Articles

Introduction

Before you reach the article overview at the end of this page, I would like to briefly explain how to distinguish between correct, serious information with qualitative and truthful content, and false information, either due to incorrectly interpreted data or intentionally misrepresented.

The Source References

The seriousness of information depends heavily on its origin. Whether in the areas of fitness, nutrition or other scientific topics, false claims and conspiracy theories are not uncommon. Especially false information in the form of pictures or videos, which can easily be shared via smartphones, spreads quickly. For this reason, I always link the source in my articles. All statements are based on credible and peer-reviewed literature. Any reader can check the source and make up their own mind.

Even though it often seems like practically every second person believes in misinformation, fortunately, this is not the reality. Sometimes only a small minority of individuals express their views strongly, giving the impression that they are more numerous than they actually are. When I encounter someone who holds obviously wrong or disproven beliefs, I make an effort to have a factual discussion and present them with evidence and reasoning. However, when it becomes clear that a rational discussion is not possible because the person insists on their false beliefs, I quickly change the subject or withdraw from the conversation. "You can't fix stupid" has been confirmed to me often enough. It is not productive to waste time and energy arguing with someone who is not willing to reconsider their views, even when clear evidence is presented. 

It's hard to win an argument with a smart person, but it's damn near impossible to win an argument with a stupid person.
- Bill Murray

Of course, everyone makes mistakes and can lose their way in a situation. No one is immune to errors. Additionally, science is a dynamic field that continually evolves and brings forth new insights. Therefore, it is important to be open to new information and to constantly update one's own knowledge. Only in this way can we ensure that we make the best possible decisions based on the most current state of research. If I do make mistakes or new scientific findings contradict my previous statements, I am always committed to correcting and updating my content accordingly. So if you notice something or have comments, do not hesitate to write to me. Constructive criticism is always welcome and helps me improve the quality of my content.

Correlation ≠ Causation

Most people tend to make hasty judgments, especially when something seems plausible to them, such as the simultaneous occurrence of two events. However, correlation is not the same as causality. Causality means that one thing directly causes another. Correlation, on the other hand, merely means that two things happen at the same time, without necessarily causing each other.

For example, if someone starts a diet and at the same time begins taking fat burners, which are proven to have no real benefit, and then loses weight, one might mistakenly think that the fat burners are effective. In reality, however, it is the reduction in calories that leads to weight loss. The intake of fat burners coincides with the weight loss but does not directly cause it. 

And this is how misinformation continues to spread. One person tells another about their supposed successes, without realizing that the actual cause of the weight loss lay elsewhere. In this way, products or methods often become popular, whose effectiveness is not scientifically proven.

This is also often the case with more complex topics. Many factors can occur simultaneously without one directly causing the other. We must not judge too quickly, to avoid falling into the trap of premature conclusions and to identify the actual causes behind the observed patterns.

The Stages of Competency Development

Based on the Dunning-Kruger Effect, which highlights how challenging it can be to accurately assess one's own abilities, I'd like to outline the journey from beginner to expert in five crucial phases:

• Beginner: During the initial phase, people often believe they already know everything about a subject. Confidence is disproportionately high at this stage. In this initial phase, the ability for a realistic self-assessment is often missing.

• Intermediate: As experience and knowledge grow, it becomes clear that the subject matter is far more complex than initially thought. Confidence begins to wane during this phase.

• Self-Doubting: This is the critical moment when one becomes aware of their own limitations. Even though abilities are increasing, confidence is often at its lowest point.

• Proficient: With further experience and practice, things start to make sense. Confidence begins to rise again.

• Expert: In this final phase, there is a deep understanding of the subject's complexity. Confidence is high once more, but much more realistic and well-founded than at the beginning.

Find Studies Yourself

PubMed is a useful resource for searching medical studies. This wide-ranging database offers a variety of scientific papers from different areas of medicine, such as journals, books, dissertations, as well as reports from conferences and other relevant publications.

Other search engines for medical literature include Google Scholar, Scopus, Cochrane Library, Embase, and Web of Science.

Many studies are only accessible behind a paywall or subscription fee, which can limit access to information.

I consider that knowledge should be freely accessible to all because it is a fundamental resource for human development and progress. The free availability of information is important to strengthen education, promote innovation and drive scientific developments. When knowledge is available only to those who can financially afford to access it, many people are excluded. This reduces our collective potential for creative solutions and innovation.

Although there are some illegal methods to access scientific studies, it is better to use legal methods to access knowledge. One way is to directly contact researchers or authors of studies to gain access to their work. Most researchers and authors of studies are willing and open to share their knowledge and insights, and support the open exchange of information. By contacting them directly, one can often not only gain access to their work but also learn from them and gain valuable insights.

The Hierarchy of Scientific Evidence

The quality of scientific evidence can vary significantly, and not all studies are equally informative. It's essential to consider the entire "Body of Evidence," taking into account the totality of available scientific data and studies on a particular subject. When reading scientific publications and then seeing how newspapers interpret those studies, it's no wonder different opinions arise. This often creates the impression that science is continually contradicting itself, which is not the case. Such an impression arises when individuals or media fail to consider single studies within the context of the overall existing evidence.

Scientific studies can be complex. Aside from difficulties in interpretation, many study designs can also be questionable. For instance, many rat studies are not directly transferable to humans, and often the substances used are not meaningful enough to draw causal conclusions. Moreover, many study findings cannot simply be generalized to the entire global population.

It is normal for study outcomes to exhibit minor fluctuations, which are statistically to be expected. However, these fluctuations or inconsistent results become irrelevant when a body of evidence clearly points in a specific direction.

By considering the entire body of evidence, we can develop a well-founded understanding and distance ourselves from individual studies or sensational headlines that might give the impression that science is unclear or contradictory.

My Hierarchy of Scientific Evidence provides a helpful framework for better understanding and categorizing the various levels of evidence:

1. Meta-Analysis: A meta-analysis consolidates the results of multiple studies on a specific topic, providing a highly reliable evidence base.

2. Systematic Reviews: These scientific reviews analyze all available research on a particular subject but are less quantitative than a meta-analysis.

3. Randomized Control Trials: In RCTs, participants are randomly assigned to different groups to test the effectiveness of a treatment. They are the gold standard for clinical research.

4. Non-Randomized Control Trials: These are controlled studies without the random element, which can lead to potential biases.

5. Cohort Studies: Cohort studies observe a group of individuals over an extended period of time. They are particularly useful for researching risk factors and disease progression.

6. Case-Control Studies: These studies compare individuals with a particular condition or characteristic to those who do not have it, in order to identify potential causes or risk factors.

7. Cross-Sectional Studies: Cross-sectional studies measure variables at a specific point in time within a population but do not allow for conclusions about causality.

8. Animal Trials, In-Vitro Studies: Animal and laboratory studies can provide valuable insights but are not directly transferable to humans.

9. Background Information, Case Reports, Expert Opinions: These forms of evidence are the least reliable and mainly serve as supplementary information or for hypothesis generation.

The Problem with Opinions and Personal Experiences

Trust scientific studies more than individual experts. While specialists are generally reliable sources in their field, exceptions prove the rule. Among thousands of experts who agree, there is always one or another who holds a divergent opinion. These deviations often stem from outdated information or misinterpretations.

Moreover, not all expertise is created equal. A molecular biologist has more knowledge in genetics and biochemistry than a general practitioner. A neurologist is more proficient in the nervous system and neurological diseases than a surgeon. Even though both are medical doctors, they have different focuses and areas of expertise.

This issue is not limited to the medical field but extends to the fitness scene as well. A specialized nutritionist is likely to have a deeper understanding in some areas than a general practitioner.

However, another complicating factor arises in the fitness industry. Almost everyone claims to be an expert, and even trainer certifications are no guarantee of competence. Educational programs vary greatly in quality and content, and some even rely on outdated information. Many fitness beginners also often seek advice from the most muscular person in the gym because if it worked for him, it must be correct. Far from it. One should never consider a person's physical appearance as an indicator of their professional competence. Often, these self-proclaimed experts advocate a "one-size-fits-all" solution without considering scientific foundations or individual preferences of their clients. Just because it worked for them doesn't mean it will work for everyone.

I hope my articles will provide you with a solid foundation of knowledge. And if you're in need of a fitness trainer, they should help you identify who is competent and who is not.

Nutrition

Strength Training

Sleep & Regeneration

The Immune System

Discover More