The most common mistake is reading a single positive headline finding ( improves strength’) and applying it without checking whether the study population, outcome measure, and protocol have anything to do with your athletes and your goals the difference between ‘acute isometric strength in a lab task’ and ‘competition sprint performance in a trained athlete’ is enormous, and the literature does not support treating those as interchangeable claims. A second mistake is ignoring the placebo/sham-control quality of the underlying study; some early positive findings in this space came from designs with weak blinding, and the field’s more recent systematic reviews are noticeably more cautious than the popular press coverage of the same topic. A third mistake is skipping athlete-level response tracking because individual variability in response is well documented, a coach who applies one fixed protocol to an entire roster and reports an average team effect can miss the fact that half the athletes had no meaningful response at all, which matters enormously for deciding whether to continue the intervention with a given individual.

Bottom line: shows real acute effects on isometric strength and attention-based tasks, and more convincing training-augmentation effects over repeated sessions but small athlete-specific samples, non-standardized protocols, and non-linear dose-response mean this belongs in a monitored pilot or research setting for now, not a blanket rollout across your program.