“Scientifically proven” does not mean something WILL happen. It usually means that the opposite sometimes happens; or that often nothing happens. It virtually never, ever means you can absolutely guarantee something will occur for you.
“Scientifically proven” means that a really nerdy person did some freakish, unintelligible number-crunching on some contradictory numbers, and the end result leaned toward a particular conclusion. If you or I looked at the data we’d just see that a bunch of people got one result, some got the opposite result, and others got another or no result. In most cases it takes a statistics ubernerd to come to a conclusion. This sort of impractical, irrelevant navel gazing is what academia loves.
For example, intra-workout carbs have never been shown to be 100% positive to the training outcomes of 100% of people. In the studies, some subjects benefitted, some got no benefit and some got a worse result (compared to control). That is, some people did better WITHOUT the intraworkout carbs. And that is what happened in the studies that “scientifically proved” the benefits. Other studies were less kind. But selling intraworkout carb supplements, or the latest fad dietary protocol, ignores those inconveniently negative studies. They are only mentioned by the next supplement or fad that wants to explain why the last fad failed.
So before you blindly apply a “scientifically proven” concept, you really need to know whether you are one of the people who gets a positive result, or a negative result, or no result. Its simple to do; you just have to measure that thing in YOU!
But what if you can’t measure it? What if you read from the latest FB guru or bodybuilding magazine that some new nutrient changes your hormone levels and that hormone causes some other biochemical process that causes another that will evenutally make you grow muscle? And what if your guru recommends a course of action based on the conclusions of multiple studies that they linked together to form a new conclusion? And what if you cannot measure any of it; the case in the majority of advice I see being promoted these days. The answer is not complicated. It’s bullshit!
If you have to TRUST or BELIEVE IN a person who claims their recommendations are ‘science’, then you aren’t practicing science; you are practicing a religion.
If a person recommends acting to affect something you can’t measure (like a hormone, gene or enzyme) then it’s not science; its ignorant guesswork, religion or bullshit.
In virtually all studies, some control subjects do better than some intervention subjects. So never apply “science” that you cannot measure in yourself or Murphies Law predicts that you WILL be one of the outliers who doesnt get the expected result. That’s some BS science you can rely on!