Evidence Hub · 16 Verified Sources
Here is the shelf. Sixteen sources sit behind the numbers and the coaching in Pelaris, every one of them checked by hand against a live page, and every one paired with the exact claim it backs. If the app tells you something, you should be able to see where that came from and go read it yourself.
Citing research is easy. Citing it honestly, and only for what it actually concludes, is the part that matters. These are the three rules we work to.
We fetched a live public page for each citation and confirmed the title and authors render on it before it shipped. Where a paper sat behind a paywall or a redirect, we linked the stable public record instead. Nothing here is a citation nobody opened.
A projected max, a projected race time and a VO2max read from a run are all calculated, and the app says so on the tile. A result you actually tested always takes the headline over a number we worked out for you.
Pelaris gives AI-assisted general training information. It is not a medical device, it does not diagnose or screen for anything, and it is no substitute for a doctor. The research below supports how we coach training, not any claim about your health.
There is a fourth rule that only shows up in what is missing. Where a source could not honestly carry a claim we wanted to make, we changed the claim rather than stretch the source. That is why one or two things you might expect to see quantified here are described in plain language instead.
Each tile shows what the source backs inside Pelaris, the full citation, and a link to the page we checked it against. Read them in any order.
The work behind your VO2max estimate, your percentile against adults your age, your fitness age, and the race times one strong run implies at another distance.
Your VO2max estimate from a hard run comes straight from Daniels' VDOT tables, the pace-to-fitness model coaches have trusted for over forty years.
Daniels, J. Daniels' Running Formula, 4th edition. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics, 2021. ISBN 9781718203662, 320 pp. Carries forward the VDOT tables and the velocity-to-oxygen-cost regressions first published in Daniels, J. & Gilbert, J. Oxygen Power: Performance Tables for Distance Runners, Tempe, AZ, 1979.
View the sourceThe "fitter than X% of people your age" line is read off real reference standards built from thousands of lab-tested adults, so your percentile actually means something.
Kaminsky, L.A., Arena, R. & Myers, J. "Reference Standards for Cardiorespiratory Fitness Measured With Cardiopulmonary Exercise Testing: Data From the Fitness Registry and the Importance of Exercise National Database." Mayo Clinic Proceedings, 2015;90(11):1515-1523. doi:10.1016/j.mayocp.2015.07.026
View the sourceFitness age is the idea that your VO2max can sit younger or older than your birthday suggests, first mapped across 4,637 adults in Norway's HUNT study.
Nes, B.M., Janszky, I., Vatten, L.J., Nilsen, T.I.L., Aspenes, S.T. & Wisløff, U. "Estimating VO2peak from a nonexercise prediction model: the HUNT Study, Norway." Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise, 2011;43(11):2024-2030. doi:10.1249/MSS.0b013e31821d3f6f
View the sourceWhen a strong run at one distance hints at your time over another, that is Riegel's power law, drawn from world records from 100 metres out to 100 miles.
Riegel, P.S. "Athletic records and human endurance." American Scientist, 1981;69(3):285-290.
View the sourceThe public-health definitions behind BMI and the two waist ratios, and the review that earned waist-to-height its place on your card.
We show BMI exactly as the World Health Organization defines it, using the same adult cut-offs public health uses worldwide.
World Health Organization. "Obesity and overweight" (fact sheet). Geneva: World Health Organization, last updated 8 December 2025.
View the sourceYour waist-to-hip ratio is read against the World Health Organization's expert consultation, the global reference for what waist measurements genuinely tell us.
World Health Organization. Waist Circumference and Waist-Hip Ratio: Report of a WHO Expert Consultation, Geneva, 8-11 December 2008. Geneva: World Health Organization, 2011. ISBN 9789241501491, 39 pp.
View the sourceWaist-to-height ratio earns its place on your card, this review of 31 studies found it a sharper screening signal than BMI or waist alone.
Ashwell, M., Gunn, P. & Gibson, S. "Waist-to-height ratio is a better screening tool than waist circumference and BMI for adult cardiometabolic risk factors: systematic review and meta-analysis." Obesity Reviews, 2012;13(3):275-286. doi:10.1111/j.1467-789X.2011.00952.x
View the sourceHow loads step up, how weekly volume grows, how we ask you to rate an effort, how strength and endurance share a week, and how a max is projected without you testing one.
How your loads, sets and rest periods step up across a training block follows the American College of Sports Medicine's progression model for healthy adults.
American College of Sports Medicine. "American College of Sports Medicine position stand. Progression models in resistance training for healthy adults." Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise, 2009;41(3):687-708. doi:10.1249/MSS.0b013e3181915670. Widely cited as Ratamess, N.A. et al., 2009, after the writing group's lead author.
View the sourceMore quality sets generally means more muscle, and this meta-analysis is why your weekly volume grows deliberately rather than all at once.
Schoenfeld, B.J., Ogborn, D. & Krieger, J.W. "Dose-response relationship between weekly resistance training volume and increases in muscle mass: a systematic review and meta-analysis." Journal of Sports Sciences, 2017;35(11):1073-1082. doi:10.1080/02640414.2016.1210197
View the sourceReps in reserve is how we ask you to rate a set, a scale built so your effort on the day sets the load rather than a fixed number on paper.
Helms, E.R., Cronin, J., Storey, A. & Zourdos, M.C. "Application of the Repetitions in Reserve-Based Rating of Perceived Exertion Scale for Resistance Training." Strength and Conditioning Journal, 2016;38(4):42-49. doi:10.1519/SSC.0000000000000218
View the sourceWhen strength and endurance share a week we space and shape them using this meta-analysis, so one goal never quietly eats the other.
Wilson, J.M., Marin, P.J., Rhea, M.R., Wilson, S.M.C., Loenneke, J.P. & Anderson, J.C. "Concurrent training: a meta-analysis examining interference of aerobic and resistance exercises." Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 2012;26(8):2293-2307. doi:10.1519/JSC.0b013e31823a3e2d
View the sourceYour projected 1RM is read off a hard multi-rep set, and this study is the evidence that a max can be estimated well without you ever having to test one.
Reynolds, J.M., Gordon, T.J. & Robergs, R.A. "Prediction of one repetition maximum strength from multiple repetition maximum testing and anthropometry." Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 2006;20(3):584-592. doi:10.1519/R-15304.1
View the sourceThe weekly movement target your plan aims at, 150 to 300 minutes of moderate activity plus regular strength work, comes straight from the WHO's global guidelines.
World Health Organization. WHO Guidelines on Physical Activity and Sedentary Behaviour. Geneva: World Health Organization, 25 November 2020. ISBN 9789240015128.
View the sourceSleep treated as training rather than an afterthought, and the protein number your coach actually points you at.
Sleep is treated as training, and this expert consensus is why we nudge you towards your own sleep need rather than a one-size-fits-all number.
Walsh, N.P., Halson, S.L., Sargent, C., Roach, G.D., Nédélec, M., Gupta, L., Leeder, J., Fullagar, H.H., Coutts, A.J., Edwards, B.J., Pullinger, S.A. et al. "Sleep and the athlete: narrative review and 2021 expert consensus recommendations." British Journal of Sports Medicine, 2021;55(7):356-368. doi:10.1136/bjsports-2020-102025 (published online 3 November 2020).
View the sourceOur protein guidance lands near 1.6 g per kg of body weight a day, the point this 49-study meta-analysis found extra protein stops adding muscle.
Morton, R.W., Murphy, K.T., McKellar, S.R., Schoenfeld, B.J., Henselmans, M., Helms, E., Aragon, A.A., Devries, M.C., Banfield, L., Krieger, J.W. & Phillips, S.M. "A systematic review, meta-analysis and meta-regression of the effect of protein supplementation on resistance training-induced gains in muscle mass and strength in healthy adults." British Journal of Sports Medicine, 2018;52(6):376-384. doi:10.1136/bjsports-2017-097608
View the sourceHow the pieces above are assembled into the program you open each morning.
A plain-English walk through how your coach reads your context, picks a methodology and keeps adapting it as you train.
Pelaris. "Science-backed training methodologies." pelaris.io, 2026.
Read the methodologyThree pages walk through the calculations Pelaris does on your behalf, formula by formula, including where each one stops being useful.
The sources above explain the numbers. For the coaching systems those numbers feed, the 40+ training methodologies Pelaris implements across ten sport categories are laid out in full, from Daniels and Lydiard through 5/3/1 and Conjugate. Our practical guides and training science essays pick up where the citations leave off.
Pelaris is built on published sports science rather than in-house theory. 16 sources sit behind the numbers and the coaching: Daniels' VDOT tables for running fitness, the FRIEND reference standards for fitness percentiles, the HUNT study for fitness age, World Health Organization definitions for BMI, waist ratios and weekly activity, and peer-reviewed work from the American College of Sports Medicine, Schoenfeld, Helms, Wilson, Morton, Walsh, Reynolds and Riegel for strength progression, training volume, effort rating, concurrent training, protein, sleep and projections. Each one is listed on this page with the exact claim it supports.
Yes. Every source was checked by hand against a live, public landing page, and we confirmed the title and authors render on that page before it shipped. Where a paper sat behind a paywall or a redirect, we linked the stable public record instead, and every tile shows the full citation as text so a moved page still leaves you a reference you can look up yourself.
No. Pelaris gives AI-assisted general training information. It is not a medical device, it does not diagnose, treat or screen for anything, and it is not a substitute for a doctor or a qualified health professional. The research cited here supports how we coach training, not any claim about your health.
No. Pelaris implements methodologies and findings created by coaches and researchers who spent careers refining them, then uses AI to select and adapt the right approach for each athlete. Where a source could not honestly carry a claim we wanted to make, we changed the claim rather than stretch the source.
Every calculated number is worked out from something you actually did. A projected one-rep max comes from a hard multi-rep set, a projected race time comes from a strong run at another distance, and a VO2max estimate comes from a genuine hard effort. All of them are labelled as estimates in the app, and a tested result always takes the headline over a calculated one.
Whenever the code that uses it changes. The register is tied to what the app actually computes, so if a calculation changes, its citation changes with it. Reference standards get updated by their authors from time to time, and we cite the edition our maths actually uses rather than the newest one available.
No credit card required. Your coach builds the plan, explains the reasoning, and shows you the source when a number needs one.
Start Training →Pelaris gives AI-assisted general training information. It is not medical advice, it does not diagnose anything, and it is not a substitute for a doctor or a qualified health professional.