The European Review on Aging and Physical Activityconcentrates on reviews. Reviews are based on researchpapers. When compiling, reviewing, or just reading reviewson exercise programs, some difficulties arise. They will bediscussed below:& Original research more often aims at general laws thanat technological rules to establish the assumptions underwhich these laws take effect.& Authors omit important information on how interven-tions were executed.& Definitions and background theory may lack clearness,or there are terminological differences in differentscientific traditions.In the present paper, the problem is sketched in thefollowing paragraphs. Below, possible reasons and pro-posals are given. It closes with an appeal to emphasize themethods section in publications. The focus is on originalresearch, which is the base of every review based onoriginal research papers.Reading reviews on physical activity programs, often noclear statement on the effects of certain procedures is given.Sometimes results of collected research seem to be or reallyare contradictory or no meta-analysis is possible, becausethe designs are too heterogeneous. Doing a CochraneReview on home vs center-based exercise, Ashworth andcolleagues expressed this experience [1].This is valid independent of formal quality. Papers oninterventional trials often are not comparable, becauseinformation on how the interventions were done is missing,or the interventions are too different to aggregate results. Inaddition, in physical activity interventions with the elderly,the growing heterogeneity of subjects exacerbates theproblem: Interventions which show effects for one samplemay fail with another sample, in which disorders, socialstatus, motivation, and other aspects are distributed in aslightly different way. For illustration of the differentaspects, three examples are sketched:Example 1: specifications in strength trainingExercise prescriptions in strength training often compriseload magnitude, number of repetitions and sets, rest in-between sets, number of interventions per week, andtraining period. This was reported by Toigo and Boutellier[8]. The authors show, however, that these classicalparameters are insufficient to precisely describe quantitativeand/or qualitative effects on skeletal muscle. Therefore, it isnot surprising that studies containing some sort of strengthtraining lead to contradictive results or are not comparable.Toigo and Boutellier [8] identify new determinants andrecommend to standardize the design and description of allfuture resistance exercise investigations by using a set of 13mechanobiological determinants (classical and new ones),including fractional and temporal distribution of thecontraction modes per repetition, duration of one repetition,rest in-between repetitions, time under tension, muscularfailure, range of motion, recovery time, and anatomicaldefinition.Example 2: designing a new interventionMissing information also aggravates the use ofpublished research for the purpose of designing new