Let’s take this example:
Dry needling is not better than fake dry needling.
It is useless. BUT, it might be better than nothing.
In the Sports Medicine & Performance Field there is a strong polarisation between the Evidence-Based Group (1) and the Non Evidence-Based Group (2). There’s a spectrum:
1️⃣ uses science-based info, mostly rejects subjectivity and empiricism
2️⃣ relies solely on empiricism or cherry-picked / sponsored studies and emphasizes practices that seem neither effective nor efficient
The real world is nuanced.
(I know, there is also the nuanced gang, we love belonging to groups. I tend to be on this one.)
🤸🏽 Athlete John is doing everything right: sleep, nutrition, sports and non-sports training, stress management, etc.
If removing their 10-year habit of dry needling could be psychologically detrimental, let them have it (if without concerns)!
🏅 Science application must consider context.
Something might be better than nothing.
It’s perverse to know that some disproven ideas and procedures keep being used and seen as sexy methods.
The job is to be honest, educate, stay up-to-date with the best science, consider context and empathize.
In the right context, something might be better than nothing.
🍞We are usually ok with the nutritionist having negotiated with their client to let them eat their breakfast butter toast with milk in the morning.
But other (knowingly) less efficient methods are crucifiable.
🔑 It’s a matter of choosing our something in the right context.
PS: I am also not a great advocate of bosus, sexy named diets and shockwaves