> It is a giant pet peeve of mine when scientists run a diligent study and then the response is "No shit, that's common sense" with the audacity to call it "jun

> It is a giant pet peeve of mine when scientists run a diligent study and then the response is "No shit, that's common sense" with the audacity to call it "junk science." Putting actual data and numbers behind a "common sense" belief is what science is all about - it is not "junk science". Oh, come on. It's well-known that eccentric exercises fatigue the muscles more. Maybe I can retract "junk science" and say "junk headline / junk journalism" because the study compared concentric–eccentric coupled (CON-ECC), concentric-only (CON), and eccentric-only (ECC) resistance training of the elbow flexors for their effects on muscle strength and hypertrophy and the headline is proclaiming "Less gym time, more results." But we can criticize the participants in the study: 50 odd 20 year old novices?? Measuring their elbow flexion in three ways over 5 weeks. Are you actually extrapolating a lot of useful information from these results or are you outraged for the sake of it ? > I think there are other fair critiques about the applicability of this study (for example, another commenter mentioned that they were dealing solely with untrained individuals), but the fact that they used dumbbell curls isn't one of them. Not using compound exercises is an absolutely viable critique. Most exercises are compound exercises.