OPENING
Welcome to Episode 36 of The STEM Sessions Podcast, published on November 3, 2025. This is the podcast that says it’s OK to do your own research on STEM topics even if you don’t have any fancy credentials. I am your host, Cody Colborn.
INTRODUCTION
Episode is a bit different for two reasons
- One, it’s more of a commentary episode instead of a researched topic
- Two, it’s about current events, something I usually stay away from since I publish too slowly
- But I find this topic so stupid, yet so entertaining, that I needed to make this episode
Most of the YouTube communities I follow aren’t readily prone to drama, so I usually just read about the absurdity on the YouTudedrama subreddit
- But I believe it’s a scientific fact that YouTube communities, and I don’t care what the subject matter is, will always devolve into civil war like drama, because drama drives views
- And that recently happened in one of the communities I follow
- And quite frankly, I’m surprised it didn’t happen sooner given the fragile personalities involved
Typically, I find the entire implosion entertaining, but this one involved science, so I took a deeper interest
- Science had been applied appropriately, then egos applied it where it shouldn’t be applied
- Counterpoints attacked the inappropriate applications and then concluded the appropriate applications were also invalidated
- People were called names, insults hurled
- Parody songs created
- It was everything a cynic with a dark mischievous sense of humor like me could ask for
This is The STEM Sessions Podcast Episode 36 – Pumping Iron, For Science
MAIN BODY
Back in episode 25, I talked about social media’s increasing use of science to sell you products
- I tried to clear that I wasn’t dunking on any of the Youtube channels I discussed
- Instead I focused on the following points:
- using science as a differentiator doesn’t always make what’s being discussed better or carry more weight
- More and more, science and science communicators are being placed on pedestals
- we see science successfully used in marketing and propaganda
- Apparently, just like sex, science sells
Like I said, I wasn’t trying to dunk on these people
- It was more a piece of advice to keep an eyebrow raised when watching any video with science in the title
- And perhaps it was an expression of disappointment that science is was being used so cheaply
Using science and scientific authority to sell products is nothing new
- Trident gum introduced its famous “four out of five dentists surveyed would recommend sugarless gum to their patients who chew gum” campaign 50 years ago
- I also inferred a bit of tongue in cheek in that statement
- Yes, they were implying medical authority in their statement, but it seemed a bit like a meme before memes were a thing
- At least that’s how I first heard it 15 years into the campaign
- Maybe it was taken more seriously in the beginning
But today it’s gotten out of hand, and I blame our COVID response
- Science became a capitalized word
- An entity unto its own
- An entity with unquestionable authority
I’ll save the rest of that commentary for another episode
- For this one, the important observation is that Science with a capital S found its way into the YouTube fitness community
- And creators used it to great effect for several years
- But now rebellion is in the air, and its dissenters are just as ludicrous as the capital S science peddlers
Over the last two or three years, a lot of science-based fitness channels have risen to the top of the YouTube fitness community
- It started as debunks of ineffective and, quite frankly, stupid fads in dieting and exercise – the proverbial snake-oils
- Then the debunking birthed its own trend, one called science-based lifting
Its premise was simple: through study of human bio-mechanics, we can determine the most efficient way to increase our muscle mass
- From a position of pure logic and theory, there should be an optimal combination of heavy or light weights, high or low rep volume, easy or hard training intensity
Studies were conducted
- Training programs were crafted based on those results
- Countless videos were created to sell those training programs
- And more than a few people made a lot of money, and are making a lot of money, from science-based lifting
Exercise scientists openly positioned themselves not just as an alternative, but the better alternative, to bro lifting
- And what happens when one sect is slighted by or feels slighted by another sect?
- Yep, YouTube drama
YouTube communities are no strangers to drama
- In fact, the algorithm feeds off it
- But drama in the lifting community is different because the science involved has morphed into Capital S science
You see, the science based lifting team forgot to stay humble
- They flaunted degrees and complicated sounding data
- They cited journals and conducted their own studies
- They started speaking in absolutes instead of in theories
- Basically, they started acting smarter than they are
And then the bro lifters slapped back
One PhD bro lifter disemboweled the PhD dissertation of the leading science based lifter
- He pointed out glaring clerical errors and stupifying statistical errors
- He demonstrated a lack of innovation in the conclusion, which in his mind invalidates the awarding of the degree
- And thus the figure head science based lifter was a fraud, and if was a fraud, the entire field of study is fraudulent
Sensing blood in the water, the other bro lifters pounced
- Dozens of videos were produced proclaiming vindication
- Confirmation bias overflowed the videos comments sections
And you know what resulted from this?
- Absolutely nothing
- Yes, a lot of creators made a lot of money through increased views and potentially sold more of their own brand of snake oil
But why didn’t the science based lifters go out of business?
- Because it’s all one giant echo chamber
- True believers aren’t going to change their mind, and everyone else just likes the drama
- And there is no such thing as bad publicity
But let’s discuss what role science actually plays in this drama, and maybe more importantly, if this drama has any impact on the perception of science
Is science based lifting, or science based fitness in general, a valid field of study, or is it just hype?
- Studying the human body’s bio-mechanics is valid
- So is studying our metabolic processes such as energy consumption and how the nutrients in our food are used
- It’s also valid to study how muscle tissue is grown or how weight bearing exercises affect bone density
Designing studies and publishing data on those, and other topics, is valid science
- And we should continue funding and studying that science
- But when you change the question from “how does the body build muscle” to “how should you lift in order to optimally build muscle”, you’ve changed from science to engineering
- And that distinction matters
Engineering applies science to develop a solution that meets a set of requirements
- Part about requirements is where the science based lifters have failed because they’re not defining the conditions under which the subject will be building muscle
- For example, if I have 300 minutes a week to dedicate to weight training, is my optimal program different than someone who only has 180 minutes
They also use benchmarks that are ambiguous at best and undefinable at worst
- One of the cornerstones of the science based lifting approach is leaving reps in reserve
- This means you stop your set before reaching failure of the muscle, which itself also has an ambiguous definition
- How can you design an optimal program for someone when you can’t even explain what a rep in reserve means in quantifiable and repeatable terms?
Science-based lifting is used as a buzzword to sell videos and programs and clout
- But that doesn’t mean they don’t know what they’re talking about
- They pass along good knowledge, but it needs to be applied critically depending on the individual conditions
It also doesn’t mean the bro lifters are off the hook
- Their egos are just as inflated
- And saying an entire field of study is invalidated because of a shoddy phd and a few ill-designed studies is immature and intellectually wrong
- And what’s wrong with trying to be efficient in the gym in the first place?
- Most of us have limited time in our schedule and we don’t all get off on working out
As I said earlier, in a logical sense, there should be an optimal program for building muscle in the most efficient manner
- But that program is not one size fits all
- It’s going to vary person to person, and will probably vary day to day for a single person depending on parameters like that person’s overall level of rest that day or blood sugar in that moment or even their emotional state
- If taking a methodical approach works for you, and it’s an approach you can sustain over the long term, that’s wonderful
- If you just want to hit the gym, with a balls-out iron clanking approach, because it’s fun and you can sustain it over the long term, that’s wonderful, too
OUTRO AND CREDITS
Thank you for listening to this episode of The STEM Sessions Podcast – a podcast researched, written, and produced by Cody Colborn.
This episode’s music is titled “Gearhead” and was composed by Kevin MacLeod, and can be found at incompetech.com
The shownotes and transcript can be found at thestemsessions.com, which is also the best place to provide feedback, corrections, and value for value support.
Remember, doing your own critical research will always be to your benefit, and any pundit or scientist that tells you “just trust me, bro” or scolds you for fact checking and questioning isn’t offering true education.
So until the next one, keeping learning.