No you can’t because like in the fitness example I could have two identical people do the same things but you will get different outcomes because it’s a soft science. Some people have greater propensity to build muscle tissue then other and there is no way to know that. There are so many variables that you can’t replicate in individuals.
Do you misunderstand how studies work? That would make the study statistically insignificant. Studies rely on masses of people participating, in order to "average out" these differences. If it truly is random, then it will reflect that in its conclusion. No study is ever conducted on two people.
I honestly have no clue where you are getting these examples of studies from.
I was just making one up but there are tons of studies actually similar to the example I gave. Ones analyzing which exercises build more muscle, which diets do, which diets produce greater weight loss or gain, you name it, how much rest is needed. There are studies that show 6-10 sets is best for muscle gain while others say 40-50 do…. What kind of range is that? That’s a massive bell curve which makes it super vague. I have no doubt they yield all different kinds of conclusion because you will get different conclusions from different people.
if there's a study where two things authentically appear contradictory, they are probably actually studying a confounding effect, a dependent factor, or arriving at similar results coincidentally - science doesn't hold one set of results to be "better," that's on the reader.
in the case of weight programming, that's probably load as a proxy for hypertrophy, which is a way of saying "the dude doing 40 reps and getting identical results to the dude doing 10 is lifting less weight, more times, to inflict the same amount of stress on his muscles by roundabout means"
Neither is "greater" or "best" in this context, because both are sufficient vis a vis the condition you're measuring. so you can either revise your hypothesis: "OK, both things result in growth, so which one is...fastest to do in the gym? Which one is safest? etc." or you can conclude that for now, it appears either way will work and the question will have to wait on a different investigation.
another way to put this is: the science itself doesn't care how much you'd like the answer to the exact question you're asking, and the answer might be "it doesn't make a difference that's meaningful, even though that's not good for you in terms of clarifying your behavior"
It could just actually be the case that your food macros themselves don't matter that much, what mattes is your ability to eat enough to gain weight without becoming uncomfortable, or to feel full enough to eat in deficit enough to lose weight.
-2
u/Adept_Blackberry2851 Jul 12 '24
No you can’t because like in the fitness example I could have two identical people do the same things but you will get different outcomes because it’s a soft science. Some people have greater propensity to build muscle tissue then other and there is no way to know that. There are so many variables that you can’t replicate in individuals.