I'm going to say something that might surprise you to see coming from someone who is a medical doctor, a published author, and has spoken at national research conferences:
The vast majority of research is pure crap and not applicable to real life situations.
While research can be a great tool, it has so many shortcomings that it often fails to make any sort of impact on patient care and management. These studies are often ridden with multiple types of bias, perhaps mostly selection and confirmation biases. They choose patient populations that in no way, shape, or form mimic real life. They attempt to make broad generalizations over a widely diverse group of people. Most research studies can't distinguish between a statistically significant finding(meaning, on paper there is a difference) vs. a clinically significant finding(meaning, the difference is big enough that anyone should give a crap about it). While journals boast of peer review as a method of preventing false information from being spread, every year there are countless numbers of retractions and corrections made -- and those are just the authors who bother to recheck their work. Most of these studies have small, specific sample sizes in extremely controlled environments and haven't been reproduced by anyone or made subject to a meta-analysis with similar studies. And very few meet the challenge of providing a large multi-center randomized control study -- the so-called Cadillac of research study types.
Just because there is a research study that says x is better than y, that doesn't mean that x is better than y. And even if there's 20 studies saying that x is better than y, that doesn't mean that y isn't better than x in certain people in certain circumstances. When any sort of decision making becomes algorithmic, meaning you are choosing yes or no based on someone else's recommendations, the individuality of patient care is lost and people will do poorly.
Now take all this I wrote about medical research and consider that these exercise and kinesiology studies typically have 1/10th the subject pool size and face even less scrutiny when being published.
Brad schoenfield specifically researches advanced trainees only because of the difference in physiological response and john meadows and Shelby Starnes have been using these theories to successfully train a whole lot of pros as well as themselves.