Every week there’s a new exercise, method or “expert” claiming they’ve cracked the code.
The problem isn’t a lack of information. It’s so much conflicting information. That's why I'm sharing my simple way to quickly separate sense from the nonsense.
So, when I evaluate any fitness advice — whether it comes from a study, a coach or social media — I run it through three simple questions:
Does it make SCIENTIFIC sense?
Does it make LOGICAL sense?
Does it make PRACTICAL sense in the real world?
If it doesn’t pass all three, I don’t care how popular it is, how “good” it may sound or who said it — it’s probably nonsense.
I’ll break down exactly what I mean by each of these criteria and how you can easily use this filter to avoid getting misled.
What Those 3 Questions Really Mean
Each of these questions has two key parts, and together they form the standard fitness advice has to meet before I take it seriously.
Does it make SCIENTIFIC sense? Explanation:
Here’s what I mean - I’m really asking these two questions:
PART 1: Does it fit with basic biomechanics and physiology? This means look at how it does or doesn't align with what we already know about how the body produces force, the basic physics involved with the loading profiles, how training adaptations actually occur, etc.
PART 2: What does the relevant research say — when it exists? This means looking beyond cherry-picked studies or flashy headlines and considering the overall direction of the evidence in that area.
BOTTOM LINE: If it doesn’t line up with how the body works or the current relevant body or research, that’s a red flag.
Does it make LOGICAL sense? Explanation:
This is where a lot of advice completely collapses. Again, this comes down to two questions:
PART 1: Is the argument driven by bias rather than reasoning? This means evaluating if the person is relying on arbitrary rules, personal preferences, or rigid beliefs about what exercises are “good” or “bad,” or how the body should function — without a sound rationale.
PART 2: Is the claim built on logical fallacies? This means using confidence, credentials or anecdotes as proof, or framing arguments as false either/or choices instead of examining the full picture, etc.
BOTTOM LINE: Confidence, credentials, and achievements are not the same thing as sound logic.
Does it make PRACTICAL sense in the real world? Explanation:
This is where a lot of “science-based” advice falls apart. Again, this comes down to two questions:
PART 1: Is this realistic in real-world training environments? This means it can actually be implemented with busy schedules, busy gyms, mixed ability levels, limited equipment, etc. — not ideal scenarios.
PART 2: Will everyday clients or athletes actually buy into this? This means it’s simple enough to understand, meet a real free market demand, flexible enough to fit real lives, etc. — because adherence matters more than theoretical perfection.
BOTTOM LINE: If it only works in a lab setting or just looks good on Instagram, it’s probably not useful.
Why This Matters
The best fitness advice isn’t just science-based — it’s logically sound and practically usable. Fail one, and it’s noise, not guidance.
Nick Tumminello is known as the "Trainer of Trainers." He has been a trainer for over 20 years working NFL and MMA athletes, bodybuilders and fitness enthusiasts. Nick is the 2016 NSCA Personal Trainer of the Year, the editor-in-chief of the NSCA’s PTQ journal, and he has authored four books, including the best-selling Strength Training for Fat Loss.
