How to Separate Real Health Science from Online Noise: A Simple Guide to Checking Credible Sources

Timothy Spellman
5 days ago
9 min read

If you work out regularly and care about your health, you are probably flooded with messages like:

“This one supplement fixes your hormones.”
“Everyone should be doing this one exercise instead.”
“New study proves you only need 10 minutes a week to get fit.”

It is completely normal to feel confused or even a little whiplash from all of it.

This article is meant to slow things down, explain why health advice seems so inconsistent, and give you simple tools to tell solid, science based information from internet noise. You do not need a science degree, just a little structure and a healthy dose of skepticism.

1. Why Health Advice Online Feels So Confusing

Two big forces are colliding:

We live in an “infodemic.” The World Health Organization uses that word for situations where there is “too much information, including false or misleading information,” especially during health crises. This overload makes it hard for people to know what to trust and can lead to risky decisions and confusion.
Social media rewards attention, not accuracy. Research and expert reviews show that health misinformation can spread faster and farther than careful, accurate information, especially when it is emotional or sensational.

Add in the fact that most people scroll on autopilot, and you have the perfect setup for “I heard…” and “I saw a video that said…” becoming daily conversation starters.

So the goal is not to blame anyone for being confused. The goal is to give you a filter.

2. How Real Health Science Actually Works

Most reels and headlines skip how science really moves. In reality, it looks more like this:

Scientists start with a question. For example, “Does strength training reduce fall risk in older adults?” They design a study to test that question.
Different types of studies give different levels of confidence.
Very simply:
- Case reports and anecdotes Useful for generating ideas, but not strong evidence.
- Observational studies Researchers watch what people already do and measure outcomes. These can suggest links, but they cannot prove cause and effect.
- Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) Participants are randomly assigned to different groups, such as an exercise group and a control group. This is stronger evidence for cause and effect when done well.
- Systematic reviews and meta analyses Teams like Garber et al. and Kemmler et al. pull together many studies, judge their quality, and combine the results. This gives a bigger picture of what the overall evidence suggests.
Guidelines come from the total body of evidence. Organizations such as the American College of Sports Medicine use many studies, not one, to create position stands on how much exercise adults should do for health and fitness.
Evidence evolves, it does not flip overnight. Ioannidis et al. famously showed that many early research findings do not hold up when more studies are done, especially small or poorly designed ones. That does not mean science is broken, it means science corrects itself over time.

So if a creator says “new study proves everything you thought about exercise is wrong,” it is almost always an exaggeration of a small piece of a much bigger picture.

3. Common Red Flags In Online Health Content

These are some of the red flags that often show up.

3.1. Big promises with tiny details

“Fix your metabolism in 7 days.”
“Reverse arthritis with this one food.”
“Never need cardio again.”

These kinds of claims rarely come from systematic reviews or large randomized controlled trials. They almost always come from anecdotes, small studies, or pure marketing.

Mayo Clinic and others warn that dramatic promises, absolute language, and “secret cures” are classic signs you are not looking at balanced, evidence based information.

3.2. No sources or only vague “studies show” language

Reliable content usually points to:

Named journals
Well known organizations
Or at least gives enough detail that you could search for the study yourself

When an article only links to other blogs, social media videos, or opinions, without any clear connection to research, that is a yellow flag.

3.3. One person, one product, one answer

Be cautious when:

The solution is always the person’s program or supplement
There is heavy pressure to “act now” or “spots are limited”
The content sounds more like a sales page than an explanation

Kington et al. point out that credibility is not just about what is said, but who benefits from you believing it. If someone stands to make money from the solution, that does not make them wrong, but it does mean you should look extra closely at the evidence.

3.4. Cherry picking and “this one study proves…”

Even high quality science can be misused. Sometimes a single study with a specific population is presented as if it applies to everyone.

Researchers like Haneef et al. and Adams et al. have shown that press releases and news articles frequently exaggerate or misstate what the actual research found, especially around cause and effect.

If a claim hangs entirely on one dramatic study with no mention of the larger body of evidence, that is another red flag.

4. A Simple Checklist For Evaluating Health Information

You can use this quick mental checklist any time you see a strong claim about workouts, supplements, or health.

4.1. Who is saying it?

Ask:

Is this coming from a government or major public health organization, such as NIH, CDC, WHO, or a professional group like ACSM
A university hospital or medical center
A certified health professional speaking within their area of training
Or an influencer with no clear qualifications

Older adults in particular are encouraged by the CDC and NIH to look closely at who is behind a website or post, especially when it involves health decisions.

Credentials are not everything, but they matter.

4.2. What is the purpose?

Is the main goal to:

Inform and educate
Sell a product or service
Stir up outrage or fear

Educational content can still sell something, but if the “buy now” push is stronger than the explanation, proceed carefully.

4.3. What evidence is given?

Look for:

References to peer reviewed studies
Mentions of systematic reviews, meta analyses, or guidelines by groups such as ACSM
Consistency with what multiple reputable sources are saying

Be wary when:

There are no references at all
The only support is “it worked for me” or “my clients”
The content claims “doctors do not want you to know this”

As Ioannidis et al. and others have shown, individual studies are noisy. Patterns across many studies matter more than one attention grabbing result.

4.4. How recent is the information?

Health science changes. That is a feature, not a bug. When you see a claim:

Check if the article or video lists a date
See if guidelines from organizations like NIH, CDC, or ACSM have been updated since

Very old content is not automatically wrong, but newer summaries may incorporate more recent trials and meta analyses.

4.5. Does it line up with basic physiology and established guidelines?

If a claim tells you to ignore everything known about how the body adapts to exercise or how chronic disease progresses, that is a problem.

For example, decades of research summarized by ACSM show that regular, progressive exercise is linked with improvements in cardiovascular health, muscular strength, and functional ability in older adults.

So any reel saying you can “get all the benefits of exercise without actually moving” deserves extra scrutiny.

5. Understanding The Limits Of Studies

Sometimes a claim is technically based on a real study, but the way it is presented leaves out important details.

5.1. Correlation is not causation

Observational studies often find that two things happen together. For example, people who do more resistance training may also fall less often.

That does not automatically mean one caused the other. Maybe people who lift weights also walk more, have better nutrition, or access to better health care.

Researchers like Parra et al. and Haber et al. have documented how often observational studies use language that sounds causal when the design cannot truly prove cause.

Good science communication is honest about this nuance. Over simplified posts are not.

5.2. Small or very specific samples

A study might look at:

Ten young healthy men in a lab
Women with a specific medical condition
Adults in a particular country with specific habits

If the internet post leaves out who was actually studied, it can sound like the results apply to everyone. In reality, you have to ask whether those participants look anything like you.

5.3. Animal and cell studies

Early stage research often happens in mice or in cells in a dish. That is important groundwork, but it is not direct proof of what will happen in a 65 year old woman doing strength training twice a week.

Many health misinformation checklists, including those from NIH and MedlinePlus, encourage people to notice when a headline about humans is actually referring to an animal study.

5.4. The reproducibility problem

Ioannidis et al. and others have raised concerns that many initial “breakthrough” findings do not replicate when repeated. This is especially true when studies are small or have a lot of flexibility in how data are analyzed.

The takeaway is not that you should ignore science. It is that you should be more confident when many high quality studies and reviews point in the same direction, and less confident when one small study makes the news.

6. How Thoughtful Fitness Professionals Use Research

From the outside, it can look like trainers are either “science people” or “vibe people.” In reality, good pros are doing something more layered.

A careful coach will typically:

Start with established guidelines For example, using ACSM recommendations for frequency, intensity, and type of exercise as a baseline for most adults. Garber et al. and related position stands summarize this research.
Look at systematic reviews and meta analyses Instead of chasing every new study, they pay more attention to pooled evidence from teams like Kemmler et al. when considering questions about bone density, falls, or strength in older adults.
Consider individual context Age, joint history, surgeries, medication, home setup, comfort level, and personal preferences all matter. Two people can read the same study and need very different exercise prescriptions.
Watch for consensus, not just novelty When many researchers, clinicians, and organizations are saying similar things, that usually carries more weight than a single contrarian paper, even if it has gone viral.
Translate research into practical, safe progressions It is one thing for a meta analysis to say “higher intensity resistance training improves bone mineral density.” It is another to turn that into a sensible program for a 72 year old who trains at home with dumbbells and bands.

This is where the combination of evidence and experience becomes especially valuable.

7. How To Evaluate New Health Advice When It Pops Up

Here is a simple process you can use whenever a new claim catches your attention.

Pause before reacting. You do not need to change your routine, throw out foods, or buy a supplement based on one reel.
Run the quick checklist.
Ask yourself:
- Who is saying this and what are their qualifications
- Are they trying to sell something
- Do they give specific references
- Does it line up with what you have heard from major organizations like NIH, CDC, WHO, or ACSM
If it sounds extreme, seek a second source. Type a few key phrases into a search engine along with “NIH,” “CDC,” or “Mayo Clinic” and see what comes up. Many of these organizations provide plain language explanations and even checklists to help you evaluate online information, particularly for older adults.
Pay attention to your own context. Even if a claim is partly true, it might not fit your age, medical situation, or current training level.
Bring questions to a trusted professional. Instead of feeling embarrassed about “falling for” a claim, treat it as data. What you are seeing online is part of your environment, and good professionals expect to help you make sense of it.

8. The Bottom Line

You do not need to fact check every sentence you ever read about health. You also do not need to ignore the internet entirely.

What you do need is:

A simple way to separate credible sources from the loudest voices
A basic understanding of how science works, so you are less swayed by dramatic headlines
The confidence to ask, “Who is saying this, and what is the evidence behind it”

When you combine that with consistent training, sensible nutrition, and regular check ins with healthcare providers, you put yourself in a strong position to benefit from real health science rather than be tossed around by online noise.

References

National Institutes of Health, Office of Dietary Supplements. “How To Evaluate Health Information on the Internet: Questions and Answers.” https://ods.od.nih.gov/HealthInformation/How_To_Evaluate_Health_Information_on_the_Internet_Questions_and_Answers.aspx
MedlinePlus. “Evaluating Health Information.” https://medlineplus.gov/evaluatinghealthinformation.html
World Health Organization. “Understanding the infodemic and misinformation in the fight against COVID-19.” https://www.who.int/health-topics/infodemic/understanding-the-infodemic-and-misinformation-in-the-fight-against-covid-19
World Health Organization. “Disinformation and public health: questions and answers.” https://www.who.int/news-room/questions-and-answers/item/disinformation-and-public-health
World Health Organization. “Combatting misinformation online.” https://www.who.int/teams/digital-health-and-innovation/digital-channels/combatting-misinformation-online
Garber CE et al. “American College of Sports Medicine position stand: Quantity and quality of exercise for developing and maintaining cardiorespiratory, musculoskeletal, and neuromotor fitness in apparently healthy adults.” Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2011;43(7):1334–1359. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21694556/
American College of Sports Medicine. “Position Stand: The recommended quantity and quality of exercise for developing and maintaining cardiorespiratory and muscular fitness, and flexibility in healthy adults.” Med Sci Sports Exerc. 1998;30(6):975–991. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/9624661/
Ioannidis JPA. “Why Most Published Research Findings Are False.” PLoS Med. 2005;2(8):e124. https://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/journal.pmed.0020124
Haneef R et al. “Interpretation of Results of Studies Evaluating an Intervention Highlighted in Google Health News: A Cross-Sectional Study of News.” PLoS One. 2015;10(10):e0140889. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4608738/
Adams RC et al. “Claims of causality in health news: a randomised trial.” BMC Medicine. 2019;17:91. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6521363/
Parra CO et al. “Consistency of causal claims in observational studies: a review of papers published in The BMJ.” BMJ Open. 2021;11:e043339. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8141434/
Haber NA et al. “Causal and Associational Language in Observational Health Research: A Systematic Evaluation.” Am J Epidemiol. 2022;191(3):488–497. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11043784/
Kington RS et al. “Identifying Credible Sources of Health Information in Social Media: Principles and Attributes.” NAM Perspectives. National Academy of Medicine. 2021. https://nam.edu/perspectives/identifying-credible-sources-of-health-information-in-social-media-principles-and-attributes/
Stanford Digital Medic. “5 Tips for Spotting Health Misinformation.” https://digitalmedic.stanford.edu/news/5-tips-spotting-health-misinformation
Mayo Clinic. “Can you spot a fake health article?” https://www.mayoclinic.org/healthy-lifestyle/consumer-health/in-depth/spot-fake-health-articles-misinformation/art-20587692
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. “Use of Online Health Information, Health Literacy: Older Adults.” https://www.cdc.gov/health-literacy/php/older-adults/online-health-information.html
National Institute on Aging. “How To Find Reliable Health Information Online.” https://www.nia.nih.gov/health/healthy-aging/how-find-reliable-health-information-online