Method

How we use evidence

Every claim on The Splits Lab traces back to a published source. Here is how we decide what to say.

The backbone: an established textbook

When the research disagrees, our default position on sports nutrition is Anita Bean's The Complete Guide to Sports Nutrition (2022 edition), a standard reference built on more than 1,100 sources. Where newer evidence differs, we say so. We go back to the primary studies wherever we can and cite those, by author and year, rather than the book.

We're not affiliated with, or endorsed by, the author or publisher.

How citations are checked

Every study a post cites is kept in a register with its full reference, where we checked it, and the specific findings we rely on. Before anything is published, an automatic check confirms that each number attributed to a study matches that register, that the reference details match the publisher's record, and that no wording is copied from the textbook or the papers in our library.

When the evidence moves on

Research keeps moving. Where a newer consensus statement or meta-analysis says something different, we show both and say which is newer. We don't quietly pick a side.

Who paid for it

Some studies are funded by the companies whose products they test. We say so when it matters, for example with the original carbon super-shoe research.

One real runner's data

Training numbers come from one amateur runner's own logs. They show what applying the research looks like in practice. They are not a prescription: your numbers will differ.

What we don't do

• No medical advice, weight-loss or body-shape content.
• No supplement health claims beyond what UK rules allow.
• No reposted content: every chart is made from data or redrawn from cited figures.

Made with AI tools

The posts and this site are produced with the help of AI tools. The data, the sources and the standard we hold them to are real, and every post is labelled.