Quote:
Originally Posted by kidcolin
that is called confirmation bias
I feel like in lieu of actually reading the Nuckols article and the associated science (including explanation of the biomechanics) people are just guessing on what they "feel" and drawing stuff in paint.
The problem isn't that there couldn't possibly be any sort of extension from the lats (and providing evidence that there may be a small amount in the very bottom as some sort of potential vindication is rofl), but that they play any meaningful role is super silly. They are a stabilizer, which is great. Like your abs, or calves or whatever, but the idea that the contribute meaningfully to lifting the bar is absurd due to the overwhelming nature of the data. (Tricep/pec/delt all have compelling biomechanics/data.)
This is mostly a PLer thing. Look back to the commentary that Cha provides on a DL where he literally lauds a person for his eyeball positioning ignoring a slightly out of neutral neck position (which I think is perfectly fine and vastly overrated as an injury worry). Instead of focusing on whether the lift is "k", and then grinding out a bunch of "k" reps (IE stuff that isn't gonna hurt you and doesn't have any major form problems within the realm of reason) we start looking for other problems with technique until people literally rant about jaw/eyeball/tongue positioning. Montebro has been infected by this silliness.
It is really just the culmination of poor thinking, bro culture and confirmation bias. Nuckols is kinda a trollish asshat, but a very bright one that frequently produces some of the highest quality content on exercise science almost always with evidence rooted in science. The casual dismissal based on anecdotal evidence when faced with overwhelming scientific evidence is worrying, but not unexpected among the uneducated and close minded.
Then again this spills into "Why don't facts convince people" which is just lol in general since no one Bayesian updates.