
Sign up to save your podcasts
Or


In this episode, we’re joined by Dr Joe Warne, founder of the Sports Sciences Replication Center (SSRC) and senior author of a landmark new study that should send shockwaves through the world of sports and exercise science. Joe and his team undertook an enormous replication effort—repeating the methods of previously published research to see if the results hold up. The outcome? Just 28% of the studies could be replicated. Even more striking, the effect sizes dropped by an average of 75% when replicated.
This isn’t just a dent in confidence—it’s a crater. Scientific journals are trusted as sources of truth, yet Joe’s work shows that the majority of findings in this field don’t hold water. Perhaps even more concerningly, only 14% of original study authors were willing to share data or collaborate on replications.
We dig into how the SSRC pulled off this monumental study, why so many findings failed to replicate, and what it reveals about the deep structural issues in the field. From academic incentives to publish fast and flashy, to the natural resistance researchers have to being challenged and falsified, we explore how these forces fuel unreliable and unreproducible science.
Finally, we ask the tough question: what should coaches, athletes, and practitioners do when research can't be trusted? Joe shares his candid thoughts on how science must change—and what needs to happen to restore faith in the evidence base.
This is a must-listen conversation on one of the most pressing issues in science today.
Links
The three replication papers:
Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.
By Professor Ross Tucker and Mike Finch4.5
160160 ratings
In this episode, we’re joined by Dr Joe Warne, founder of the Sports Sciences Replication Center (SSRC) and senior author of a landmark new study that should send shockwaves through the world of sports and exercise science. Joe and his team undertook an enormous replication effort—repeating the methods of previously published research to see if the results hold up. The outcome? Just 28% of the studies could be replicated. Even more striking, the effect sizes dropped by an average of 75% when replicated.
This isn’t just a dent in confidence—it’s a crater. Scientific journals are trusted as sources of truth, yet Joe’s work shows that the majority of findings in this field don’t hold water. Perhaps even more concerningly, only 14% of original study authors were willing to share data or collaborate on replications.
We dig into how the SSRC pulled off this monumental study, why so many findings failed to replicate, and what it reveals about the deep structural issues in the field. From academic incentives to publish fast and flashy, to the natural resistance researchers have to being challenged and falsified, we explore how these forces fuel unreliable and unreproducible science.
Finally, we ask the tough question: what should coaches, athletes, and practitioners do when research can't be trusted? Joe shares his candid thoughts on how science must change—and what needs to happen to restore faith in the evidence base.
This is a must-listen conversation on one of the most pressing issues in science today.
Links
The three replication papers:
Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

362 Listeners

378 Listeners

1,334 Listeners

422 Listeners

72 Listeners

134 Listeners

304 Listeners

782 Listeners

1,848 Listeners

175 Listeners

369 Listeners

154 Listeners

551 Listeners

29 Listeners

11 Listeners