Citing something doth not make it science. In praise of the N=1 model of exercise science:
The term ‘Broscience’ initially came from ‘Pseudoscience + Biceps’, but for some god forsaken reason has morphed from ‘legitimate non-science’ into a meaningless word to criticize anything a muscular guy says that is not backed by a cited study on an online forum. The journal, year, authors, and contents of the study are irrelevant at this point in time; all that matters is that it is referenced in PubMed and that it can be used by an internet warrior to validate their beliefs when cherry-picked.
[N=1 experimentation] is what most coaches and athletes who get results are doing. They run a trial, find a result (good or bad) and design future trials to try and isolate the variable. A temporal relation always exists in these trials, there is usually some modicum of control placed on the subjects (don’t do cardio on this powerlifting regimen, I want to see if it works without cardio fucking up your gains), and people are ‘on to something’ when their results are compared and contrasted against other person’s results at athletic conferences.
Either Niven or Bester, I can’t recall which, had a story with a colony in the asteroid belt long reverted to mysticism. The equipment that kept them alive supported itself, while they developed a religion based around the magical powers of “scientific” talismans. The holy beaker! The lab robes of Science! And they had a blessing, used at all marriage and funeral ceremonies: