Research, credibility, and methodology articles by Martin Schattenberg, for THE INSIGHT SOURCE. When I find something worth saying, I say it here.
Peer-reviewed research is now documenting the specific claims made on influential health podcasts that contradict current evidence. Here is what the research actually shows, and what it means for licensed practitioners who podcast.
Read the article →The practices are almost never the problem. What flips a good habit into something that drains you, and the 15-minute list that shows you what to pause.
Why the first hour after waking isn't neutral, four common morning stress stackers, and a 5-10 minute reset that survives real mornings.
Every podcast tool and agency on the market starts with a transcript. Which means every downstream deliverable is limited by what the host already knew when they sat down to record.
Keyword research happens after recording in every workflow I have seen documented. Here is how I do it before, embedded into the research brief so the host speaks the search terms naturally.
For licensed health practitioners, a single unverified claim in an episode is a professional liability. Here is what that means in practice, and how I approach it.
Mind and Body is the second most consumed podcast genre. It is also the genre most consistently criticised for unverified health claims. That gap is a production problem.
The standard advice is to optimise show notes and episode titles after you record. But the research on how podcast content surfaces in search tells a different story entirely.
Most of a research brief is not findings. It is constraints. Here is what mine contains section by section, and which parts actually change what the host says on the day.
I don't publish on a schedule. I publish when I have something worth saying. No filler, no opinion dressed as research. When something new goes up, you'll hear about it.
No cadence promises. No newsletter padding. Just the article, when it's ready.