If something is effective and has been for the past 50 years then it seems like it would be easy to run a scientific study that proves it. If the science disagrees, or at least doesn't conclusively prove that it works, then it seems to me that our common sense assumptions may be wrong.
Case in point would be running in modern running shoes. Almost every coach and doctor has claimed that modern running shoes are the way to go. Yet in the past 40 years since they have been used there hasn't been a study proving that you will run faster or get less injuries than if you just ran barefoot.
I wasn't trying to say science is useless when it comes to sports, just sports science tends to be very very bad scientifically as a whole.
Modern recreational running shoes are the PERFECT example of how wrong sports science can be. All the scientific evidence from the past few decades supported the use of heavily cushioned, motion controlling running shoes to prevent injuries. This is why doctors recommend it. It was coaches and athletes that stuck to what worked - flats (take a look at any track and field/racing shoe) and barefoot training. No track coach in her right mind that would have advocated for the use of a heavy cushioned running shoe for a competitive athlete.
Case in point would be running in modern running shoes. Almost every coach and doctor has claimed that modern running shoes are the way to go. Yet in the past 40 years since they have been used there hasn't been a study proving that you will run faster or get less injuries than if you just ran barefoot.