Should You Trust Research?
Maybe - think before you follow the science.
Good morning, health heroes. Today we’re talking about research — a very popular term when discussing health and health outcomes.
There was a moment in my academic career while pursuing my master’s degree when I faced a choice: to take the easier path—writing about others' research—or to choose the more challenging option and conduct my own research. I chose the more difficult route to understand firsthand how science develops, and now I’m so glad I did because it gave me a different perspective on science.
That decision led me to an unusual scene: training rats on treadmills.
Imagine prodding rats with a stick to get them to run on a treadmill every day. Young, middle-aged, and old rats ran for the sake of science while I examined the effects of exercise on aging muscles. I wish I had taken pictures. If only we had cell phones back then!
What were the results of my research? There were no surprises—exercise improved muscle health in all age groups, even the elderly. My focus was on skeletal muscle myoglobin, the molecule that shuttles oxygen within muscle, much like hemoglobin does in blood.
Myoglobin increased in muscle with exercise, too, regardless of age. My research confirmed what we suspected: exercise increases skeletal muscle myoglobin, muscle fiber composition, and overall muscle health in aging rats. These are solid, evidence-based conclusions. But were they translatable to humans? Maybe, maybe not. (I highly suspect so, so behold, a new hypothesis is born.)
As I continued my research journey, pursuing my doctoral degree, and later studied psychological marketing in wellness program engagement (yes, I changed from studying physiology to psychology), I recognized the value of research. I suspected psychological marketing would increase engagement, but now I have proved it. See? Science says so! Go, me!
But hold on. With both research studies, did I prove anything?
What did this research signify? Would my findings be applicable in all scenarios? The answer is no. They will likely apply to some, but not all —it depends.
I realized something fundamental: science is a tool, not an infallible truth. I started to grapple with science, and still do to this day. Maybe after reading this, you’ll also grapple with science a little more.
Let’s get into it.
The Science We Follow—And Its Limits
We live in a world where “science-backed” is the gold standard. We follow medical guidelines, exercise protocols, nutrition advice, drug recommendations, and supplement suggestions as if they are laws of nature. To be fair, they are often the best available knowledge. But does that mean they are right?
Here’s the uncomfortable truth: science is not exact.
It never has been. It never will be.
Science is a method of inquiry, not a fixed endpoint of truth. However, many people—especially those who don’t directly engage with research—assume the case is closed once a study is published. That’s not how it works. Science is an ongoing conversation, not a final verdict.
Why Science is Flawed (And That’s Okay)
Here are a few examples of scientific flaws or omissions we often don’t recognize. Of course, there are more, but you get the gist.
🔬Many studies are not replicable.
Even if researchers follow the same methods, use identical variables, and control for every known factor, they don’t always get the same results. Why? Humans are different. Genetics, environment, timing, lab conditions, and even variables like altitude and barometric pressure can potentially affect outcomes.🧑🏻🤝🧑🏼 Study populations often don’t represent everyone.
For example, a study might be conducted on 70% men but generalized to all humans. Women and men respond differently to treatments, medications, and exercise, yet many guidelines are based on male-dominant research. Or perhaps research was done on genetically different individuals from us. Will the findings apply? Maybe, maybe not. But what was learned is that the results could apply, and as Jordon Peterson says, “That’s not nothing.”
❌ Systematic reviews omit critical data.
Systematic reviews—the so-called “gold standard” of evidence—gather data from multiple studies but exclude those that don’t meet specific criteria. What if something valuable is left out? If a review finds no evidence that exercise improves quality of life during cancer treatment, does that mean it doesn’t? No — it may simply mean no one has studied it. (This is a real example, by the way.)🥚 Science evolves, but people cling to outdated conclusions.
Eggs were bad, then they were good. Fat was bad, then it wasn’t. New evidence constantly reshapes old conclusions. What we believe today as “scientific fact” may be tomorrow’s outdated theory. Some grab onto the latest new conclusion, and some stick with the old, outdated ones. Which one is right, and which one is wrong?
Beyond Evidence-Based Practice: Practice-Based Evidence
I love a new term I learned at the IDEA & ACSM Health & Fitness Summit this past weekend in Denver, Colorado: practice-based evidence.
I have a doctoral degree in implementing evidence-based practice (you may see this term as EBP). But practice-based evidence is the art we must consider with the science. This term acknowledges that science provides a foundation, but real-world experience refines it. I think it’s essential to have both.
Let me give you a real-world example.
Years ago, I taught Strong Women, Strong Bones, an osteoporosis prevention class, at the local hospital. The program was based on a research-backed strength training protocol from Tufts University, which is why the hospital chose it. The exercises were studied and proven effective, so little to no deviation was allowed.
But my students were quickly bored with the same repetitive routine, and many quit.
I adapted by introducing Women on the Ball at the hospital’s fitness center. This program enhanced balance, variety, and engagement while preserving the core principle of strength training for bone health.
The outcome? No one dropped out, and attendance grew. Science served as the starting point, but real-world experience enriched it. 💪🏽
Where Do You Stand?
I’m encouraging you to find your stand on science. For me…
I trust science. But I question it.
I use science. But I adjust when needed.
I live in the skeptical middle—where curiosity meets evidence and dogmatic thinking is left at the door.
I encourage you to consider your place on this spectrum. Are you a blind follower of science, a total skeptic, or somewhere in between? Whatever you decide, you can begin to shape your expectations accordingly.
Whatever your stance, here’s my challenge to you:
✔ Don’t trust a single study—use it as a learning tool, not a final answer.
✔ Stay open-minded—science evolves, and so should you.
✔ Experiment—real-world practice refines research.
✔ Think before you follow the science—because science is constantly evolving.
The truth isn’t always found in the study. It resides in the questioning, adapting, and exploring that follows.
That’s all for this Tuesday morning, health heroes. I’ll see you tomorrow with a special later this week with another special edition - the next in the Core 4 line up!
In good health,
Dr. Alice
A little more about Dr. Alice Burron and Strategic Action Health:
Check out our website!
Catch us on Instagram: @the.health.navigator and @dr_burron
You can also connect on LinkedIn, if you want to be professional about it. 👓
And if you’re not subscribed to Health Shift here on Substack — it’s time! This free newsletter is packed with valuable information and approaches to help you on your journey to better, faster healing.
Health Shift: Your Strategic Guide to Making Strategic Health Decisions book is coming May 13, 2025! Mark your calendars!