Every trainer has seen it.
A client walks in motivated, anxious, and armed with a brand-new nutrition “truth” they found online—something that promises fat loss, better hormones, better gut health, better sleep, better everything… by next Tuesday.
At the heart of the matter lies the fact that the internet has absolutely expanded access to health information. But it has also expanded access to bad health information—faster, louder, and more convincing than ever (Mohamed et al., 2023; Quinn et al., 2017).
For fitness professionals, this isn’t just background noise anymore. It’s a coaching issue. Because the modern client doesn’t simply need a training plan, they need the skills to filter what they’re consuming online, especially when it affects nutrition choices, recovery, adherence, and training performance (Landry, 2015; Dissen et al., 2021).
This CEC article synthesizes what peer-reviewed research currently shows about nutrition literacy, health literacy, eHealth literacy, and the real-world ability to evaluate online health information—and then translates those findings into practical tools trainers can use immediately (Kim et al., 2023; Lee et al., 2014).
What “Literacy” Actually Means in This Context
Health literacy is commonly defined as a person’s capacity to obtain, process, and understand health information to make appropriate health decisions (Manganello, 2007). More broadly, it includes the ability to access, understand, evaluate, and communicate health information to promote and maintain health (Landry, 2015).
That matters because low health literacy is consistently associated with poorer health practices and outcomes, and certain populations tend to be at higher risk, including young adults, older adults, people with lower income, non-native English speakers, immigrants, and those with less education (Landry, 2015; Quinn et al., 2017).
But here’s the part trainers need to appreciate: health literacy is not the same thing as being competent online(Quinn et al., 2017).
eHealth literacy describes the ability to seek, locate, evaluate, and apply electronically sourced health information to a health problem (Quinn et al., 2017). The classic model of eHealth literacy highlights multiple underlying “literacies,” including traditional literacy, health literacy, information literacy, scientific literacy, media literacy, and computer literacy (Dominick et al., 2009; Cho et al., 2018).
More recent work emphasizes digital health literacy as a dynamic, context-sensitive skill set. In plain English: it’s not just whether you can find information online, it’s whether you can navigate changing platforms, jargon, distractions, and conflicting claims while still making good decisions (Kim et al., 2023).
And importantly, the relationship between these literacies is messier than most people assume. Quinn and colleagues found that health literacy scores and eHealth literacy scores were not significantly related, suggesting that being “health literate” does not automatically translate into effective online searching and evaluation (Quinn et al., 2017). Similarly, higher digital health literacy does not necessarily guarantee people retain strong practical search strategies (Kim et al., 2023).
The Reality: Adults Search Online Constantly—But Evaluation Skill Is Often Weak
Adults are prolific consumers of online health information. Research suggests that a large proportion of adults search online for health information, especially about diseases and medical conditions (Dominick et al., 2009). Those patterns are shaped by access and experience, where people with more online experience, broadband access, and higher education tend to search more (Landry, 2015).
However, high usage does not equal high skill. Access to information does not guarantee the ability to locate credible sources, interpret them correctly, or apply them appropriately (Dominick et al., 2009; Landry, 2015).
Across multiple studies, a consistent and concerning finding emerges: adults, including those comfortable online, often struggle to accurately evaluate the credibility and reliability of online health information (Dissen et al., 2021; Mohamed et al., 2023).
Dissen et al. (2021) found that undergraduate students—people who are, functionally, “internet natives”—could not reliably distinguish credible from non-credible online health information, even when they could describe evaluation criteria. That’s a critical point for coaches: knowing what someone should do is not the same as watching what they actually do.
Quinn and colleagues found a similarly troubling pattern: participants with “adequate” health and eHealth literacy scores still used unaccredited health information at extremely high rates and leaned heavily on search engine results rather than deliberate credibility checks (Quinn et al., 2017). This supports a recurring theme in the literature: there’s often a mismatch between self-assessed competence and real-world behavior (Behre, 2022; Quinn et al., 2017).
How People Decide What’s “Credible” Online (And Why That’s a Problem)
When adults evaluate online health information, many rely on shortcuts or simple heuristics rather than rigorous evaluation standards (Mohamed et al., 2023). That’s not because people are inherently “lazy.” Rather, it’s because online environments reward speed, convenience, and confidence rather than careful thinking (Hayat et al., 2018; Behre, 2022).
Mohamed et al. (2023) describe how consumers commonly judge credibility based on surface cues—presentation, visual design, and how professional a site looks—rather than evidence quality or source integrity. Individuals with low health literacy may also rely on cues like search result position, picture quality, celebrity endorsement, and vague notions of authorship (Mohamed et al., 2023).
Young adults often try to evaluate information, but their strategies may still be unreliable. Behre reported common tactics like checking the domain type (.com/.org/.gov), author credibility, how recent the content is, whether other sources confirm it, and whether the content uses scientific language (Behre, 2022). Yet, even when these cues are used, they don’t guarantee accurate judgment—again reflecting the gap between “recognizing criteria” and “making correct decisions” (Dissen et al., 2021).
Qualitative work reinforces the idea that credibility assessment is a distinct skill that varies by health literacy level. Champlin et al. (2016) found that people with lower health literacy were less likely to detect or seek credible information, even when credibility was essential to their ability to find usable health information.\
Why This Becomes a Nutrition Coaching Issue—Even If You Don’t “Do Nutrition”
Nutrition literacy doesn’t always appear as a stand-alone construct in the literature, but it sits inside the broader health literacy and eHealth literacy framework (Landry, 2015; Cho et al., 2018). That matters because nutrition misinformation is often more persuasive than general health misinformation—it’s tied to identity, morality, language (“clean,” “toxic”), and quick-fix promises.
So even if you stay strictly inside scope, your clients’ online nutrition beliefs will still show up in your sessions as:
- low energy availability
- inconsistent recovery
- erratic adherence
- unnecessary food fear
- overreliance on supplements or rigid protocols
Improving eHealth literacy has been associated with health-promoting behaviors in professional populations (e.g., nurses), but research also notes that changing behavior likely requires more than knowledge—it often requires systemic and organizational support as well (Cho et al., 2018). In other words, information alone isn’t the intervention.
Bliss (2019) found that some adult learners can locate credible resources and evaluate them effectively, highlighting that critical evaluation skills can be developed. But the broader pattern across studies remains that evaluation skill is highly variable and frequently inadequate (Dissen et al., 2021; Mohamed et al., 2023; Quinn et al., 2017).
A Trainer-Friendly Credibility Screen (Minimal Bullets, Maximum Use)
You don’t need to turn your session into a seminar. You just need a repeatable screen that teaches clients how to pause, orient, and verify.
Here’s a simple six-part credibility screen you can coach conversationally. Use it like a checklist without making it feel like a checklist (Theron et al., 2019).
First: “Who wrote this?”
- If there’s no author—or no relevant credentials—that’s a credibility hit right away (Mohamed et al., 2023). If the author is present, credentials should match the claim (e.g., nutrition claims from someone trained in nutrition science).
Second: “What are they selling?”
- Even when content is technically accurate, financial incentives can skew framing, exaggerate certainty, or cherry-pick evidence (Mohamed et al., 2023).
Third: “What kind of evidence is being used?”
- Anecdotes, testimonials, and confident storytelling are persuasive, but they are not the same as evidence. Clients often confuse “convincing” with “supported” (Behre, 2022; Mohamed et al., 2023).
Fourth: “Can it be cross-checked?”
- Encourage clients to confirm big claims across multiple reputable sources rather than treating a single page, post, or video as definitive (Behre, 2022; Champlin et al., 2016).
Fifth: “Is the conclusion stronger than the evidence?”
- Absolute language, universal prescriptions, and certainty without nuance should trigger skepticism—especially in nutrition (Hayat et al., 2018; Mohamed et al., 2023).
Sixth: “Does this apply to you right now?”
- Even “true” information can be misapplied. Context matters—training phase, recovery status, medical history, and goals all shape whether a nutrition claim is useful or harmful (Kim et al., 2023; Landry, 2015).
What the Research Suggests Helps (And What Often Doesn’t)
Reviews of interventions show that many programs aim to teach consumers how to find credible websites or use the internet, but these interventions are frequently didactic, and outcomes are often self-reported rather than behaviorally verified (Lee et al., 2014). That’s a problem, because multiple studies show self-assessed skill can be inflated relative to real-world performance (Behre, 2022; Quinn et al., 2017).
More promising approaches across the literature include interactive workshops, community-based learning, and strategies that build realistic evaluation habits in the environments people actually use (Mohamed et al., 2023; Subramaniam et al., 2015). Subramaniam and colleagues specifically suggest that digital literacy programs implemented in naturalistic settings, building on existing heuristics, may help people make more consistent credibility judgments over time (Subramaniam et al., 2015).
There’s also evidence that simply increasing awareness and exposure to credible resources can improve confidence and perceived ability to find good health information (Ghaddar et al., 2011; Chang et al., 2015). For trainers, that can look like routinely pointing clients toward higher-quality starting points and reinforcing the habit of cross-checking.
Finally, the research suggests that tools need to be usable. Theron et al. (2019) found that simplified evaluation guides may be more practical than complex checklists in applied settings (Theron et al., 2019). In the coaching world, simpler usually wins, because simple gets used.
Key Takeaways for Fitness Professionals
Online health information seeking is common, but evaluation skill is inconsistent and often inadequate (Dissen et al., 2021; Mohamed et al., 2023). Health literacy and eHealth literacy overlap, but one does not guarantee the other (Quinn et al., 2017). People commonly use surface cues to judge credibility, and those cues can be misleading (Mohamed et al., 2023).
Your job is not to become your client’s internet referee. Your job is to coach a skill: helping them slow down, verify, and choose information that supports health and performance rather than undermining it (Landry, 2015; Champlin et al., 2016).
References
Al-Ruzzieh, M., AL-Helih, Y., & Al-Soud, Z. (2024). e-Health literacy and online health information utilization among Jordanians: A population-based study. Digital Health, 10. https://doi.org/10.1177/20552076241288380
Baines, A. (2025). Older adults’ response strategies to misinformation on social media. Social Media + Society, 11(4). https://doi.org/10.1177/20563051251386360
Behre, J. (2022). Young adults’ online sexual health information seeking and evaluating skills: Implications for everyday life information literacy instruction. Proceedings of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 59(1), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1002/pra2.599
Bliss, A. (2019). Adult science-based learning: The intersection of digital, science, and information literacies. Adult Learning, 30(3), 128–137. https://doi.org/10.1177/1045159519829042
Champlin, S., Mackert, M., Glowacki, E., & Donovan, E. (2016). Toward a better understanding of patient health literacy: A focus on the skills patients need to find health information. Qualitative Health Research, 27(8), 1160–1176. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732316646355
Chang, F., Chiu, C., Chen, P., Miao, N., Lee, C., Chiang, J., … & Pan, Y. (2015). Relationship between parental and adolescent eHealth literacy and online health information seeking in Taiwan. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 18(10), 618–624. https://doi.org/10.1089/cyber.2015.0110
Cho, H., Han, K., & Park, B. (2018). Associations of eHealth literacy with health-promoting behaviours among hospital nurses: A descriptive cross-sectional study. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 74(7), 1618–1627. https://doi.org/10.1111/jan.13575
Dissen, A., Qadiri, Q., & Middleton, C. (2021). I read it online: Understanding how undergraduate students assess the accuracy of online sources of health information. American Journal of Lifestyle Medicine, 16(5), 641–654. https://doi.org/10.1177/1559827621990574
Dominick, G., Friedman, D., & Hoffman-Goetz, L. (2009). Do we need to understand the technology to get to the science? A systematic review of the concept of computer literacy in preventive health programs. Health Education Journal, 68(4), 296–313. https://doi.org/10.1177/0017896909349289
Ghaddar, S., Valerio, M., García, C., & Hansen, L. (2011). Adolescent health literacy: The importance of credible sources for online health information. Journal of School Health, 82(1), 28–36. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1746-1561.2011.00664.x
Hayat, T., Hershkovitz, A., & Samuel-Azran, T. (2018). The independent reinforcement effect: The role diverse social ties play in the credibility assessment process. Public Understanding of Science, 28(2), 201–217. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662518812282
Kim, J., Livingston, M., Jin, B., Watts, M., & Hwang, J. (2023). Fundamentals of digital health literacy: A scoping review of identifying core competencies to use in practice. Adult Learning, 35(3), 131–142. https://doi.org/10.1177/10451595231178298
Landry, K. (2015). Using eHealth to improve health literacy among the patient population. Creative Nursing, 21(1), 53–57. https://doi.org/10.1891/1078-4535.21.1.53
Lee, K., Hoti, K., Hughes, J., & Emmerton, L. (2014). Interventions to assist health consumers to find reliable online health information: A comprehensive review. PLOS ONE, 9(4), e94186. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0094186
Manganello, J. (2007). Health literacy and adolescents: A framework and agenda for future research. Health Education Research, 23(5), 840–847. https://doi.org/10.1093/her/cym069
Mohamed, H., Salsberg, J., & Kelly, D. (2023). An integrative review protocol on interventions to improve users’ ability to identify trustworthy online health information. PLOS ONE, 18(4), e0284028. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0284028
Quinn, S., Bond, R., & Nugent, C. (2017). Quantifying health literacy and eHealth literacy using existing instruments and browser-based software for tracking online health information seeking behavior. Computers in Human Behavior, 69, 256–267. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2016.12.032
Seo, H., Blomberg, M., Altschwager, D., & Vu, H. (2020). Vulnerable populations and misinformation: A mixed-methods approach to underserved older adults’ online information assessment. New Media & Society, 23(7), 2012–2033. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444820925041
Son, H., Sohn, Y., & Jeon, J. (2025). Factors influencing eHealth literacy related to parenting among Asian immigrant mothers in South Korea. Computers Informatics Nursing, 43(5). https://doi.org/10.1097/cin.0000000000001253
Subramaniam, M., Taylor, N., Jean, B., Follman, R., Kodama, C., & Casciotti, D. (2015). As simple as that?: Tween credibility assessment in a complex online world. Journal of Documentation, 71(3), 550–571. https://doi.org/10.1108/jd-03-2014-0049
Tazehkandi, M., Nowkarizi, M., & Moradi-Biyarajmandi, Z. (2024). The impact of socio-demographic factors on web credibility assessment. IFLA Journal, 51(2), 350–363. https://doi.org/10.1177/03400352241270701
Theron, M., Astle, B., Dixon, D., & Redmond, A. (2019). Beyond checklists: A nursing informatics education strategy for undergraduate nursing students appraising health information on social networking sites (SNS). Quality Advancement in Nursing Education, 5(1). https://doi.org/10.17483/2368-6669.1174
