How we evaluate sources
Every claim in this blog traces to a source. Here's how we decide which sources are worth using.
The standard we hold ourselves to
Writing about exercise science for a general audience is harder than it looks. The research is genuinely complex, and popular fitness writing has a long history of oversimplifying or misrepresenting it. We try to do neither.
Our rule is simple: if we can't point to a published, peer-reviewed source for a factual claim, we don't make that claim. We distinguish clearly between what research has shown and what seems plausible but isn't established.
Peer-reviewed journals first
Our primary sources are peer-reviewed research published in recognized exercise science, physiology, and public health journals. These include publications like the Journal of Physiology, Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise, and the British Journal of Sports Medicine. We prioritize systematic reviews and meta-analyses when they exist, because they aggregate findings across multiple studies rather than relying on a single experiment.
Recency and replication
Science changes. A finding published in 2008 may have been refined, challenged, or overturned since. We check whether claims are supported by more recent literature and note when a topic is still actively debated among researchers. A result that has been replicated across multiple independent studies gets more weight than a single promising finding.
Population relevance
Much exercise research is conducted on young, trained athletes. We pay attention to whether a study's population is relevant to sedentary adults returning to movement. When a finding applies specifically to trained individuals, we say so rather than generalizing it to beginners. Research on previously sedentary adults, older adults, and low-to-moderate intensity activity gets particular attention here.
Acknowledging uncertainty
Not everything in exercise science is settled. When the evidence is mixed, limited, or still emerging, we say that explicitly rather than presenting one interpretation as fact. Phrases like "research suggests," "current evidence indicates," and "it's not yet clear" are used intentionally. They're not hedging. They're accuracy.
What we don't use
We don't treat fitness influencer content, brand-sponsored research, or popular press summaries as primary sources. We read them sometimes to understand what people are talking about, but they don't form the basis of factual claims here. We also don't cite research funded entirely by companies with a direct financial interest in the outcome without clearly noting that context.
Personal anecdote and reader experience are presented as exactly that. They illustrate, they humanize, they connect. They don't prove anything about physiology.
What this blog is not
Nothing here constitutes medical advice, a training prescription, or a diagnosis. The content is educational and informational. Exercise science describes what tends to happen in human bodies under certain conditions. Your body is specific to you, your history, and your health circumstances.
If something in an article makes you wonder whether it applies to your particular situation, that's a question for a healthcare provider who knows your history. We help you understand the landscape. We don't navigate it for you.
Found an error or a source worth adding?
We take accuracy seriously and we don't always get it right on the first draft. If you've read something here that conflicts with research you know, or if you want to flag a source we should look at, we genuinely want to hear it.
Get in touch