Every claim here is checked against its original research — graded, sourced, and measured against what the top of Google still gets wrong, with our own numbers from reading those ranking pages. Titles link to the full audit; filter by category or search below.
Going deeper on one topic: Procrastination · Attention · Habits · Energy.
CConfirmed
PPartial
HUntested / hypothesis
RRefuted
—Queued, not yet graded
Nothing matches. Try a shorter word.
| Claim | Grade | Where it comes from | Evidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| Self-Control & WillpowerDoes Eating Sugar Restore Your Willpower?Eating something sugary restores your willpower because self-control burns through blood glucose. Still on Google10 of 48 unique reachable top-ranking pages still present “eat sugar for willpower” as settled fact, no caveatChecked Aug 8, 2026 | R | Gailliot and Baumeister, 2007: people who'd just exercised self-control had lower blood glucose, and a glass of real sugar-sweetened lemonade — not a sugar-free stand-in — reversed the effect. The paper's subtitle called willpower “more than a metaphor.” | Why it stuckA sugar crash already felt real to everyone, so a metabolic story for willpower loss made instant intuitive sense — and it came with an easy fix: eat something. How it fell apartRinsing a sugary drink and spitting it out beat a sweet placebo rinse — nothing swallowed, nothing absorbed, so digestion cannot be the mechanism. When blood glucose was measured directly instead of inferred from test scores, self-control tasks didn't lower it. A 2016 p-curve found the published literature indistinguishable from noise, and the 23-lab replication led by the same researcher behind the rinse studies found the depletion effect they were meant to offset was itself near zero. |
| Energy, Sleep & Body ClockIs Polyvagal Theory Evidence-Based?Calming techniques work because they stimulate the vagus nerve — Polyvagal Theory's specific story of two evolutionarily distinct vagal branches, arranged in a strict hierarchy and tracked by heart-rate variability, is disputed by 39 physiologists as of 2026. Still on Google30 of 57 top-ranking pages present Polyvagal Theory as settled neuroscience with zero caveatChecked Aug 11, 2026 | R | Porges, 1994 conference talk / 1995 Psychophysiology paper: proposed the vagus nerve has two evolutionarily distinct branches explaining fight, flight, and freeze. | Why it stuckGave trauma therapy a physiological explanation for freezing that older fight-or-flight models missed — mechanistic, hopeful, and easy to teach. How it fell apart39 physiologists and evolutionary biologists (Grossman et al., 2026) concluded the evolutionary story, the vagal-branch anatomy, and the heart-rate measure used to track it don't hold up on any of five tested premises. |
| Mindset & Self-BeliefDoes Growth Mindset Actually Work?Believing you can improve your intelligence boosts grades — the effect is real, but overstated by roughly a factor of ten, and it mostly shows up in students who are already struggling. Still on Google8 of 61 top-ranking pages present growth mindset as settled fact with zero caveat — and 0 of 61 cite the newest (Nov 2025) global studyChecked Aug 6, 2026 | P | Mueller & Dweck, 1998: praised fifth-graders for being smart vs. for trying hard, then watched who gave up first on a hard puzzle. Built into a theory that intelligence itself can be trained like a muscle. | Why it spreadA hopeful, simple idea — anyone can get smarter by believing they can — that matched how teachers and parents already wanted to talk about effort. What actually holdsA real but small effect (d≈0.08–0.14), concentrated almost entirely in students already struggling, and only when belief was paired with an actual strategy — not on its own. |
| Self-Control & WillpowerDoes Willpower Run Out Like a Muscle?Willpower isn't a battery. Resisting temptation doesn't drain some shared mental fuel tank the way a muscle tires out after a hard set. Still on Google34 of 70 top-ranking pages present the muscle model as settled fact, no caveatChecked Aug 4, 2026 | R | Baumeister, 1998: students resisted fresh cookies for radishes, then gave up on an unsolvable puzzle faster than a control group. He called it "ego depletion" and built a whole theory — the "strength model of self-control" — on that one afternoon. | Why it stuckA felt experience — running low on self-discipline — got a scientific-sounding metaphor attached to it, then decades of confident retelling with the doubt filed off. How it fell apart23 independent labs replicated it on 2,141 people in 2016 — d=0.04, essentially zero. |
| Learning & MemoryAre Learning Styles Real? What the Evidence Actually SaysMatching how you teach to someone's "preferred style" doesn't improve learning. Even the people who built the most famous style test never claimed it would. Still on Google5 of 14 top-ranking pages overstate the debunk; 0 of 14 mention the 2024 meta-analysisChecked Jul 27, 2026 | R | Fleming & Mills, 1992: a school inspector's personal observations became the VARK questionnaire — meant to start conversations about teaching, not to diagnose anyone. The authors wrote that testing it for validity was "unnecessary and inappropriate." | Why it stuckIt feels intuitively true — everyone has a preference — and got taught to generations of teachers as settled fact (89% belief among educators, one 18-country survey found). How it fell apartA 2008 review found exactly one study that even approached testing the real claim, and explained why it didn't hold up either. |
| Motivation & ProductivityDoes the Pomodoro Technique Actually Work?The 25-minute interval isn't backed by research — it's a number one person picked, that everyone since has repeated as if it were tested. Still on Google11 of 16 top-ranking pages assert scientific backing for the exact intervalChecked Jul 27, 2026 | R | Cirillo built the method as a student in the late 1980s around a tomato-shaped kitchen timer. The claim that 25 minutes is "scientifically optimal" traces to his own self-published 2007 technical report — no data, no peer review. | Why it stuckA memorable timer plus studies on completely different things (radar-watch fatigue, task-switching) got cited as if they were about the number 25 specifically. How it fell apartThe one randomized trial to test fixed 25-on/5-off breaks directly, in 2025, found no advantage over self-chosen breaks — and faster fatigue. |
| Attention & FocusTopic queued — article not yet publishedA row appears here once an article in this category is published and graded. | — | queued | queued |
| ProcrastinationTopic queued — article not yet publishedA row appears here once an article in this category is published and graded. | — | queued | queued |
| Habit FormationTopic queued — article not yet publishedA row appears here once an article in this category is published and graded. | — | queued | queued |
| Work & MoneyTopic queued — article not yet publishedA row appears here once an article in this category is published and graded. | — | queued | queued |
| OtherTopic queued — article not yet publishedA row appears here once an article in this category is published and graded. | — | queued | queued |