In a recent conversation with Chris Williamson, fitness influencer Sam Sulek shared his critical take on the world of "evidence-based lifting." The discussion raised valid points about gimmicks and elitism within the community. But is science-based lifting just an excuse to train easier?
Dr. Mike Israetel, a former professor of exercise science, is here to respond. While he agrees with some of Sulek's cultural critiques, he offers a powerful rebuttal to the idea that science-based training is a softer approach. In fact, he argues that a true application of the scientific literature demands the most brutally difficult training imaginable.
TL;DR: The Science of Hard Work
- Dr. Mike agrees with Sam Sulek that the culture of "science-based" lifting can sometimes be gimmicky and elitist when applied poorly.
- He strongly refutes the common misconception that science-based training is an "easier" way to train. This idea is held by both lazy lifters misusing science and "bros" who need to paint science as inferior.
- The totality of modern exercise science evidence points towards **brutally hard training**: higher volumes (potentially 40+ sets/muscle/week), higher frequencies, training closer to failure, and using deep, uncomfortable stretches.
- The ideal approach is to find what you enjoy within the circle of what is scientifically effective, not to chase enjoyment at the expense of results.
The Valid Critiques: Gimmicks and Elitism
Dr. Mike agrees with Sulek that there is a "bad way to do science-based lifting." This often involves cherry-picking a single study, misunderstanding its abstract, and using it to justify an easy, infrequent training style that promises "mega gains" for minimal effort. This can also foster a "weird elitism," where some individuals use their surface-level knowledge of science to feel intellectually superior to others.
However, he is quick to point out that this elitism exists on both sides of the aisle. There is an equally vocal group of anti-science lifters who are proud of *not* thinking about their training and who use a "hardcore" identity to dismiss a scientific approach.
The Great Misconception: Is Science-Based Lifting Easier?
The most important point of disagreement is the idea that science is a way to "lower the difficulty" of training. Dr. Mike argues that while some people misuse science for this purpose, the actual body of evidence mandates the opposite. A true, holistic interpretation of exercise science research points towards the most demanding training protocols possible.
According to Dr. Mike, real science tells us to:
- Train **closer to failure** for more hypertrophy.
- Use **higher frequencies**, training muscles at least twice a week for better results.
- Push **training volume** to the absolute limits of recovery. The top end of beneficial volume is still unknown but sits "almost certainly north of 40 working sets per week" for a given muscle.
- Utilize **deep, uncomfortable stretches** under load, which is highly effective but physically and mentally taxing.
"True science-based lifting is damn near the hardest shit you could do. It's unreasonably difficult," Dr. Mike concludes. In this light, the "bro" approach of one or two all-out sets per workout is actually an easier protocol than what the totality of the science suggests.
Finding Your Path: Where Enjoyment Meets Effectiveness
Sulek makes a great point that enjoyment is crucial for long-term consistency in the gym. Dr. Mike agrees but offers a critical framework: the goal is to find what you enjoy within the circle of what is effective. Science and experience define a large universe of effective training methods. Within that universe, you are free to choose the exercises, rep ranges, and styles that you find most motivating.
The mistake is choosing something you enjoy that falls completely outside that circle of effectiveness. "You are in the gym to just do what you like," he states, "...but if what you like is outside of what's effective... the gym's probably just not the place for that."
Conclusion: Real Science Demands Hard Work
While the cultural critiques of "hashtag science-based" lifting have merit, the idea that it's a shortcut or an easier path is a fundamental misunderstanding. The true application of exercise science isn't about finding ways to avoid hard work; it's about finding the most efficient ways to apply as much brutally hard work as you can possibly recover from. The ultimate goal is to combine the relentless work ethic of a top bodybuilder with the intelligent and efficient application of a scientist.
