When someone says, “Cite the research or it doesn’t count,” what they often mean is:
If science hasn’t studied people like you, you don’t exist.
But here's the truth no one wants to admit: most of what we call “science” is built on a foundation that excludes the very people it claims to serve—especially if you're an Indigenous woman, in surgical menopause, running marathons, and challenging everything the industry taught them to trust.
Let’s break down the difference between the types of evidence people love to argue about—so you can reclaim your own experience as valid, essential, and worth listening to.
Empirical Evidence: What the “Science Bros” Love
This is the gold standard in traditional research.
It’s data-driven. It’s numbers. It’s charts and graphs and P values.
Examples of empirical evidence:
-
Clinical trials
-
Meta-analyses
-
Randomized controlled studies
-
Lab-based research with strict controls
Why it matters:
-
It reduces bias (at least in theory)
-
It can be replicated and validated
-
It identifies broad patterns across large populations
But here’s the part most people gloss over:
Empirical evidence also has serious limitations.
-
It often excludes or underrepresents women, BIPOC folks, LGBTQIA+ folks, and people with non-normative bodies
-
It rarely accounts for lived experience
-
It tells us what works on average, not what works for you
Anecdotal Evidence: The Data No One Wants to Call Data
This is what we’re told doesn’t count.
Personal stories. Lived experiences. “Just” a feeling, or a pattern, or a hunch.
Examples of anecdotal evidence:
-
“After my hysterectomy, weight loss became impossible with the same nutrition and exercise.”
-
“All my menopausal clients respond better to strength than cardio now.”
-
“My body doesn’t follow the rules anymore—and I’ve tracked everything.”
Why it matters:
-
It’s where all scientific discovery starts
-
It shows us where research is missing
-
It reminds us that people aren’t lab rats
Here’s the kicker:
All empirical science started as someone noticing something weird.
Some woman said, “Hey, this doesn’t work the way it used to.”
And if the system decides not to study that woman?
Then her anecdote is all we’ve got.
When They Demand Proof That Doesn’t Exist
Let’s say someone demands clinical evidence that Indigenous women in surgical menopause, who are endurance athletes, don’t respond to calorie deficits the same way.
You won’t find it.
Not because it's not real,
But because no one’s studied it.
That’s not a failure of your biology. That’s a failure of the system.
So when someone says:
“If there’s no peer-reviewed study, it doesn’t count,”
what they’re really saying is:
“I refuse to believe your body matters unless a male-dominated institution tells me it does.”
Science Isn’t Neutral
We’ve been taught to believe science is objective. But we need to get real:
-
Most research is conducted on cis white men
-
Most funding doesn’t prioritize menopause, fertility loss, or Indigenous health
-
Most protocols are built around male physiology
So if you’re not seeing your story in the literature, it’s not because it’s not real.
It’s because they chose not to look.
Real Progress Is “Both/And”
This isn’t about throwing science out the window. It’s about demanding more of it. Better questions. Better representation. Better context.
The future of evidence is:
-
Lived experience plus data
-
Observation plus experimentation
-
Subjectivity plus measurable outcomes
You’re not less credible because you speak from your body.
You’re ahead of the research curve.
If you’ve ever been told you’re imagining things…
If someone dismissed your story because it didn’t show up in PubMed…
If a coach, a doctor, or a dude on the internet told you “the science says otherwise”—
You are not the problem.
You are the unwritten case study the system is afraid to acknowledge.
You are the exception that proves the rule needs rewriting.
And you don’t need to wait for a double-blind trial to believe your own damn experience.