Always Stay Critical – Review 4

Always Stay Critical with Daniel Kadlec

Review 4 – What Can We Learn From the Brain?

Today we gonna look at this meta-analysis determining the reliability of functional MRI scans, or in other words, our accuracy in seeing what’s going on in your brain while you do different activities. I know, a bit off-topic, but bear with me. Usually, it’s claimed that fMRI results or scanning the brain can be used to infer an individual’s pattern of thoughts, feelings, and basic motor behaviour. It’s used in medicine as a proxy for risk stratification, diagnosis, prognosis, and evaluation of treatment response for different pathologies…and for whatever reason, brain-based or neuro training is slowly making its way into S&C and sports science as another tool or method to improve those “magic 1%ers”.


However, before we can confidently implement any of such methods, we should at least have some empiric data indicating it’s worth a shot. And that requires that our testing methods are reliable, so we know the change we see is not just an artefact. Basically, a test is reliable when we test an individual and get whatever metrics and do the same test again. Without intervening, we should get exactly the same result, right? Because nothing changed in between. That’s how we determine the reliability of testing methods in science.

What’s going on in the brain?

The reliability of fMRI’s is 0.397. Hence we just can’t be confident that such data is anywhere near the truth. We have no idea what’s going on in the brain. Safe to say, we won’t know in this lifespan how the brain works, let alone how to use it for performance gains. This leaves us no choice, to not only ruthlessly ignore any claims and assumptions about how we can train the brain and all attached organs for performance gains, but we need to call out such BS—every single time. There is zero ground to justify its efficacy.

I’ll finish this rant with one of my favourite quotes by Rob Pirsig. “For every fact, there is an infinity of hypotheses.”. So just because you got better at whatever motor skill, we just can’t be confident in the underlying deterministic causes, especially in such a complex and still unknown entity as the brain.


Welcome to Complementary Training Community! Forums Always Stay Critical – Review 4

This topic contains 2 replies, has 3 voices, and was last updated by  Daniel Kadlec 1 month, 2 weeks ago.

Viewing 2 posts - 1 through 2 (of 2 total)
  • 02/09/2021 at 17:20 #33568

    This time you went emotional, Daniel :-D! I really enjoyed that one and I am on your side with the conclusion. On the other hand, I think it is quite a leap from saying the ICC low to calling every application of neuroscience BS.
    It is a bit like saying measuring CSA is unreliable so hypertrophy is BS. (I am exaggerating, but you get the point)
    Keep it up 🙂

    11/09/2021 at 13:23 #33646

    Hi Peter, thanks for your comment. The obligation to provide valid evidence is on the side of proponents of neuroscience. Yet, the lack of even ‘good enough’ reliability permits us from having data on any intervention experiments nor cross-sectional and observational data. Hence, all conclusions or rather convictions are IMO not yet good enough to be incorporated in training programs. Happy to be proven wrong tho 🙂 Have a great weekend. Thanks

Viewing 2 posts - 1 through 2 (of 2 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.

Don't Miss Out on Fantastic Job Opportunities!

Be the first to find out about the newest & hottest sports jobs on the market.

Privacy Policy. Your information will never be shared.