Somewhere along the way, we’ve forgotten the role of the scientific method in our pursuit of perfection. We’re leaving a practical application of exercise science out of the performance conversation. We used to experiment by doing something and seeing if it worked, tracking what happened, how we felt, whether performance improved, or whether recovery was impacted. This is the definition of empirical evidence, the foundation of the scientific method.
Scientific Method (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy): “Empirical evidence, information gathered directly or indirectly through observation or experimentation, may be used to confirm or disconfirm a scientific theory or to help justify, or establish as reasonable, a person’s belief in a given proposition. A belief may be said to be justified if there is sufficient evidence to make holding the belief reasonable.” (Empirical Evidence | Definition, Examples, Evidentialism, Foundationalism, & Facts | Britannica)
We rely on isolated mechanistic experimentation as the determining factor dictating our actions. Study after study, and one expert after another, proclaims that a particular nutrition protocol, supplement, or training method is effective or ineffective based on a single factor of some biological or physiological variance. We jump to conclusions laden with bias and make broad, sweeping generalizations founded on component analysis that lacks comprehensive context.
There is a lack of acknowledgment that anecdote is the foundation of empiricism. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) help us verify and understand what is happening in real life. We should use RCTs to evaluate the conditions, stimuli, components, etc., that explain why the result happened. However, many coaches, scientists, athletes, and enthusiasts subscribe to the idea that only published information is valid for consideration in exercise science. The problem is we still have so much to learn.
We’re only a few decades into modern exercise science. Much of what we know is just a teaser for what we have yet to discover. We still face limitations on what, how, and how long we can test on human beings. Our ability to evaluate mechanistic impact holistically is very much a work in progress. If we rely solely on formal testing processes, our ability to develop improved training methods and increase athletic performance will always be delayed.
Denying anecdotal evidence is a self-defeating mindset that hinders progress in the global community of athletes, coaches, and exercise scientists. We must be inclusive in our acceptance that something is working, whether or not it has been “proven” by science. Remember, if the action and result can be verified, it is empirical evidence — RCT or not.
Formally derived mechanistic understanding absolutely informs practical application and acts as an input to training and nutrition methods. This is one of the ways we develop improved methods. It must be combined and evaluated within the real-world conditions and demands of the athlete and the sport. What works is what matters most. I don’t care what any published paper says “should” be the best for anything.
The ketogenic diet for sports performance is the best example of what is happening in exercise science today. Most people and organizations researching or publishing information about the ketogenic diet in relation to exercise science examine specific mechanisms, performance tests, or assumed biological functions and draw conclusions without assessing how they interact with other areas that impact performance. Here’s an example:
The International Society of Sports Nutrition (ISSN) published a position paper on the ketogenic diet. One of the metrics they used to determine if the ketogenic diet was good for performance was its impact on strength. They determined no significant difference in strength performance on a ketogenic diet. Yet they recommended:
“Caution is warranted since a minority of studies indeed show superior effects of the higher-carbohydrate comparator for improving or retaining strength performance. Furthermore, there is a lack of trials exceeding 12 weeks involving highly trained strength athletes. Cautious monitoring of individual response is recommended for strength athletes choosing a ketogenic diet, due to its potential to sub-optimize training adaptations in the long term.”
Full article: International Society of Sports Nutrition Position Stand: Ketogenic Diets
This demonstrates a complete denial and willingness to perpetuate the status quo. This is the opposite of what a supposed science-based institution should be doing:
- They reviewed 10 studies. One showed a benefit to high carbs. Somehow, this already trained group added 11 pounds to their bench press and 35 pounds to their back squat in 8 weeks (NOTE: The entire 8-week training regimen was based on Rate of Perceived Effort (RPE), which raises questions about the stimulus control of the training over such a short time and warrants further investigation).
- To justify their recommendation, they added an entire section espousing the need for glycolysis in strength training, which has no bearing on or insight into the data being evaluated.
What they didn’t consider was the impact on training volume and recovery. Ketogenic diets reduce lactate production and oxidative stress in working muscles. From my experience personally and with hundreds of people I’ve worked with in clinical ketogenic adaptation, maximum recovery volume (MRV) increases, the ability to work more frequently improves, and soreness and discomfort decrease significantly. The impact these have on an athlete’s ability to train and progress cannot be overstated.
If the ISSN were sincere in evaluating the ketogenic diet, they would have acknowledged the maintenance of strength performance along with the potential benefits to volume and recovery.
In contrast to the ISSN analysis of RCTs, I did a case study in 2022 in which I took a group of women, put them on a ketogenic diet, and had them do functional fitness training for 8 weeks. Guess what happened? Every performance metric improved.
According to the hierarchy of research validity, a case study is lower than a meta-analysis. Does this really matter when we consider the context of real-life results?
Remember this when you look at information published by most institutions. You will likely need to spend a good amount of time weeding through the inconsistencies, biases, and missing context in the conclusions and recommendations being made.
There are many athletes following a ketogenic diet and breaking performance boundaries in ways that are incomprehensible when applied to traditional carb-fueled performance. Allow some level of curiosity to prevent you from missing out on something wonderful.
