I don't dislike research per say, I actually think it is very helpful in planning and implementing training programs. It only really turns bad with paralysis by analysis which so many people seem to be suffering from. Hell I'm recovering from it.
I made the absolute worst and least gains of my training life last winter when I was more concerned with what the research said about adding size and strength than the effort that I was putting into my training.
I was .....
-Training with just full body routines all the time
-Going with low reps of 3-5 with multiple sets
-Bringing my volume down every 3rd week
The end result was only a few pounds and not any noticeable muscle improvements. But the research told me that this was the best way to train to add size since I hit my fast twitch fibers better this way. Well what about the people in the early 90's before the internet was so popular that just trained hard? What about the people that just didn't care what research said and went in the gym and just got after it?
I mean I was talking X vitamin at X time every day, it got alittle nuts. Now to take a step back, it is fair to say that I do read research daily and it really helps. It has advanced my knowledge on every aspect of fitness and health and has helped me to achieve success that I wouldn't of attained without the research knowledge.
How much is really needed though? I was asked a question like the following on the Fitcast but we didn't have time to answer.
"What do you do when the research goes against what you're finding in the gym?"
You go with what is working in the gym. How many bodybuilders got big without a post workout shake? A lot, they just went and ate until they were full and didn't worry about the right combination of protein to carbs. I'm a research nut and my articles show this but I think that's where we need to separate research.
Research in articles proves a point but research backs up results in the gym.