There’s a split in the coaching world: evidence‑based coaches who won’t let a client go ahead without a PubMed reference, and others who trust anecdotal experience and believe what worked for some will work for all. It’s a constant back‑and‑forth, full of strong opinions and even heated clashes, a bit like a Jedi vs. Sith showdown.
Who’s right? Who’s wrong? Who’s good? Who’s bad?
My view is to blend both sides. Each has its own strengths and weaknesses.
As the behavioral economist Richard Thaler puts it: “I try out lots of ideas, get quick feedback, and learn in the best possible way: theory‑driven intuition tested by trial and error.” That’s about as fair as it gets.
This topic came up in an email I got recently from a young fitness professional starting a strength and conditioning internship at a Division I program (name withheld). He told me he follows me, Cressey, Boyle, and Somerset because he wants to push the field forward. The coaches he works with warned him to read publications and not follow “random dudes.” He said he wanted to speak up but held back, and asked for my thoughts on college S&C and the mindset of the coaches he’s learning from.
My initial reaction is that it’s unfortunate but not surprising. Our collective body of work speaks for itself, but I’ll defend it briefly. Eric Cressey and I built a business that began in 2007 in a 2,200‑square‑foot space inside an indoor batting facility, training mostly local high‑school athletes. Today we operate in a 15,000‑square‑foot facility, training professional baseball players from every level and many other athletes worldwide. I’d like to think we’ve grown through a balanced approach that blends evidence‑based methods with practical experience—and yes, with plenty of old‑fashioned hard work, too.
Dean Somerset is one of the sharpest minds I know, able to distill studies into bite‑sized, usable ideas. He’s built a strong reputation for making research understandable and has built a successful fitness business serving thousands of clients.
In short: even though people like me, Eric, Dean, Boyle, and many others write for various sites and blogs, we’re coaching real people every day. That daily practice is its own form of research—finding out what works, what doesn’t, and how best to apply what we learn to our athletes.
OL’ BOYS CLUB
Giving credit where it’s due: I applaud the young coach for keeping his cool. The last thing he needs is to talk back to his superiors after only a short time in the field.
If you’re a guest in someone’s program, you respect their rules and their way of doing things.
I don’t know the exact Division I program he’s referring to, but some coaches in that world have limited freedom outside the program. As my colleague Jim Laird notes, jealousy can play a role: private‑sector coaches sharing ideas online gain recognition, which can feel like a threat to college coaches who are busy and constrained.
That said, I know many college staffs who are open to new ideas. Boston University’s Strength and Conditioning team, for example, is highly open‑minded and willing to try new things. They use research all the time, and I’ve seen the books and journals on their desks. They’ll even pull me aside to ask what blogs I’m reading lately. It’s refreshing not to feel like there’s a closed circle.
As strength coach Henry Lau says: “As S&C coaches, our job isn’t to read research for its own sake, but to assimilate methodologies that help athletes perform better. Some coaches mistake reading journals for applying them, and that’s intellectual dishonesty.”
AND WE’RE DOING A LOT OF ASSUMING
I’ll admit it: I don’t love reading research. That doesn’t mean I discount it, but I know it’s designed to raise more questions than it answers. And studies and books are often years behind the current thinking; by the time something is published, ideas have usually moved forward. Today, blogs and websites are a big part of staying up to date.
Reading research is also not as easy as it looks. It requires skill and practice—much like riding a bike, learning to code, or listening to someone share their day without reciting lines from a movie in your head.
Take, for example, a PubMed study with a long, technical title about a genetic mutation and hypertrophic cardiomyopathy. Translate that into everyday language and it sounds like a string of nonsense. I can read it and pick out a few ideas, but digesting it all is tough.
The practical takeaway is that research has limits. It’s done in controlled settings, often with untrained or fasted participants, or even animals. It doesn’t always translate to trained athletes in the real world.
People use research to answer questions and to back up their own beliefs. There was a time when some studies suggested smoking could be good, which shows how data can be misused.
TO SUMMARIZE
Both sides have value. Reading journals and analyzing methods helps expand knowledge and sharpen critical thinking. But understanding how findings apply in a real setting is essential, and practical coaching experience matters.
As strength coach Kevin Shattock notes, true understanding comes after you determine how and whether findings can be applied to a particular setting and environment. Following experts on social media can provide great ideas, but it misses the crucial part—the WHY behind what you do.
Research isn’t everything, but it’s a useful starting point for developing your own ideas, perspectives, and methods, just as observing skilled practitioners can.
In the end, becoming a great coach means you shouldn’t ignore either approach. To grow as a fitness professional—and perhaps to innovate—you should combine hands‑on practice with study.
