The Claim
In 45% of highly cited meta-analyses in strength and conditioning, effect sizes were miscalculated by using standard error instead of standard deviation, resulting in inflated effect sizes, and 59% of effect sizes greater than 3.0 in these meta-analyses were attributable to this calculation error.
What the research says
Supports is higher
Support is ahead, but a single strong opposing study can change this.
These are independent scores, not a percentage. Higher-grade studies count more, so a single strong opposing study can outweigh several weaker ones.
In nearly half of the most popular science reviews on strength and fitness, researchers made a math mistake—they used the wrong number to calculate how strong an exercise or supplement’s effect was. This made the effects look way bigger than they really were, and most of the super huge effects (over 3.0) were just due to this error.
See the scientific wording
In 45% of highly cited meta-analyses in strength and conditioning, effect sizes were miscalculated by using standard error instead of standard deviation, leading to inflated values, with 59% of effect sizes greater than 3.0 attributable to this error.
What the research says
1 studyThis study found that almost half of the top strength and conditioning research reviews made a math mistake—using the wrong number to calculate how strong an exercise effect was—making the results look way bigger than they really are. This matches what the claim says.
Score breakdown, mechanism chain, raw evidence, ideal studies needed & 1 supporting studies
Not medical advice. For informational purposes only. Always consult a qualified healthcare professional before making health decisions.