9 Legitimate Problems With The Evidence-Based Lifting Movement

How To Best Use Science And Research In Your Training

The evidence-based lifting movement is experiencing a reckoning in the fitness world. It's been brewing for a while, with people growing tired of the constant arguing, ever-changing information, and the never-ending attempts to optimize everything. Fundamental exercises apparently suck now, and every lifting style is ridiculed.

Opinions have become facts, and nuance has been lost. Recently, it's come to a head with various controversies with Jeff Nippard and Mike Israetel, questioning whether Evidence-Based Lifting has any value anymore. This article will lay out multiple issues with the Evidence-Based Lifting Movement and how to optimize science in your program.

What Is Evidence-Based Lifting?

Evidence-based lifting is a methodology of training that uses the application of scientific research and human physiology to design all aspects of a training program.

It can include using data concerning;

• Biomechanics
• Muscle physiology
• Endocrinology
• Neuromuscular system

This data is what drives an evidence-based lifter's program, theoretically allowing lifters to maximize results and train more efficiently.  

Is Evidence-Based Lifting Good?

Yes, research and science are definitely positive for the fitness community.

But it's a bit more nuanced, as there are distinct groups within evidence-based lifting;

• Exercise science as a whole
• The actual researchers
• Coaches who use research to help design programs
• The evidence-based lifting movement online

Most people are referring to the movement online when speaking about it. In theory, it's definitely a positive, and this movement began with great intentions. 

Research can help provide insight into various topics and point us in the right direction. However, it rarely gives specific answers.

9 Problems With Evidence-Based Lifting

While beneficial, over the years, the methodology of evidence-based lifters has become muddied with clear issues arising. 

To be clear, we're specifically talking about the movement online led by various influencers and their followers. These are individuals who build their entire program, down to the smallest details, based on the latest research with little nuance. 

They will always refer to research for their arguments and generally dismiss real-world experience. 

We are not talking about exercise science or researchers. In addition, this doesn't apply to everybody in the movement either. Many quality "evidence-based" figures provide research with the nuance it deserves.

1. Overcomplicates Lifting

Evidence-based lifting was supposed to make training easier; weed through the nonsense and deliver solid guidelines for lifters. But that didn't happen.

Rather, it began to optimize every single detail of every lift. Every aspect became scrutinized and broken down.

There's nothing wrong with being efficient. But let's be honest, how much difference does any of this make in the long run? How optimized do most lifters need to get?

The larger problem is that newer lifters think that if they don't follow all the specific guidelines and nuances, they're training is a waste of time.

In reality, unless you're a professional bodybuilder or strength athlete, you'd probably never even realize it. 

The Main Point Is: Evidence-based lifting can make training so complicated that it confuses and demotivates people.

2. Tries To Give Specific Answers Rather Than Suggestions

"Science" rarely gives direct answers. There are far too many variables and exceptions to give exact answers with 100% confidence.

For example, did you know we still don't understand the exact mechanism of muscle growth? Or what causes DOMs? 

At the same time, science is always evolving as we learn more. We've seen it numerous times in exercise science.

• The idea of rep ranges for different fitness variables (Schoenfeld et al., 2021).
• The burning sensation is caused by lactic acid (Robergs et. al, 2018).
• Muscle growth occurs by breaking down the muscle and rebuilding it.
• Lengthened partials vs. full ROM (What is the status of this debate?)

Many evidence-based beliefs have actually led to fitness myths that still exist today.

Further, there is a wide range of variables within people. This makes it impossible to give specific advice that is optimal for everyone.

The reality is that there are very few principles in strength training that are nearly 100% agreed upon. 

This is why most claims need to be given with nuance. However, this is rarely done, at least to the magnitude it deserves.

The Main Point Is: Evidence-based training advice can be too absolute and specific, especially for universal instruction.

3. Too Focused On Methodology And Not On Results

Evidence-based lifters get way too caught up with the methodology of training rather than seeing if it works.

We're sure you've seen big guys being criticized by science guys because:

• They're using half reps 
• "Ego-lifting"
• Their form isn't 100% "ideal"

Who cares? 

If a lifter has a great physique and feels good, who cares how they got there? At the end of the day, results are what matter. 

It's as if your gains don't count because your forearm was rotated a tad too much, and you definitely used some momentum on those lateral raises. 

The Main Point Is: If it works, it works regardless of what the latest study says.

4. Ignore Testimonies Because They Don't Align With Research

In connection with number 3, evidence-based lifters seem to think exercise or diet advice doesn't work because a new study said it doesn't, or there's no study to prove it. 

This is true even if it's been used successfully for decades. 

A good example is Dr. Mike Israetel criticizing Mike Mentzer's diet advice because "that was in 1982".  

Have our bodies evolved so much in 40 years that what worked in 1982 doesn't work anymore? 

So does this mean Frank Zane's training advice is nonsense because that was in the 1970s?

Research definitely has a role, but it doesn't negate tangible results. Some of the best physiques were built before exercise science was even a thing.

This doesn't mean to rely on anecdotal evidence, but there's a balance that's usually ignored. More importantly, research doesn't negate your results.

The Main Point Is: Your results dictate your program, not new research. 

5. The Lab Doesn't Replicate Life

As much as researchers try, it's very hard to replicate real-world applications in the lab. Researchers face a range of issues, many of which are impossible to remedy.

• Most studies only last 6-12 weeks
• Using participants who may or may not be familiar with actual training
• Many studies test only certain body parts, such as the quads or biceps.
• Many training programs don't reflect real-world training.
• Being in an experiment will affect someone's training. 

This problem is exacerbated when the researchers themselves lack a firm grasp of resistance training, programming, and gym culture. Many training plans used in research simply don't reflect real-world training. 

This becomes a bigger issue when leaders in the evidence-based lifting world use these findings with no nuance. 

Easy example: Is a drop-set just one set? And how does that affect total volume? 

The Main Point Is: Research in the lab doesn't always replicate lifting in the gym.

6. Evidence-Based Lifting Made Training Less Fun

This is obviously subjective, but evidence-based lifting has made training less fun; it's too rigid and precise. People now feel they need to worry about joint angles, tempo speeds, and exactly how many sets to do, or else they're wasting their time. 

One of the best examples is the rise of so-called "Ego Lifting". Ego-lifting can be a legitimate issue, but there has been a distinct rise in call-out videos. 

This is even seen in classic movements and methods.

• Kroc rows
• Rack pulls
• Power rows
• Cheat reps

You must follow specific guidelines and not detour.

Here's the reality: There's value in moving weight.  There's value in letting loose in the gym. There's value in doing an exercise just because (you don't need a better reason). 

There's also value in using perfect form in a very strict program.

The main point is: While we firmly believe people should follow a structured program, many people go to the gym to get in the zone and lift, not worry about all the technicalities.

7. Research Isn't Perfect, And Is Manipulated Itself

Research is falsely believed to be infallible. However, anything with humans involved is prone to error. 

Some of this may be purely accidental, while others may be influenced by money. Regardless, science isn't as honest as the public likes to believe.

In fact, there is an array of papers published on this exact issue. Many studies are specific to Exercise Science.

• Ethics in exercise science research (Shephard, 2002). 
• Ethical Issues Relating to Scientific Discovery in Exercise Science. (Navalta et al., 2020). 
• Consortium for Transparency in Exercise Science (COTES) Collaborators (Caldwell  et al., 2020)

Some of this can be very subtle. For example, we just wrote a paper on a new study that concluded; 

Simple enough. However, written like this, it's very easy to assume this means that plant protein is just as efficient as animal protein as the sole factor in improvements. However, when we looked at the study, we noticed;

• By "drinking form", they mean protein powder, not natural sources.
• The amino acids of the plant protein were optimized to match animal protein
• Both groups ate an omnivore diet in addition to one serving of their protein source. 
• They increased overall protein to 1.8/kg; this means the plant group still ate a significant amount of animal protein.

The more accurate conclusion would be: "using a plant protein powder with a similar EAA profile as animal protein can deliver similar results when added to an omnivore diet".

The Main Point Is: Studies can be manipulated by the researchers as well as how the results are presented.

8. Most People Don't Understand The Research Anyway

This is a big one and often overlooked. It's not a criticism of the people, but most simply aren't able to understand the research anyway. 

In fact, most people simply aren't inclined to do any research of their own. Be honest, have you ever looked at any study cited by an evidence-based lifter? Or even the studies we link at Set For Set? 

Most don't, and that's ok.

However, it leaves the door open for personal interpretation, and the audience doesn't know any better. Fully understanding studies and then applying them to real-world applications is difficult.

This leaves the audience relying on the online individual.

9. Opened Doors For Charlatans

Evidence-based lifting was supposed to keep scammers out. However, the opposite has happened. 

This isn't just seen in lifting, but in the health and wellness field as a whole. 

Because most people don't understand the research, charlatans can make any claim they want by saying, "A new study shows." 

However, the study could be implying something very different. Or, perhaps it was performed on rats or a specific population. 

This doesn't always occur in blatant scams, but is seen with popular individuals within the movement who have "Dr." in front of their names. 

The fact that different "evidence-based lifters" clearly demonstrate there's an issue. 

The Main Point Is: Evidence-based lifting has allowed different individuals to inappropriately use studies to help sell their programs. 

The Future Of Evidence-Based Lifting And Exercise Science

So what does all this mean for you, the lifter? 

We want to be clear that we are not denouncing all evidence-based lifting or researchers. It has given us solid guidelines that most people can follow and see amazing results.

However, most lifters don't need to be so dogmatic with their lifting. 

Think of it like this; 

• 75% of your program should be firmly based on general guidelines
• 25% can involve experimentation and "non-science" backed methods.

Don't ask where we got those numbers because we just made them up, but you get the idea.

Your best strategy is to experiment with different techniques when progress stops, or throw something you find interesting into your training. 

Let your own body be your own experiment, as this is the only way to know with 100% certainty what works for you. 

We've said this before, and we'll say it again: the worst mistake you can make is continuing to use a program that's not working.

Reference

1. Behringer, M., Heinrich, C., & Franz, A. (2025). Anabolic signals and muscle hypertrophy: Significance for strength training in sports medicine. Sports Orthopaedics and Traumatology, 41(Suppl. 1). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.orthtr.2025.01.002
2. Caldwell, A. R., Vigotsky, A. D., Tenan, M. S., Radel, R., Mellor, D. T., Kreutzer, A., Lahart, I. M., Mills, J. P., Boisgontier, M. P., & Consortium for Transparency in Exercise Science (COTES) Collaborators (2020). Moving Sport and Exercise Science Forward: A Call for the Adoption of More Transparent Research Practices. Sports medicine (Auckland, N.Z.), 50(3), 449–459. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40279-019-01227-1
3. Navalta, J. W., Stone, W. J., & Lyons, T. S. (2020). Ethical Issues Relating to Scientific Discovery in Exercise Science. International journal of exercise science, 12(1), 1–8. https://doi.org/10.70252/EYCD6235
4. Robergs, R. A., McNulty, C. R., Minett, G. M., Holland, J., & Trajano, G. (2018). Lactate, not Lactic Acid, is Produced by Cellular Cytosolic Energy Catabolism. Physiology (Bethesda, Md.), 33(1), 10–12. https://doi.org/10.1152/physiol.00033.2017
5. Santini, M. H., Erwig Leitão, A., Mazzolani, B. C., Smaira, F. I., de Souza, M. S. C., Santamaria, A., Gualano, B., & Roschel, H. (2025). Similar effects between animal-based and plant-based protein blend as complementary dietary protein on muscle adaptations to resistance training: findings from a randomized clinical trial. Journal of the International Society of Sports Nutrition, 22(1), 2568047. https://doi.org/10.1080/15502783.2025.2568047
6. Schoenfeld, B. J., & Aragon, A. A. (2018). Is There a Postworkout Anabolic Window of Opportunity for Nutrient Consumption? Clearing up Controversies. The Journal of orthopaedic and sports physical therapy, 48(12), 911–914. https://doi.org/10.2519/jospt.2018.0615
7. Schoenfeld, B. J., Grgic, J., Van Every, D. W., & Plotkin, D. L. (2021). Loading Recommendations for Muscle Strength, Hypertrophy, and Local Endurance: A Re-Examination of the Repetition Continuum. Sports, 9(2), 32. https://doi.org/10.3390/sports9020032
8. Shephard R. J. (2002). Ethics in exercise science research. Sports medicine (Auckland, N.Z.), 32(3), 169–183. https://doi.org/10.2165/00007256-200232030-00002