Article Rundown

• Science-Based Training vs. Real-World Experience
• The Value of Intuition and Mental Resilience
• 10/20/Life as a Hybrid System
• Case Studies Over PubMed

The Ongoing Debate in the Strength World

In this video, I dive into a topic I get asked about all the time: Where does science fit into strength training? And more importantly, how does it stack up against real-world experience?

We’ve seen the rise of evidence-based training influencers like Jeff Nippard. His approach is clean, research-backed, and digestible, especially for beginners. His content brings much-needed structure to a space that was once dominated by “bro science” and chaos—the Boston Lloyd era, Team 5CC, and others who proudly lived and died by extremes.

And honestly? There’s value in what Jeff and others are doing. But it’s only part of the puzzle.

The Value of Science-Based Training

Let me be clear: I’m not here to bash the science-based community. Far from it. I think it’s a solid place to start, especially for people new to lifting or even intermediate athletes looking to better understand training variables like volume, intensity, and fatigue management.

Science-based coaches have done a great job organizing chaos. They’ve helped normalize concepts like progressive overload, stimulus-to-fatigue ratios, and the importance of managing recovery. This has created a safer, smarter foundation for lifters of all levels.

But here’s the catch: science alone is not enough.

Zooming Out: The Case for Experience

What about the legends who built world-class physiques and ungodly strength before the studies even existed?

Think about Arnold Schwarzenegger, Shawn Frankl, Sergio Oliva, Jay Cutler, Dorian Yates, Ronnie Coleman, Ed Coan, John Haack, Dave Hoff—the list goes on. These freaks weren’t checking PubMed between sets. They were in the trenches. And they were the original case studies.

Hell, I’m one of them. I didn’t need a scientific paper to tell me progressive overload works when I was 17—I just knew it did because I lived it. My rehab from a broken sacrum, detailed in Gift of Injury, wasn’t based on theoretical models. It was built from personal experience, trial and error, and systems like 10/20/Life that evolved in real-world environments.

That’s the difference. Experience informs intuition—something no spreadsheet or study can replicate.

The Missing Pieces in Research

Studies don’t always account for extremes. They often don’t capture:

• Maximal strength efforts
• Long-term spinal adaptation
• Injury comebacks
• Psychological battles
• Off-program success

There’s no study that accounts for the mental grind of lifting. Some days, you’re supposed to PR, but your body says no. And if you listen to a sheet of paper instead of your gut, you’re heading for disaster.

I’ve had days I walked into the gym, had a terrible session, stormed out, threw my stuff on top of the shed in frustration, and came back the next day to hit a PR. You think a study could predict that? No chance.

There’s a fine line between “I feel good today” and “I feel good, but I’m still hurt.” Especially with back injuries. That’s why experience matters so much—it teaches you to know the difference.

Finding the Middle Ground

My approach lives in the middle. It’s not Jeff Nippard, and it’s not Ronnie Coleman (though we can learn from both). Ronnie trained like a maniac, and while it led to undeniable freak status, it also contributed to the rough shape he’s in today. That doesn’t mean we ignore it—it means we study it.

My systems—like 10/20/Life—are built on this hybrid mindset. Use science to inform, but not dictate. Build your training around:

• Deloads
• Phases and periodization
• Specialized assistance work
• Core training
• Bar and movement variation
• Individualized technique
• Spinal adaptation over time

Because your body isn’t a robot, and your mind isn’t always on point. Training needs to be sustainable, adaptive, and smart. A spreadsheet doesn’t understand back pain or burnout. But a lifter who’s lived it? They do.

The Platform vs. The Lab

Here’s the real contrast: the platform versus the lab.

Science-based guys lean on journals. I lean on decades of athletes who’ve lived under the bar longer than some of these “experts” have been alive. That’s not a knock—it’s just reality.

I’ll keep studying the greats. I’ll keep coaching based on systems that’ve been tested in the real world. And I’ll keep bridging the gap between what we know from science and what we feel from the platform.

Because in this game, it’s not either-or. It’s both.

BRIAN DOES ONLINE AND IN-PERSON COACHING!

Back Injured Average Mary or Joe who wants their life back

Back Injured Athlete Wanting to Return to Sport

Lift and exercise coaching & cueing to troubleshoot form

Program adherence & accountability coaching