How to Spot Pseudoscience Before It Ruins Your Training

CHOOSE YOUR FORMAT

►WATCH THE VIDEO

---

►LISTEN TO THE PODCAST

---

►READ THE ARTICLE

How to Spot Pseudoscience Before It Ruins Your Training

Pseudoscience is more insidious than “stuff that’s wrong”. It’s a claim dressed up to look scientific, using the language and confidence of research, without the mechanism or the testing to back it up. It’s misleading and often used to sell products and services you don’t need, that won’t work or could do more harm than good. As the CTS Coaching Director, part of my job is making sure the science we teach our coaches holds up under scrutiny. As an athlete, it’s important for you to know how to spot pseudoscience, too. Here’s how to do it.

What “Evidence Based Training” Means

“Evidence-based training” is a phrase that gets thrown around a lot, too. Essentially, it means the training principles and methods we use can be traced back to verifiable sports science evidence.

Evidence-based training is always changing and evolving as science moves forward. Ideas start with a physiological mechanism that makes sense given what we already understand about how the body adapts. The idea gets tested, ideally by more than one person, in more than one context. If the idea has merit, is safe, and yields reliable results, coaches may start incorporating it into athletes’ programs. And when new information contradicts that idea or yields better results, we adapt our methods. That last part is the one people struggle with most. A method built on evidence must be willing to change.

What “Evidence-Based” Is Not

Evidence-based training does not mean trust the newest study. A single study, on its own, proves very little. It also doesn’t mean dismissing an idea just because it hasn’t been proven in by a peer-reviewed paper yet. Some of the most important developments in training, nutrition, and sports science developed long before the research caught up.

Tradition is also not the same thing as evidence. An athlete or coach’s personal experience is a useful data point, but isn’t proof that an idea is scientifically sound, safe, or suitable for a larger, more diverse population of athletes.

Why We Fall For Pseudoscience

So why does pseudoscience still thrive in a sport full of educated, motivated people who should know better? Part of it is smart marketers who understand psychology and target athletes’ anxieties. Part is human nature, the temptation to take the easier route or obtain instant gratification.

Beyond marketing and human nature, three phenomena work against you:

• Illusory Truth Effect: Psychologists have identified that the more times you’re exposed to a claim, the truer it starts to feel, regardless of whether any new evidence exists. Repeated social media mentions start to look like consensus. It isn’t. It’s an algorithm repeating the same unverified claim back to you until it feels familiar, and familiar gets mistaken for true.
• “Blinded by science”: This is a tactic coined by researcher Dr. Nick Tiller, author of “The Health and Wellness Lie” and “The Skeptic’s Guide to Sports Science”. Wrap a product in enough technical language, and an athlete without a research background assumes it must be legitimate.
• Placebo Effect: The placebo effect is real, measurable, and common in sport. In one survey of coaches, more than 60 percent admitted to intentionally using placebo interventions with elite athletes. Sometimes a method appears to work because an athlete believes in it, not because of what the method actually does physiologically.
• Appeal to authority: An elite athlete doing something novel is not proof it’s right for you or even that it’s the thing that worked for them. Context matters. A genuinely evidence-based intervention can be highly effective for one athlete and still be a bad idea for another. Similarly, one athlete doing or using something new and winning is only evidence that the method or product should be subjected to research.

Noteworthy Pseudoscience Examples

Cupping was a big deal for a while, and it tends to emerge during Summer Olympic years when athletes compete with partially or entirely bare torsos. The theoretical explanation is that suction pulls blood to the surface of the skin, improves circulation, and helps release toxins. That phrase alone should raise a flag. But there is no mechanism or research that holds up to basic scrutiny. The bruises are real but the purported benefits are not. Nevertheless, Olympians with access to the best sports medicine in the world still fall for it.

Retired New England Patriots quarterback,Tom Brady, built part of his longevity story around something called muscle pliability. It’s a term that doesn’t exist in exercise science. It was created by a self-styled guru with no legitimate credentials in the field, someone who has actually been investigated more than once for making fraudulent health claims. It sounds sophisticated. It’s a phrase, not a mechanism, and it came bundled with restrictive diets and unproven immune-boosting supplements.

Aerobic Deficiency Syndrome is an example of pseudoscience impacting ultramarathon running. The idea is that doing high-intensity work damages your aerobic engine and creates a chronic condition that prevents progress. The purported solution is high volume, low intensity training and a severe reduction or elimination of high intensity efforts. It’s true that too much intensity with inadequate recovery can cause problems, but widely accepted sports science supports using a balance of low and high intensity training to fully develop your aerobic engine.

Notice the pattern across all three: A vague or invented mechanism. Confident, urgent language. And limited or nonexistent evidence to back up their claims.

Examples Where Innovation Preceded Proof

Not everything that predates the research is pseudoscience. Some of the most important developments ultrarunning came from coaches and athletes who discovered or pioneered innovations that were later proven effective by formal research.

• Intensity Distribution: For decades, elite coaches had athletes train easy most of the week, with a small amount of very hard work mixed in. It worked long before anyone could explain the exact mechanisms or optimized easy:hard ratio. More recently researchers like Stephen Seiler studied the long-term training distributions of elite athletes and presented scientific evidence to support training polarization.
• Carbon-plated running shoes: Athletes were breaking records with newly developed shoe technology long before independent, peer-reviewed research showed exactly how much the shoes helped or why. The mechanism seems obvious but only in hindsight: a stiff plate paired with a highly resilient foam that reduces the energy cost of running.
• High Carbohydrate Fueling: Athletes were consuming 100+ grams of carbohydrate per hour while the widely accepted research still said the human gut can only absorb 1-1.5 grams of carbohydrate per minute (60-90 grams/hour). Research caught up when we learned we absorb glucose and fructose through separate transport pathways, and again when the concept of gut training emerged. Research on an upper limit of carbohydrate absorption and utilization is still being conducted, and there are questions about who genuinely benefits from extremely high carbohydrate intakes during exercise.

Do You Need To “Do Your Own Research”?

No. First off, that’s impractical. Second, few people have the educational and research background to analyze peer-reviewed papers or verify the physiology behind a claim. What you can check is whether the mechanism has actually survived scrutiny from people whose job is to catch nonsense: peer reviewers, the broader research community, experts with no financial stake in the answer.

So, if you’re not going to do your own research, how do you evaluate claims that up in your feed?

Consider Source Reliability:

Assess the credentials, expertise, and reputation of the source. Look for academic qualifications, affiliations with reputable institutions, and a track record of publishing peer-reviewed research. For example, trusting a Registered Dietitian for nutritional advice rather than anecdotal experiences from someone who found something that worked for them. Additionally, there can often be a low barrier to entry in endurance coaching. In today’s digital age, obtaining an online certification and updating one’s Instagram bio allows almost anyone to position themselves as an advisor to athletes. However, when seeking professional guidance, it’s essential to inquire about their education and certifications to ensure complete confidence in their qualifications.

Look for Consensus Among Experts:

In the scientific community, differing opinions can arise due to beliefs or financial interests. When reading research, check for potential conflicting interests from authors, like someone with a major stake in a Keto company promoting the performance superpowers of a low-carb, high-fat approach to nutrition. More credibility lies in the collective scientific community agreeing upon training methods or practices rather than individual opinions.

Watch for Logical Fallacies:

Be cautious of false causality, appeals to authority, and cherry-picked data. False causality frequently arises in the nutrition supplement space when athletes begin a new supplement regimen and observe performance improvements. While they may solely credit the positive outcome to the new supplement, it’s essential to consider other contributing factors. Improved environmental conditions, enhanced fitness from training, reduced life stress, or better overall eating and sleeping habits might also be influencing the observed results. Evaluating these various elements is crucial for accurate conclusions about the supplement’s actual impact. Generally, we must beware of marketing claims offering a single solution for various problems, often disguised as a “cure-all” solution.

Examine Research and Evidence:

If you decide to dig into a study, differentiate between study types and designs. Look for studies with larger sample sizes, control groups, and statistical analysis, particularly those in human populations. Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses carry more weight than Observational Studies. Prioritize more rigorous methods to think critically about differing results in the same field.

Let’s run those four filters against something real. Say a training partner asks about a recovery subscription that costs a few hundred dollars a month and promises to optimize inflammation markers. Source: a wellness brand with a financial interest in the subscription, not a peer-reviewed lab. Consensus: no sports medicine body endorses it. Evidence: testimonials, not controlled research with a comparison group. Logical traps: it’s being sold as a fix for recovery, sleep, and mental clarity all at once. Anything marketed as a cure for several unrelated problems at the same time is suspicious. That’s four red flags in under a minute, and none of it required a physiology degree. It just required asking the right four questions in order.

Real-World Coaching Insight

Evidence-based training creates a strong foundation but shouldn’t be a straitjacket. Once you’re working from real evidence, there’s still room for personal feedback, structured experimentation, and adjustments based on how an individual responds. That’s how we learn new things that end up being researched later. Just be wary of making grand claims before you can back them up

Sometimes smart or lucky people get to the right answers before papers get published. Polarized training, carbon-plated shoes, and high-carbohydrate fueling got there that way. But along the way, those people had plausible mechanisms and could explain what was known and what was still being tested. And they were willing to change their ideas when better information emerged.

Sometimes CTS Coaches aren’t early adopters to the “next big thing”. We’ve been around a long time and seen promising techniques and technologies flame out. We’ve developed the judgement and patience to learn the difference between something that’s genuinely new and worth testing versus something that’s an old dead end in new packaging.