descriptive
Analysis v1
66
Pro
0
Against

The researchers decided ahead of time what size of muscle gain would actually matter — and found the difference between methods was too small to count.

Scientific Claim

The study’s use of a preregistered smallest effect size of interest (0.14 cm) enhances the rigor of its interpretation by distinguishing statistical significance from practical relevance.

Original Statement

The contrast between conditions was considered practically equivalent as it did not exceed the preregistered smallest effect size of interest (0.14 cm).

Evidence Quality Assessment

Claim Status

appropriately stated

Study Design Support

Design supports claim

Appropriate Language Strength

definitive

Can make definitive causal claims

Assessment Explanation

This is a factual description of the study’s methodological choice. No inference is made — it is a direct report of design rigor.

Evidence from Studies

Supporting (1)

66

The researchers decided ahead of time that a muscle growth difference smaller than 0.14 cm didn’t matter in real life, and they used that rule to decide what was truly important — not just what looked significant on paper.

Contradicting (0)

0
No contradicting evidence found