Uploaded April 2024 | Updated September 2026, 9 hours ago
We here at Iron Culture have been on a mission to better inform you, dear listener, as to the inner workings of science. From what goes on in the lab itself, to the publication process, to dissemination, to eventual meta analysis, the challenge of interpretation and communication of science, the optimistic promises of open science, and the increasing focus on replication, it’s been a hopefully eye-opening and overall encouraging discussion. However, while the scientific method is inherently self-correcting, the apparatus of science is far from perfect and there is a big problem with its principle tool of correcting the peer reviewed record: retraction. What leads to a paper being retracted? What is the process? How does it impact the literature? Most importantly, does it effectively change the understanding of the science in the community the studies are meant to serve? Join the Erics in this most recent episode as they break it all down!
00:00 Retraction in science and a recently retracted study on cold water immersion
Néma 2024 Impact of cold exposure on life satisfaction and physical composition of soldiers pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36599485
Iron Culture Ep. 267- Addressing Data Fraud in Nutrition Science youtube.com/watch?v=YZqQ0_pweTs
16:00 A peak behind the sport science curtain
25:19 The process of retraction and its flaws
Soria-Gila 2015 Effects of Variable Resistance Training on Maximal Strength: A Meta-Analysis pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25968227
Retraction Watch retractionwatch.com
41:15 Keeping up to date with retractions and critically appraising studies
Wakefield 1998 Ileal-lymphoid-nodular hyperplasia, non-specific colitis, and pervasive developmental disorder in children pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/9500320
1:00:54 Wild claims from science communicators and their responsibility
1:11:09 Letter to the editor and the retraction process
Phillips 2017 Changes in body composition and performance with supplemental HMB-FA+ATP pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28301440
1:22:53 The open science movement and the dangers of unreliable findings
1:30:04 Moving forward: the effective science communicator and alternative publishing models
1:39:16 Closing out this intervention episode for Helms
We here at Iron Culture have been on a mission to better inform you, dear listener, as to the inner workings of science. From what goes on in the lab itself, to the publication process, to dissemination, to eventual meta analysis, the challenge of interpretation and communication of science, the optimistic promises of open science, and the increasing focus on replication, it’s been a hopefully eye-opening and overall encouraging discussion. However, while the scientific method is inherently self-correcting, the apparatus of science is far from perfect and there is a big problem with its principle tool of correcting the peer reviewed record: retraction. What leads to a paper being retracted? What is the process? How does it impact the literature? Most importantly, does it effectively change the understanding of the science in the community the studies are meant to serve? Join the Erics in this most recent episode as they break it all down!
00:00 Retraction in science and a recently retracted study on cold water immersion
Néma 2024 Impact of cold exposure on life satisfaction and physical composition of soldiers pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36599485
Iron Culture Ep. 267- Addressing Data Fraud in Nutrition Science youtube.com/watch?v=YZqQ0_pweTs
16:00 A peak behind the sport science curtain
25:19 The process of retraction and its flaws
Soria-Gila 2015 Effects of Variable Resistance Training on Maximal Strength: A Meta-Analysis pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25968227
Retraction Watch retractionwatch.com
41:15 Keeping up to date with retractions and critically appraising studies
Wakefield 1998 Ileal-lymphoid-nodular hyperplasia, non-specific colitis, and pervasive developmental disorder in children pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/9500320
1:00:54 Wild claims from science communicators and their responsibility
1:11:09 Letter to the editor and the retraction process
Phillips 2017 Changes in body composition and performance with supplemental HMB-FA+ATP pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28301440
1:22:53 The open science movement and the dangers of unreliable findings
1:30:04 Moving forward: the effective science communicator and alternative publishing models
1:39:16 Closing out this intervention episode for Helms
