I have long maintained that systematic reviews and meta-analyses are a breeding ground for research misconduct. There is the guise of "objectivity" ("systematic" = good) and "scientific rigor" provided by PRISMA, the unwillingness of peer reviewers to check the original sources

“Science and the significant trend towards spin and fairytales,” an article by famous exercise physiologist and neurophysiologist Simon Gandevia for Retraction Watch retractionwatch.com/2024/07/29/sci…

A very interesting piece characterizing the criticism of the extraordinary claims surrounding HIIT as "incivility" and "bullying," linking it to issues of race, ethnicity, and gender roles, and calling for sanctions against those who "cannot be civil." doi.org/10.1139/apnm-2…

My goodness…

I need to write a brute-force algorithm that will calculate the pattern of data (N = 9) that can produce average adherence of 100% (24 of 24 sessions attended) but a standard deviation of 105%.

This is your common, everyday d = 2.79 (N = 30 per group), out there in the wild, enjoying a sunny day. If you need to ask whether it was in favor of the "HIIT group," then I don't think you've been paying attention.

Although I don't speak for the late Gunnar Borg or the BorgPerception company, I should note that the RPE scale should not be interpreted as a measure of enjoyment or as a measure of pain (although the CR10 scale, though not the 6-20 RPE scale, has been used for the measurement

Dear younger colleagues: please, don't ever accept to write articles for "special issues". There's nothing "special" about such issues. Nobody reads them and they do nothing good for your career. They are scams that deprive you of your time and your research money.

This time from New Zealand. rnz.co.nz/news/national/…

Different papers, same authors (in different order). The top table is supposed to refer to N=12 per group. The bottom paper is supposed to refer to N=20 per group. Compare height, weight, VO2... Meta-analyses are including these as separate papers.

“C’mon, push, push, push!” What could possibly go wrong?

I feel like, if you value your sanity, you should stop looking closely at the numbers published in the exercise and sport science literature. Just accept that it is what it is and just let go. Don't question, don't fret. So what if values change from Table 1 to Table 3 (same N)?