How we work
Evidence, experience and careful language.
Our method keeps useful physiology connected to the limits of general advice.
Our editorial process
We define the practical question before selecting a dramatic answer.
We consider age, training history, climate, access, recovery and uncertainty.
Claims are checked against established physiology and credible public sources.
Pages carry dates and are reviewed when the evidence or context changes.
What we do not promise
We do not diagnose, prescribe medication, guarantee outcomes or present one training style as universally appropriate. Readers with symptoms, known conditions or concerns about exercise should consult an appropriately qualified professional. Where a topic touches on injury, chronic illness or medication, our articles are written to encourage that conversation rather than to replace it.
Confidence levels used in our articles
| Level | Meaning | Example phrase |
|---|---|---|
| Well established | Supported by a broad and long-standing body of physiology research | "Consistent aerobic training is associated with improved resting heart rate over time" |
| Reasonably supported | Supported by meaningful evidence, though with some variation between individuals | "Many readers notice easier pacing after several weeks of consistent easy training" |
| Emerging or mixed | Early, limited or inconsistent evidence that warrants caution | "Some research suggests a possible benefit, though findings are not yet consistent" |
| Practical observation | Based on editorial experience rather than formal research | "In practice, readers often find a shorter warm-up sufficient in warmer conditions" |
What a fact-check includes
- Tracing each specific claim back to a named mechanism, source or clearly labelled observation.
- Checking that language matches the actual strength of the evidence, avoiding absolute claims where none are warranted.
- Confirming that any numbers, ranges or comparisons are presented with appropriate context.
- Reviewing whether a caution or referral to a qualified professional is needed for the topic.
How reader feedback is handled
- A reader flags a concern through the contact page or the corrections page.
- An editor reviews the original source material alongside the published text.
- If warranted, the article is updated and the revision is noted with a date.
- The reader who raised the concern receives a short response describing the outcome.
A guiding principle
"We would rather qualify a sentence than overstate it, even when a simpler claim would read more confidently."
Read with a useful scepticism.
Start with the glossary when a term is unfamiliar, then follow the linked guides to see it in context.
Open the glossary