Chris and Paul

[Addidas17]

Decided to listen to some of the podcasts Chris Beardsley and Paul Carter have. Not sure if anyone else has or sees their stuff in general but their content really makes my head spin. Paul Carter pretty much parrots what Chris Beardsley says. I get the sense he’s not too skilled at deep diving into studies. But Chris, the brains behind the operation, leaves me thinking, “what???” after I hear his ideas.

I seems there are two types of fitness influencers now. Ones that synthesize information, look at the big picture, and give practical understandings of the science they read. They also seems to be much more open to debate and typically are more charitable to who they’re debating with. Others who a reductionist take and seem to make get caught up in studies and miss the bigger picture at times.

Beardsley seems to fall in the latter camp. The thing that irks me about his content is that he seems to extrapolate really far off of available evidence. It’s like he’s playing with an erector set making all of these connections building all of these models in his mind. And my problem isn’t that he likes to theorize, it’s that he paints them as irrefutable black and white truth. Paul Carter started parroting them and then it spreads to much smaller influencers. I’ve seen so many smaller accounts just mindlessly parrot his stuff as truth whether it’s stimulating reps, volume, fatigue, or the boogeyman, calcium ion fatigue. Kinda ranted here but it’s and interesting phenomenon to see in the s & c industry.

[cole]

Im not too familiar with Beardsley but I am all familiar with those who have their minds made up and everyone else gets dismissed.

I currently consume content in the ratio of 80% Data Driven Strength (Zac and Josh) and the other 20% Barbell Medicine (Jordan and Austin) both of those organizations would fit your description of "Ones that synthesize information, look at the big picture, and give practical understandings of the science they read. They also seems to be much more open to debate and typically are more charitable to who they’re debating with"

There is too much information and too many influencers out there, so I stick to the few I trust and keep life simple.

[Addidas17]

I like your approach and typically gravitate towards the influencers you described. It just kind of sucks for the industry and further understanding when arguably some of the most popular influencers seem to purposely mislead. I was curious and went on Paul carters tik-tok. The amount of strawmanning against arguments and misuse of studies was incredible.

[dw]

I've encountered people that take CB's effective reps model (including the 5 rep threshold) as absolute fact. If you say you do a lot of RPE 6 sets they just point you to his well known graphic, QED, you're wrong.

People really love a beautiful model (pun recognized).

[Hardartery]

Paul Carter. LOL.

[Addidas17]

The model makes sense in the big picture but they lose me when people get caught up on the #5.

[CheekiBreekiFitness]

Alex Bromley made a video addressing Paul Carter lore, it's interesting:



My sources of info are usually: Barbell Medicine, Renaissance Periodization, Stronger By Science. I don't see much value in what the other creators have to offer. The fitness industry is a giant group of people either regurgitating information and/or just flat out spewing nonsense. Although I might look into Data Driven Strength in the future, they seem to be popular here but I didnt consume much of their content yet.

[DCR]

Paul Carter. LOL.

This is the appropriate response.

[Hanley]

The thing that irks me about his content is that he seems to extrapolate really far off of available evidence.

I've bitched for many pages on these forums about him and his theories.

I'm irritated by the lack of epistemic humility (which doesn't bother me coming from someone like Rippetoe [a coach]....but it's troubling coming from someone who seems to brand himself as science communicator).

I'm also irritated that so many reasonable and intelligent people seem to accept his models without a critical filter. They're internally consistent theories that don't map to a reality. Skip the "science communicators" and just read Roger Enoka.

[quikky]

Decided to listen to some of the podcasts Chris Beardsley and Paul Carter have. Not sure if anyone else has or sees their stuff in general but their content really makes my head spin. Paul Carter pretty much parrots what Chris Beardsley says. I get the sense he’s not too skilled at deep diving into studies. But Chris, the brains behind the operation, leaves me thinking, “what???” after I hear his ideas.

I seems there are two types of fitness influencers now. Ones that synthesize information, look at the big picture, and give practical understandings of the science they read. They also seems to be much more open to debate and typically are more charitable to who they’re debating with. Others who a reductionist take and seem to make get caught up in studies and miss the bigger picture at times.

Beardsley seems to fall in the latter camp. The thing that irks me about his content is that he seems to extrapolate really far off of available evidence. It’s like he’s playing with an erector set making all of these connections building all of these models in his mind. And my problem isn’t that he likes to theorize, it’s that he paints them as irrefutable black and white truth. Paul Carter started parroting them and then it spreads to much smaller influencers. I’ve seen so many smaller accounts just mindlessly parrot his stuff as truth whether it’s stimulating reps, volume, fatigue, or the boogeyman, calcium ion fatigue. Kinda ranted here but it’s and interesting phenomenon to see in the s & c industry.

Paul Carter tends to be pretty allergic to any kind of questioning or disagreement. It's almost a meme at this point that he blocks people for the most innocuous questions, or even for petty things like someone liking a post from a coach he doesn't like or probably also blocked. He has some good takes on various exercises, and sometimes has good ideas for targeting certain muscle groups, but his general attitude and ego leave much to be desired.

Beardsley has some good material, but I also agree that he extrapolates way beyond the data he is presenting, and seems to have also gravitated into his own online guru bubble.

I would say in general, the online fitness community leaves much to be desired. There's good material out there, but the signal to noise ratio is terrible, and a lot of people behind the material have something to sell you and/or are trying to gain followers (so they can sell you). The "evidence-based" community is a bit of a joke, for the most part. Seems there is way too much faith in studies. It also kind of bothers me that some people actually coach others for a living, yet seem to trust studies more than their own eyes. Is a coach that is getting gains for a hundred clients not "evidence", but a paper with 9 college-aged men doing leg extensions for 8 weeks "evidence"? ::eye roll::

[houzi]

I cant remember where I saw this, but I think it was an Alexander Bromley video. There were comments on Paul Carters posts, asking about high/med volume training and he was so rude in the replies, talking about how high volume is stupid and pointless..... meanwhile he still sells his old ebooks on his site which use those principles. The guy seems like an idiot.

[Addidas17]

The thing that irks me about his content is that he seems to extrapolate really far off of available evidence.

I've bitched for many pages on these forums about him and his theories.

I'm irritated by the lack of epistemic humility (which doesn't bother me coming from someone like Rippetoe [a coach]....but it's troubling coming from someone who seems to brand himself as science communicator).

I'm also irritated that so many reasonable and intelligent people seem to accept his models without a critical filter. They're internally consistent theories that don't map to a reality. Skip the "science communicators" and just read Roger Enoka.

You hit the nail on the head. It’s the fact that he labels himself a science communicator but there is clearly bias when it comes to certain topics. On the actual posts he makes, I’m always left with a feeling like he’s left out important details to craft a story. He’ll post one of his models about fatigue or mu recruitment but give no actual
details about in what context it applies.

[Addidas17]

In one of the podcasts they talk about the 52 set a week high volume study. Chris goes on to break it down by effective reps and claims the effective reps are the same between the high volume study and a typical lower volume workout done to failure. Does the body really work in such a calculated manner? Also, another thing popularized by Beardsley is that smaller muscles like biceps recover faster then larger muscles like quads. You then go look at the studies he used and it has untrained men do 50 eccentric contractions and compare recovery rates. How is this applicable to the average lifter that’s accustomed to exercise and doesn’t do eccentric training workouts. It’s just misleading to even post that.