this kind of thinking is just another iteration of self-serving anti-intellectualism (akin to climate change denial and anti-vaxxing). there is absolutely hard exercise science you can read in order to exercise more effectively than "stretching" (an activity whose value has never been empirically proven) and "body-weight" exercises (slightly more effective than nothing but pales in comparison to real weight training and cardio). protein supplementing does work[1], creatine does work[2], caffeine+ephedrine does work[3] (though you can't buy that anymore). the hard science is in exactly the same place it always is: research journals. for starters I always recommended exrx.net.
[1] http://m.ajcn.nutrition.org/content/96/6/1454.short
[2] https://jissn.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1550-2783-4...
Re:Eating Clean is Useless
by brucephillips on Tuesday July 18, 2017 @02:38AM
(#14794659)
> implicitly discouraged by most workplaces
What do you mean?
Long "crunch" work hours with little or no enforced break, laissez-faire approaches to lunch and break room snacks, occasional encouragement to drink alcohol, lengthy car commutes to office parks, heavy preference towards in-person over remote. These are just some of the things workplaces do to lifestyle that are too small to be a topic for regulation but big enough to impact lives.
To wit, it's more important to develop your own feedback loops for each of these things. There are serious concerns with fitness and nutrition in the U.S. but they aren't necessarily because it's impossible to get at the good stuff: it's just that eating beans and rice and oatmeal, making a habit of stretching and bodyweight exercise, and studiously logging one's training are all unfashionable, implicitly discouraged by most workplaces, and not well served by market forces.