The Claim
In strength and conditioning meta-analyses, effect sizes greater than 3.0 are highly likely to be statistical errors, with 59% of such values attributable to the misuse of standard error instead of standard deviation.
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.
When scientists combine results from lots of fitness studies, sometimes they get really big numbers—bigger than 3.0—and this claim says almost 6 out of 10 of those huge numbers are probably mistakes because they used the wrong math formula.
See the scientific wording
Effect sizes greater than 3.0 in strength and conditioning meta-analyses are highly likely to be statistical errors, with 59% of such values attributable to the misuse of standard error instead of standard deviation.
What the research says
1 studyThis study found that many fitness research papers messed up their math by using the wrong number to calculate how strong an exercise is, making results look way bigger than they really are — like saying someone got 14 times stronger when they only got a little stronger. This matches the claim that big numbers like that are usually mistakes.
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.