Why Your Fitness Guru's Best Advice Might Be Wrong: The Hidden Battle Between Truths
It seems counter-intuitive that physical activity could be influenced by philosophy. The modern fitness industry, with its countless training methods, dietary plans, and 'bio-hacks', often presents itself as a domain of hard, objective facts: lift this weight, eat this meal, and you will achieve this result. Yet, despite this veneer of scientific certainty, individuals often find themselves adrift, grappling with conflicting advice from seemingly credible experts. One coach mandates that clients lift heavy weights to maximise strength, while another maintains that the body responds best to moderate weights and higher volume. One suggests a long-distance run for cardiovascular health, while the next promotes high-intensity interval training. Why does this divergence persist among professionals who all claim to be working toward the client's 'good'?
This disparity arises because the advice is not simply a disagreement over data, but a conflict between different, often unstated, philosophical conceptions of truth. My aim here is to unmask these underlying philosophical disagreements and trace their influence on professional decisions, ultimately clarifying why one professional's 'truth' about what is good for you may contradict another's. I think that the fitness industry's diverse and often contradictory professional advice is best understood as a consequence of tacitly adopting different philosophical models of truth, specifically, Correspondence, Coherence, and Pragmatic truth, each leading to a distinct, and sometimes narrow, definition of what constitutes 'truly’ good professional practice.
The Philosophical Foundations of 'Good' Advice
To address the conflicting advice, we must first define our terms. When a fitness professional says a specific course of action, like daily cardio, is 'good for you', they are making a claim about what is true regarding your health and the efficacy of that practice. But what is 'truth' in this context?
Current consensus in the industry generally operates under a default assumption of Correspondence Theory. This theory holds that a statement is true if and only if it corresponds to a fact or objective reality. For instance, the statement "Generating maximal muscle tension (force) is the primary driver of muscle strength and growth" is true because we have hard, measurable data (from studies on muscle activation, mechanical loading, etc.) that confirms this physical fact. This is the theory that fuels the industry's focus on peer-reviewed literature, quantifiable biometrics, and demonstrable physiological change.
However, the industry's complexity forces professionals to rely on two other, less obvious conceptions of truth, which are the primary drivers of conflicting advice:
Coherence Theory of Truth: A statement is true if it coheres, or fits logically, with other statements already accepted as true within a specific system. In fitness, this manifests as adhering to a particular paradigm or school of thought.
Pragmatic Theory of Truth: A statement is true if it is useful, practical, or achieves a desired result. This is the ultimate, results-oriented measure.
The Three Truths and Their Practical Implications
My main point is that the diversity of advice stems from professionals tacitly privileging one of these three theories to define what is ‘truly’ good.
The Correspondence-Driven Professional (The Scientist): They prioritise the most recent, most rigorous scientific evidence. For them, 'good' means objectively verifiable physiological optimisation.
Example: A professional who insists that their client must track and consume a precise amount of 2.2 grams of protein per kilogram of body mass because this is the specific dosage derived from the strongest available research on muscle protein synthesis. They view any deviation as sub-optimal, arguing based on the objective fact.
The Coherence-Driven Professional (The System Builder): They operate within a model, such as a specific bodybuilding methodology or a traditional Yoga lineage. For them, 'good' means systemic consistency and adherence to a proven model.
Example: A coach who operates strictly within a "Functional Training" system, where the fundamental belief is in multi-joint movement patterns. If this system's established rule is that 'true' strength comes only from unassisted, unstable compound movements, the advice, "You must never use resistance machines, as they are non-functional," coheres with the system.
The Pragmatic-Driven Professional (The Results Coach): They are focused almost purely on the client's lived experience and measurable, visible results. For them, 'good' means effective results.
Example: A coach working with a time-poor executive whose sole fitness goal is maintaining muscle mass while spending a maximum of 30 minutes in the gym, three days a week. When the trainer suggests a circuit of compound resistance machines with minimal rest, they are working from a pragmatic truth. This approach is considered ‘true’ because it is useful to the client and their non-negotiable, real-world limitations.
The conflicting advice is, therefore, a logical outcome of these professionals speaking different 'truth languages' about the same goal. The advocate for "use any machine that works the target muscle" is operating from a Correspondence model, while the advocate for "only use free weights" might be operating from a Coherence model that views barbells and dumbbells as an integrated, superior system for long-term strength development. Meanwhile, the coach who recommends a 20-minute bodyweight circuit might be prioritizing the Pragmatic model because it is the only program the time-constrained client will actually adhere to. Each claim is 'true' only within their adopted philosophical framework.
Addressing the Counter-Argument: Is it Not Simply a Matter of Data?
A counter-argument might be that this is an over-intellectualisation, and the real issue is simply that research is ongoing, and we have incomplete data. The advice will converge once the objective scientific data (Correspondence) is complete.
I agree that incomplete data is a contributing factor, but it is not the full explanation. If it were merely a data gap, we would expect professionals to exhibit intellectual humility and reserve judgment where evidence is sparse. Instead, we see staunch, often dogmatic, advocacy for interventions based on evidence that is, by the Correspondence standard, far from conclusive.
The counter-argument is flawed because it assumes a false premise: the assumption that all decisions are being, or even can be, made purely on complete, objective, corresponding evidence. Many critical decisions in real-world fitness practice, such as programming for an injured client or prescribing a diet for a complex metabolic condition, involve leaps of faith and interpretation where objective evidence is insufficient. In these gaps, professionals default to what coheres with their training or what has pragmatically worked before. The philosophical conception of truth dictates how they handle the absence of definitive data, not just the presence of it.
The strongest objection might be that the different truths are not distinct but hierarchical: that Pragmatic and Coherence theories are just temporary and should eventually be validated by the gold standard of Correspondence Theory.
This is a powerful, yet limiting, criticism. It assumes a final, knowable reality that science will eventually fully reveal. While the Correspondence Theory is the foundation of scientific rigour, its application in complex human systems, where variables are numerous and control is impossible, is inherently limited. Furthermore, the goal of fitness, the client's well-being, is both an objective and subjective concept that can never be entirely captured by a correspondence theory.
If a training method is demonstrably effective and safe for a client (Pragmatic Truth) but we do not yet have the laboratory data to explain why it works (Lack of Correspondence Truth), is the professional’s advice 'untrue'? To strictly deny it would be to dismiss effective, beneficial practice simply because the underlying mechanism is not yet fully understood. This would be the logical fallacy of Appeal to Purity, demanding a standard of evidence that is often impossible in the real world. A mature professional must be able to fluidly navigate all three theories of truth, using Correspondence to establish baselines, Coherence to build robust systems, and Pragmatism to ensure the ultimate goal, the client's demonstrable well-being, is achieved.
Practical Navigation: Cross-Examining Your Fitness Guru’s Truth
The most effective way to evaluate fitness advice is not by accepting one single theory, but by fluidly checking every claim against all three standards. Use these questions to cross-examine any piece of advice your fitness guru offers:
1. The Correspondence Check
To Identify the Theory:
What objective data supports this method as the best way to achieve my goal?
To Evaluate the Claim:
Correspondence Question: What is the exact science happening inside my body that makes this method work, and what specific numbers would confirm we are following that science correctly?
Coherence Question: Even if the science supports this precise claim, how does it fit into the rest of your established training philosophy, and does it avoid breaking any of the system's core rules?
Pragmatic Question: Is this scientifically "optimal" method realistic and sustainable for me right now, given my practical limits, or is there a simpler, less precise path that still works well?
2. The Coherence Check
To Identify the Theory:
Which core rule of your training system makes your recommended practice a part of the system?
To Evaluate the Claim:
Correspondence Question: If a scientific study showed an easier, safe way to achieve the same result, would we still follow the system's original rule, and why?
Coherence Question: If I skip this specific exercise, how does that weaken the entire structure of the programme you’ve designed for me, according to your system's rules?
Pragmatic Question: Does the success of this system require strict adherence to every single rule to the point that it becomes impractical for my daily life?
3. The Pragmatic Check
To Identify the Theory:
Ignoring all the theories, what is the simplest, safest, and most realistic plan for me to get a result, given my practical limits?
To Evaluate the Claim:
Correspondence Question: If I can only manage half of the training due to my schedule, what is the most useful, science-backed result we can still secure?
Coherence Question: Is this flexible, realistic plan still compatible enough with your core training philosophy to be effective, or does utility completely override system integrity?
Pragmatic Question: What is the quickest, noticeable win this programme can deliver to boost my confidence and keep me motivated, and what practical difference will I feel day-to-day?
Understanding that your fitness professional operates within one of these three models is not merely an academic exercise; it is the key to understanding, evaluating, and ultimately navigating the seemingly contradictory advice of the fitness world to find the path that is truly good for you.
