Differences between Types of Evidence in Exercise Science
In exercise science, evidence guides practitioners in decision-making. Amonette (2016) categorizes evidence into non-peer-reviewed, peer-reviewed research, observational and experimental studies, and systematic reviews, each contributing differently to understanding exercise science with varying reliability and applicability: Differences between Types of Evidence in Exercise Science.
Non-Peer-Reviewed Information
Non-peer-reviewed information is typically the easiest to access. It includes sources like personal blogs, online articles, and fitness magazines. These sources can also help give immediate and specific advice when it is not possible to do systematic research. They could also describe personal observations or even interviews that will help understand the trends within the fitness industry.
While convenient, non-peer-reviewed information is considered unreliable because it often lacks rigorous scientific validation. The major concern is the reliability of these sources because the information may be skewed, and the claims made may not be supported by factual research (Amonette et al., 2016). Additionally, the given data may be derived from personal experience, which is not always constructive and can sometimes mislead.
Example of Use
Accurate information from sources that have not been peer-reviewed may be used to write an article in a fitness magazine on the fundamentals of exercising or managing diet. Nonetheless, it becomes important to seek further research on the information that one gets from such magazines before incorporating it into any exercise regimes.
Peer-Reviewed Scientific Research
Peer-reviewed scientific research is considered the gold standard in evidence-based practice. This type of research is subjected to a number of processes whereby the experts in the respective field assess its methodology, findings, and conclusion. This way of paper selection guarantees the reliability and lack of bias in the study as well as enhances the validity of the conclusions made. Peer-reviewed research is common in scientific journals and it presents evidence-based information which can be used for prescriptions of exercises.
Despite the peer-review process, flaws can still exist in published research. At times, the evaluators may overlook some mistakes, or the methodology of the study may not capture all essentials, hence restricting the generalization of the observations. In addition, peer-reviewed research may be done on very small populations or settings, which limits the generalization of results to other individuals and situations.
Example of Use
Assuming that high-intensity interval training implies an intervention or treatment, an example of peer-reviewed research entails a study that would examine the impact of this training on cardiovascular health for middle-aged adults. It offers concrete data that may be used as a reference point for exercise prescriptions for similar populations.
Observational Research
Observational research is a valuable method for exploring correlations between various factors, especially when experimental manipulation is not feasible or ethical. Quasi-experimental can be useful in studying extant behavior or some health-related occurrences to recognize certain patterns and trends. Specifically, observational research is effective in discovering risk factors and conditions that might result from certain behaviors or in defining the long-term effects of exercising on chronic disease prevention (Amonette et al., 2016).
The drawback of observational research can be attributed to the fact that it does not establish causality. This type of research can reveal connections between two or more factors but cannot ascertain the presence of causality between the variables. However, observational studies may be subject to confounding factors, which are variables that interfere with the results.
Example of Use
An example of observational research is a cohort study in which a large group of people’s physical activity is monitored over a number of years to determine the rate of heart disease in the group. It can only recommend that disease rates are inversely proportional to activity levels, and therefore exercise can help improve this by suggesting that those with higher activity levels tend to have lower disease rates.
Experimental Research
Experimental research, particularly randomized controlled trials (RCTs), is the gold standard for testing causal relationships. In an RCT, investigators alter one variable (the intervention) while managing other variables so that they can observe how the intervention influences other dependent variables. RCTs are highly controlled, which enables researchers to contain everybody’s experience with the intervention and make conclusions for cause-and-effect causalities (Strale, 2024). This is significant when conducting a trial of new exercise regimens or therapies.
Experimental research can be costly and time-consuming. Additionally, although experimental conditions are good for hypothesis differentiation, they may not put much into practice in dealing with real scenarios. For instance, an experiment that is conducted in a highly controlled laboratory may not be applicable in other settings given that several factors play out in daily life may influence the results obtained.
Example of Use
Experimental research that involves the general idea of a strength-training program for the centralization of muscle mass of elderly patients would be a good example of a randomized controlled trial. This would make it possible for researchers to be sure if the exercise regimen causes the increase in muscle mass, as may be presumed.
Systematic Reviews
Systematic reviews are comprehensive analyses that combine data from multiple studies on a particular topic. They ensure the creation of a comprehensive portfolio of synthesis of existing research works, which in turn facilitates a better generalized perspective on a given topic. Systematic reviews with multiple studies minimize the effects of bias compared to a single study as well as offer higher proof (Strale, 2024).
The quality of a systematic review depends on the quality of the studies it includes. If the identified studies are inaccurate in some way, then the conclusions of the systematic review will also be inaccurate. In addition, systematic reviews may not always include original data but rather review previous research, which might constrain its generalization.
Example of Use
A narrative synthesis of several randomized controlled trials that experiment with some of the aerobic exercise types and their impacts on mental health can provide a useful review of literature about the benefits of these exercises, which can be useful when it comes to recommending the exercises.
Conclusion
In exercise science, peer-reviewed research and experimental work give definite proof, while observation work offers information about trends. Systematic reviews summarize multiple studies. Material that is not actively reviewed by other academics should not be used as the primary material in a research project and should be accompanied by materials from more reputable sources.
References
Amonette, W. E., English, K. L., & Kraemer, W. J. (2016). Evidence-based practice in exercise science: The six-step approach. Human Kinetics Publishers.
Strale, F. (2024). Examining the efficacy of control groups in achieving statistical control: A critical look at randomized controlled trials. Cureus, 89(67). https://doi.org/10.7759/cureus.70562
ORDER A PLAGIARISM-FREE PAPER HERE
We’ll write everything from scratch
Question 
Week 2 writing assignment. Please use reference listed below
Prompt:
- In your own words, explain the differences between the different types of evidence. For each method, explain its strengths, weaknesses, and at least one situation in which that method would be used.
Further explanation:
- This week’s assignment is straightforward and asks you to explain the differences between the different types of evidence. Explain each method’s strengths, weaknesses, and at least one situation in which it would be used. The textbook should be your primary reference for each Written Assignment since the prompts are based on the content from the reading each week. Your response should be a minimum of 300 words and follow all course requirements.
Differences between Types of Evidence in Exercise Science
Reading Assignment:
Reference