[research→reps]

Command Palette

Search for a command to run...

Pricing
[research→reps]

Evidence-based strength training guidance.

Research

  • Claims
  • Studies
  • Topics
  • Compare
  • Story Mode

About

  • About the Process
  • Methodology
  • Editorial Policy
  • Disclosures
  • Corrections & Updates
  • Authors

Connect

  • Newsletter
  • Request a Claim
  • Train with Apex

Affiliate Disclosure: Some links on this site are affiliate links. We may earn a commission if you make a purchase, at no additional cost to you. This does not influence our rankings or reviews. Read our full disclosure policy.

Apex Training: Apex Training is our product. It never affects evidence ratings or claim scoring. Learn how we manage this conflict.

© 2026 ResearchToReps. All rights reserved.

Methodology & Grading

How we evaluate evidence, calculate confidence scores, and keep content current.

Evidence Confidence Labels
How we assess and communicate the strength of evidence behind each claim
High Evidence

High Evidence (Score 80-100)

Supported by at least one meta-analysis or systematic review, or 2+ randomized controlled trials with consistent findings. Direct population match preferred.

Moderate Evidence

Moderate Evidence (Score 60-79)

Supported by randomized controlled trials or well-designed controlled studies. May have some limitations in population directness or consistency.

Low Evidence

Low Evidence (Score 40-59)

Limited to observational studies, cohort data, or extrapolated from related populations. Reasonable mechanistic basis but needs more direct research.

Evidence Sparse

Evidence Sparse (Score 0-39)

Fewer than 2 credible sources, or only mechanistic/expert consensus available. We publish these claims with explicit caveats about what research is needed.

Study Hierarchy
How we weight different study designs in our scoring algorithm (v1.0)
Meta-analysis / Systematic review
1.00
Randomized Controlled Trial (RCT)
0.85
Controlled trial (non-randomized)
0.70
Prospective cohort
0.55
Case-control / Cross-sectional
0.45
Mechanistic only
0.30
Expert consensus
0.25
Update Timestamps
Every claim tracks its review history

Last Reviewed

When a human last checked this claim against current evidence

Last Updated

When content or score last changed (may differ from review date)

Version Number

Incremented on material changes (v1.0 → v1.1 for minor, v2.0 for major)

Update Reason

Why the last change was made (new meta-analysis, correction, etc.)

Changelog Standard
Material changes are logged publicly

Every claim includes a changelog showing:

  • Date of the change
  • What changed (score, confidence label, content section)
  • Why (new study, correction, clarification)
  • Before/after values for score changes

View all recent changes across the site at /corrections

Quality Modifiers
Additional factors that adjust the base study weight
Population directness (women/men, trained/untrained, lifestage)0.6 - 1.0
Sample size adequacy0.8 - 1.0
Outcome relevance (strength, hypertrophy, injury, adherence)0.7 - 1.0
Study recency0.85 - 1.0
Cross-source consistency (applied at claim level)0.7 - 1.0
Editorial PolicyDisclosuresCorrections Log
ClaimsStudiesTopicsCompareExplore