Our Research Methodology

How We Built This Collection

CascadiaFitness.org is built on a structured literature review of 135 peer-reviewed studies spanning nutrition, exercise, behavior change, sleep, cognitive health, coaching practice, and longevity science. The review was conducted by [Author Name], MPA, Portland State University.

Studies were sourced from PubMed, Cochrane Library, and major peer-reviewed journals including The New England Journal of Medicine, The Lancet, JAMA Network Open, the British Medical Journal, Circulation, the Journal of the American College of Cardiology, Nutrients, and others. Source material includes original database searches, citations from foundational texts in health and longevity, and post-publication updates through early 2026.

The goal was not to be exhaustive — it was to identify the studies most relevant to evidence-based health coaching for adults over 50. Every study in the collection was extracted using a standardized protocol capturing study design, sample size, duration, key findings, methods, and author-noted limitations.

Scoring Framework

Each study was evaluated on four dimensions using a standardized scoring framework. Scores range from 1 (lowest) to 5 (highest) on each dimension, for a maximum possible score of 20. The Top 25 studies represent the highest-scoring articles in the collection.

Scientific Rigor evaluates study design and evidence quality. Randomized controlled trials, meta-analyses, and expert consensus documents score highest. Case studies and opinion pieces score lowest.

Population Relevance assesses how closely the study population matches our target audience: generally healthy, community-dwelling adults aged 50–75. Studies focused on pediatric, ICU, or highly clinical populations score lowest.

Practical Applicability measures whether findings translate into actionable guidance for health coaching. Studies with directly translatable coaching interventions score highest. Purely theoretical or molecular-level research scores lowest.

Recency weights newer evidence more heavily. Studies published in 2024–2026 score highest. Studies from 2010 or earlier score lowest.

What This Is — and What It Isn't

This literature review was conducted by a single researcher using a systematic but non-exhaustive approach. It is not a Cochrane-style systematic review, and it does not claim to capture every relevant study in every field. The scoring framework reflects editorial judgment informed by health coaching practice priorities.

Studies were evaluated based on publicly available published versions. We did not contact study authors, access unpublished data, or conduct independent statistical analysis. All findings reported on this site are drawn from the original published research.

The review is a living document. As new research is published, studies may be added, re-scored, or replaced. The Top 25 may shift over time as the evidence base evolves.

CascadiaFitness.org is an educational resource. Nothing on this site constitutes medical advice, clinical diagnosis, or treatment recommendations. Always consult your healthcare provider before making changes to your diet, exercise routine, or health plan.

[Your Name]

MPA, Portland State University · NBC-HWC Candidate

The research behind CascadiaFitness.org was compiled and scored as part of an independent literature review project. [Your Name] holds a Master of Public Administration from Portland State University and is currently pursuing NBC-HWC certification. This site reflects a commitment to making peer-reviewed evidence accessible to the adults who can benefit from it most.