Skip to content

TRUST · EDITORIAL METHODOLOGY

HOW WE CREATE
CONTENT

How Roadman Cycling researches, writes, reviews, and grades evidence in every article and episode. The editorial process behind the podcast, the blog, the comparisons, and the coaching content.

Editorial direction is led by Anthony Walsh. Coaching content is reviewed against The Roadman Method. The shorter rules-only version lives at /editorial-standards.

THE EDITORIAL PIPELINE

Every article and episode summary moves through these seven steps before it ships.

01

TOPIC SELECTION

Topics start in three places: questions our coached athletes ask, themes that recur across podcast guests, and gaps we notice in the public literature. We do not chase trends or write to keyword volume in isolation.

02

PRIMARY-SOURCE RESEARCH

Every piece begins with the underlying material — peer-reviewed studies for science claims, on-the-record podcast interviews for expert positions, and primary documents (race reports, governing-body releases) for news and culture pieces. Secondary commentary is a starting point, never the source.

03

DRAFTING WITH ATTRIBUTION

Claims are attributed inline to the named expert, study, or source they came from. Where two named experts disagree, we say so and link both. Anthony writes or directs the angle on every piece so the voice stays consistent with the podcast.

04

EXPERT REVIEW

Coaching, training, and physiology content is reviewed by Anthony Walsh as head coach. Where a piece sits outside his direct expertise — clinical nutrition, biomechanics, niche endurance science — it is checked against the public positions of the relevant podcast guests before it ships.

05

EVIDENCE GRADING

Every claim of fact is graded against the strength of the evidence behind it (see grading scale below). The grade is shown on-page where appropriate so readers can weigh confidence themselves.

06

PUBLISHING & DATING

Pieces carry a published date and an updated date. The updated date moves only when the substance changes. Time-sensitive content (event previews, race calendars) carries an editorial note when context shifts.

07

MAINTENANCE & CORRECTIONS

Articles are reviewed for accuracy at least annually. If we get something wrong, we fix it on the page and log the change publicly. See the correction log for every change made.

THE EVIDENCE GRADING SCALE

Not every claim is backed by the same weight of evidence. We grade them so you can weigh confidence yourself.

A

STRONG EVIDENCE

Multiple peer-reviewed studies in trained populations, or a clear consensus position from named, qualified experts on the record. Examples: polarised intensity distribution as practised by elite endurance athletes; carbohydrate intake during sustained exercise.

B

EMERGING OR CONTESTED EVIDENCE

Promising research, often in smaller or untrained populations, or a position held by some named experts but not yet a consensus. We surface the disagreement explicitly. Examples: specific HRV protocols for amateur load management; some ketone-ester applications.

C

FIELD-PRACTICE CLAIMS

Practices used in the World Tour or by named coaches that haven't been formally studied at scale. Useful, but flagged as practitioner knowledge rather than science. Examples: specific micro-dosing intensity protocols; particular taper structures.

D

ANECDOTE AND PERSONAL EXPERIENCE

What worked for a single athlete or what a guest reports from their own practice. Treated as a single data point. Useful colour, never load-bearing for a recommendation.

THE STANDARDS BEHIND EVERY PIECE

The non-negotiables that govern what we publish, no matter the format.

SOURCE TRANSPARENCY

Every factual claim traces to a named expert, a published study, or an on-the-record podcast conversation. We cite inline and link to the relevant episode, study, or article.

NO FABRICATED DATA

Statistics, study results, and athlete quotes are never invented. When we cite a podcast guest, the claim is consistent with their publicly documented work.

NO MEDICAL ADVICE

We coach training, nutrition, strength, and recovery. We do not diagnose conditions or prescribe medical treatment. Anything that crosses that line is referred out.

COMMERCIAL TRANSPARENCY

We make money from coaching, the Not Done Yet coaching, and digital products. When an article links to /coaching or /apply, that is a commercial recommendation. We do not accept payment for editorial placement.

AI-ASSISTED, HUMAN-OWNED

We use AI tools for research support, drafting scaffolds, and editing — never as the final author of a published claim. A named human (Anthony, the editorial team, or a credited contributor) reviews and stands behind every piece before it ships.

HONEST COMPARISONS

Where competitors are a better fit, we say so. Comparison articles are written from the rider's interest, not ours.

SPOT AN ERROR?

Tell us. We fix mistakes on the page, log the correction, and keep the original wording for transparency.

Email a Correction