Balancing Evidence and Experience
How to Make Informed Decisions When Research Falls Short
It is generally a good thing for someone that works in any field to be evidence-based. Having a foundational understanding of the research on a given topic helps us make more informed decisions. But research has limitations. It takes time for us to form a complete picture and there will often be a lag between "conventional wisdom" and reaching that same conclusion in the aggregated research.
This is especially true for things that are qualitative and may be difficult to study. It's difficult, for instance, to study whether or not stretching or mobility reduces "movement stickiness" or aches, pains, and niggles, although there are countless anecdotal accounts of it doing just that. How would you even measure things like this? Most of the research on these topics measures easy to measure outcomes like injury rates, performance, etc. In research, we like quantifiable variables, but sometimes we just don't have appropriate metrics for the outcome we want to look at.
So What Should We Do If Research Isn't There Yet?
Most folks don't rely on research in general, so my thought process works for folks that either don't want to read studies or are trying to fill in gaps where research falls short.
The simple questions I ask when determining whether or not to do something are as follows:
Is what you're doing achieving the outcome you want?
Is what you're doing achieving the outcome you want as simply as possible if simplicity/adherence is a consideration?
Is what you're doing achieving the outcome you want as optimally as possible if you want the best possible results?
Is what you're doing achieving the outcome you want as cheaply as possible if cost is a consideration?
Is what you're doing achieving the outcome you want as quickly as possible if time is a consideration?
Is what you're doing achieving the outcome you want without making you psychologically dependent on the intervention?
That list of questions isn’t exhaustive but should give you a general idea of the type of questions you should be asking.
Many people stop at the point of “this works” and then try to sell it to anyone and everyone regardless of their unique situation. That’s where individual experience can get dicey. The questions above take into account what’s important to you as an individual and then allow you to decide if you need to approach something a different way.
This framework works for so many things: resistance training programs, dietary strategies, injury rehabilitation, performance improvement, general health and wellbeing, etc.
I will use stretching and mobility as an example again, because there is so much grey area regarding their effectiveness for improving different outcomes. If doing mobility exercises or stretching makes you feel better and you're okay with the investment, knock yourself out. If you find that you feel significantly better when you stretch but the research says it's not effective, what are you going to do? Stop?
I always try to view things through a scientific lens, which means I always want to know why something works or doesn't work and what specifically makes it effective or ineffective. But if you're someone that just wants to workout consistently and adding a little stretching or targeted mobility work allows you to do that and live with less pain or stiffness, who the hell am I or anyone else to tell you otherwise?
Defer to the body of evidence when appropriate, but don't completely discount your personal experience if you have nothing or incomplete information to fall back on.