Episodes

Can you improve your endurance by sitting in a hot tub instead of doing another hard workout? We dig into a study that put elite runners through five weeks of what we affectionately call “endurance hot tubbing” to see whether heat alone could trigger the same cardiovascular adaptations as altitude training. Along the way, we explore crossover study designs, multiple testing, why significant physiological changes don’t necessarily translate into better athletic performance, and how an exploratory...

Could four one-minute bursts of exercise really improve blood sugar? We try “exercise snacks” ourselves before taking a close look at the clinical trial that inspired headlines. We explain why the study’s main result wasn’t statistically significant, how 34 secondary outcomes complicated the story, and what pre-registration can reveal about a study after it’s published. Along the way, we compare notes on our own exercise-snacking adventures, debate continuous glucose monitors, and ask how much e...

How do you decide whether a clinical trial “worked”? In Part 2 of our Galleri series, we examine the landmark randomized trial of a blood test designed to detect more than 50 cancers. We explore why different outcome measures led to dramatically different headlines, discuss primary versus secondary outcomes, pre-registration, hierarchical testing, and post hoc analyses, and explain why mortality remains the outcome everyone is waiting for. Along the way, we uncover a statistical mystery involvin...

Can a single tube of blood really detect dozens of cancers before symptoms appear? We dive into the science behind Galleri, a blood test that claims to detect more than 50 types of cancer from a simple blood draw. Recent headlines about the test ranged from “breakthrough” to “bust” after the release of results from a massive randomized clinical trial. In this Part 1 episode, we explore cell-free DNA, DNA methylation, machine learning, sensitivity, specificity, and positive predictive value. Alon...

Odds ratios show up everywhere in medical research—but do readers, journalists, and even researchers always know what they mean? In this episode, we tackle one of the most common statistical misunderstandings in science: treating odds ratios like risk ratios. Along the way, we explore puppy photos, fish photos, first-date hookups, sugary drinks, cardiac care, and a listener challenge that started with an informal study of five medical residents and a box of chocolate truffles. We explain why log...

Does coffee trigger atrial fibrillation — or have doctors been warning people away from caffeine without strong evidence? We dig into two recent randomized clinical trials testing whether caffeinated coffee causes dangerous heart rhythm problems. Along the way, we talk about AFib, survival analysis, intention-to-treat versus as-treated analyses, and one surprisingly elaborate effort to catch clinical trial cheaters with receipts and geolocation tracking. We also explore how a pope may have fuele...

Can exercise actually be bad for you if you don’t get enough sleep? A widely shared claim says yes—that working out while sleep deprived may speed up aging. In this episode, we put that claim under the microscope. We examine the study behind it, unpack how sleep and aging were measured, and explore key statistical ideas like interaction effects and flexible models that can “dance” to the data. With the help of a $400,000 handbag and a man with seven boats, we also break down what it really takes...

Are young people really having less sex? Headlines about a “sex recession” suggest a dramatic decline—but what do the data actually show? In this episode, we trace that claim back to the research behind it—and find a story that’s far more nuanced than the headlines suggest. We examine large national surveys, including the General Social Survey and the National Survey of Sexual Health and Behavior, and uncover how small analytical choices can completely change the story. Along the way, we tackle ...

Diagnostic testing: what do those statistics actually tell you? Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value . . . you’ve probably seen these terms before. Maybe you memorized them for a test. But do you actually know what they mean? In this episode, we take a closer look at how diagnostic tests are evaluated—and how they’re often misinterpreted. From a genetic test for cellulite to a blood test for autism, we explore how “statistically significant” findings can turn into tests that don’t...

Epidurals are widely used and widely trusted for pain relief during labor. So when a 2020 study reported that they might be linked to autism, it raised a troubling question: could a routine medical decision have long-term consequences? We follow that claim from headline to evidence—and watch what happens when other scientists take a closer look. We dig into the original study, a wave of replication studies from around the world, and a meta-analysis that tries to make sense of it all. Along the w...

Every year we spring forward and lose an hour of sleep. But do we also lose a few heart cells? Some headlines claim that heart attacks spike by 24% after daylight saving time begins. In this episode we trace that number back to the research behind it—and what we find is more complicated than the headlines suggest. We examine a famous New England Journal of Medicine letter, a large international meta-analysis, and a massive modern U.S. registry study. Along the way we talk about incidence ratios,...

How many carbs do you need to run your best marathon? Recent headlines suggest that 120 grams per hour is the magic number. But what’s the science behind that claim? To find out, we dug into the study fueling the hype — and were surprised by what we found. In this episode, we uncover numbers that mysteriously shift after peer review, figures that don’t match the text, and p-values that refuse to line up with their confidence intervals. Along the way, we swap bonking stories, revisit repeated-mea...

Can a list of questions really make two strangers fall in love? In 2015, a viral New York Times Modern Love column claimed psychologists had discovered a formula for love: 36 increasingly personal questions, plus four minutes of eye contact. Millions of people tried it. There was even an app. But when we followed the citation trail back to the science, the story started to unravel. In this episode, we crack open the 1997 study behind the “36 Questions,” unearth a forgotten pilot study with a dif...

While we’re on a short break between seasons, we’re revisiting some of our favorite episodes from Season 1. This week, we’re re-releasing our debut episode on pheromones and sexy sweat, with some added commentary up front.. Sweaty t-shirt dating parties, sex pheromone dating sites, choosing your dating partner by sniffing them up — wacko fringe fads or evidence-based mating strategies? And what does your armpit stain have to do with your kids’ immune systems, or hormonal contraceptive pills, or...

While we’re on a short break between seasons, we’re revisiting some of our favorite episodes from Season 1. This week, we’re re-releasing our exploration of how your diet can affect your skin – now with added commentary! Wrinkles and sagging skin—just normal aging, or can you blame your sweet tooth? We dive into “sugar sag,” exploring how sugar, processed foods, and even your crispy breakfast toast might be making you look older than if you’d said no to chocolate cake and yes to broccoli. Along...

While we’re on a short break between seasons, we’re revisiting some of our favorite episodes from Season 1. This week, we’re re-releasing our deep dive into vitamin D and the origins of the so-called deficiency epidemic, with added commentary. Is America really facing an epidemic of vitamin D deficiency? While this claim is widely believed, the story behind it is packed with twists, turns, and some pesky statistical cockroaches. In this episode, we’ll dive into a study on Hawaiian surfers, expo...

Description Nobody expects Batman—but when he shows up in a crowded subway car, are people suddenly more likely to help a passenger in need? This week on Normal Curves, we unpack a recent quasi-experimental field study involving a caped superhero costume, a prosthetic pregnancy belly, and some puzzled Italian commuters. Along the way, we demystify three common ways of describing effects for binary outcomes—risk differences, risk ratios, and odds ratios—and explain what they actually mean in plai...

Does the temperature of your coffee six months ago really predict whether you feel gassy today? This week we dissect a new nutrition survey study on hot and cold beverage habits that claims to connect drink temperature with gut symptoms, anxiety, and more—despite relying on year-old memories and a blizzard of statistical tests. It’s the perfect case study for our Holiday Survival Guide Part 2, where we teach you how to talk with Uncle Joe at the dinner table about one of the most common—and most...

Does a little alcohol really make you speak a foreign language better? This week we unpack a quirky randomized trial that tested Dutch pronunciation after a modest buzz—and came to the opposite conclusion the researchers expected. We use it as the perfect holiday case study: instead of arguing with Uncle Joe at the dinner table, we’ll show you how to pull apart a scientific headline using a friendly, practical checklist anyone can learn. Along the way we stress-test the study’s claims, take a qu...

What do chickenpox and shingles have to do with your brain? This week, we dig into two 2025 headline-grabbing studies that link the shingles shot to lower dementia rates. We start in Wales, where a birthday cutoff turned into the perfect natural experiment, and end in the U.S. with a multi-million-person megastudy. Featuring bias-variance Goldilockses, Fozzy-the-Bear regression discontinuities, a Barbie-versus-Oppenheimer showdown for propensity scores – and the hottest rebrand of inverse-probab...

What if a haunted house makes your date look hotter? This week we dive into the infamous Scary Bridge Study — the 1970s classic that launched a thousand pop-psych takes on fear and lust. It’s the one with the swaying bridge, pretty “research assistant,” and phone number scrawled on torn paper. The study became legend, but how sturdy were its stats? We retrace the design, redo the numbers, and see how many math errors it takes to sway a suspension bridge. Along the way we find an erotic-fiction w...

Ultramarathoners push their bodies to the limit, but can a giant pre-race dose of vitamin D really keep their bones from breaking down? In this episode, we dig into a trial that tested this claim – and found a statistical endurance event of its own: six highly interchangeable papers sliced from one small study. Expect missing runners, recycled figures, and a peer-review that reads like stand-up comedy, plus a quick lesson in using degrees of freedom as your statistical breadcrumbs. Statistical ...

P-values show up in almost every scientific paper, yet they’re one of the most misunderstood ideas in statistics. In this episode, we break from our usual journal-club format to unpack what a p-value really is, why researchers have fought about it for a century, and how that famous 0.05 cutoff became enshrined in science. Along the way, we share stories from our own papers—from a Nature feature that helped reshape the debate to a statistical sleuthing project that uncovered a faulty method in sp...

Exercise has long been hailed as cancer-fighting magic, but is there hard evidence behind the hype? In this episode, we tackle the CHALLENGE trial, a large phase III study of colon cancer patients that tested whether prescribed exercise could improve cancer-free survival. We translate clinical jargon into plain English, show why ratio statistics make splashy headlines while absolute differences tell the real story, and take a detour into why statisticians think survival analysis is downright sex...