the objective scientist to make inferences about the implications of the results.]

Hence, a person can be considered, and consider themselves, to be training "optimally" in the absence of either of these two obectives [greater body mass, athletic performance {higher weight being lifted}], which would represent external, quantifiable criteria.

It is at this point that an idea like "science-based training" becomes what I would consider an "ideology." It is no longer guided or informed by objective criteria, or material conditions, but instead dependent on and determined by subjective criteria that remain logically defensible even if the objective criteria—what, in science, would be considered the "evidence"—directly contradicts or at least fails to support the conclusion that this ideology is correct.

In essence, an ideology holds that it is the "ideal" that matters more than the material, objective, verifiable conditions. That is, it is the idea, the actual thinking or feeling about the intended outcome, that determines its validity, not its real-world consequences.

In short, idealism in this sense means that the "idea" of a thing is its determining factor, and the primary means by which it renders an impact on the world.

So if I believe that I am right, even if I can't demonstrate it logically or externally, I can continue to believe it because it is no longer, or never was, dependent on external, material evidence.

In terms of Science-Based Lifting, the "ideal" being ascribed to is that a "scientifically informed" approach to lifting is superior, and that "non-scientific" approaches are inferior and a waste of time.

And a person can continue to believe that their "science-based" method of training is superior BECAUSE it is "science-based," even if the results it provides—which would normally be observed in increases in muscle mass and strength—do not objectively support this conclusion.

A person in this state of mind would be considered both an idealist and an ideologue.

It is another question how far one would be willing to go to support their ideology, and at what point they cease to consciously believe it but continue to support it for other reasons than genuine intellectual conviction.

There are those who will defend it because their public profiles are dependent on it. And others whose income is based on the purveyance of this ideology, and to abandon it would be to abandon their "life's work" or their "brand."

This is the point at which an ideologue has lost the freedom to admit to being wrong or being led astray by the allure of his own biases. To do so would be to call into question the validity of his entire worldview, and in this modern era, his "brand," the value of the very product he is selling.

But whether he consciously still believes it or not while he continues to push it is irrelevant. If he continues to advocate for it, at all costs, and with no retreats, reformulations, or revisions, it doesn't matter if he does it from "true conviction" or as a true believer, or from a cynical place of pure demagoguery.

What matters is what he DOES and SAYS, not what he BELIEVES. in effect, what he says and does IS what he believes.

it is important, however, not to discard subjectivity altogether, or postmodernism.

Subjectivity allows us to have different opinions about art and culture. It allows us to determine, to a great extent, who we are and what we want to be. In the postmodern era, this is the freedom of multiculturalism, and the idea that we needn't be bound by inborn ideas of identity, religion, nationality, gender, or sexuality.

Subjective experience, or "lived experience," has even reached the status of challenging or overriding objective scientific evidence regarding gender and sexuality. And many of the people who contest the validity of this lived experience over scientific evidence (of which I am no more an expert than they are) are in support of scientific scrutiny when it supports their biases (i,.e. THEIR lived experience) and against it when it doesn't.

For those who don't, who are pro-science and anti-subjectivity all the time, let them be told that the statistical evidence suggests that their socioeconomic group is doing extremely well, and hence they have no reason to complain about anything. And then we'll see how long they defend "evidence" at all costs over lived experience.

In short, postmodernism allows aspects of our personal value to be self-determined, instead of societally determined. It allows the audience to critique the author's work from a position of mass power and solidarity, rather than being dictated to by the elitist impulses and ideologies that often fuel mass-market culture like movies, books, and TV.

[although many of these elitist ideologies remain the dominant ones]

Whether or not this occurs under our current economic order is an open question. I would say it doesn't, much of the time. Most social criticism, whether by the author or the audience, is informed by the neoliberal system of "profit above all" and hyperindividuality.

But that doesn't mean we need to throw out the baby with the bathwater.

In conclusion, what is the solution?

In postmodernized fitness, the idea of what is "scientific" defines the value of a lifting philosophy and the exercises it incorporates, rather than the weight on the bar, the demonstrable athletic qualities of the practictioner, etc.

Rather than giving any weight to "real world results" or what is "time-tested," value and validity are conferred to an exercise BEFORE it has yielded proof of its superiority.

This is also what allows a gym novice to position themselves as an expert, believing that the "science-based" approach allows them to fully grasp a practice to which they are very new.

To whit: If an exercise is "science-based," it SHOULD be viewed as "correct" or valuable if it corresponds to scientific evidence. That is, what is "scientific" should possess a degree of objectivity. But the idea of what is "scientific" is liable to being repurposed, redefined by the user to suit certain emotional biases, such as a bias against Max Effort lifting. training to failure, heavy compound lifts in favor of isolations, et cetera.

So what is the solution?

If i was to posit a solution that matched the "science-based" bias in universality and severity, I would say, "science-based" fitness techniques should ONLY be viewed as "SCIENTIFIC," ie "objective" and hence "correct," WHEN THEY ARE BEING APPLIED IN SCIENCE, i.e. in an experiment WITH a control group.

That is, when an exercise is being used in an experiment, then it is "science-based." Once the results of that experiment are being applied to "real life," an attempt is being made to see if those results "CARRY OVER" to real life.

If they do, then the exercise has now been tested in REAL LIFE, through experience, and its value and effectiveness established AFTER the fact, not before.

It has not been pre-emptively assumed to be valuable and effective BECAUSE of the experiment it was involved in. Rather, its value has been ESTABLISHED in the REAL WORLD through REAL WORLD EXPERIENCE.

After all, not all experiments yield results that carry over to the real world. Check out the....

Because this is the only circumstance in which it IS being objectively, conducted, viewed, and applied.

Once it is excised from these controlled conditions, it is liable to being misinterpreted, misapplied, and universalized, as though it would apply in ANY condition, rather than the conditions set in the experiment. Idealized, dogmatized, and reified.

What is "reification"? It is when you treat an idea--subjective, existing in the mind, unverifiable--as a thing--OBjective, existing in reality, and provable in its belief. From "i think, therefore I am," to, "I believe it, therefore it is."

But to take a more moderate approach to solutions regarding science-based training, the only meaningful one is to interpret science, not a truth or fact in and of itself, but as a potential PATH TO TRUTH. For now that we have the results of an experiment, we can try the thing in REAL LIFE and see if it works for us, see if it works for our unique circumstances (which often might not match the subjects of the experiment), and if it doesn't, to put it aside, not as something awful and bad, but just not what was needed in the moment.

For true science is based on the premise that "I do not know; let's find out." Experiements are good for informing real world decisions and determining systems of value based on "what works." But it is not the experiment that constitutes "finding out," or "what works" in an absolute sense. The only thing that determines that, is the experience.

"Are you experienced?"