How we write
Our editorial process for supplement and nutrition guides.
Research and sources
We base our guides on human clinical trials, systematic reviews, and meta-analyses where available. We prefer higher-quality evidence (e.g. RCTs, Cochrane-style reviews) and note when evidence is limited or conflicting. We do not rely on manufacturer claims alone; we cite peer-reviewed literature and clearly separate what is well-supported from what is preliminary or speculative.
Evidence grades
We assign evidence grades (A–F) to reflect the strength and consistency of the research for a given outcome. Grades describe the state of the science, not whether a compound is “good” or “bad.” A lower grade means the evidence is limited — not that a compound is ineffective. We explain what the grade means in context for each topic.
- A — Strong evidence. Multiple independent RCTs or a systematic review / meta-analysis support the claim.
- B — Moderate evidence. Smaller or fewer trials with consistent direction of effect.
- C — Mechanistic or pilot data. A plausible mechanism plus early-stage human evidence.
- D— Insufficient evidence. The studies needed to recommend a specific dose or population don’t exist yet.
- F — Not recommended. Evidence of no effect at meaningful doses, or documented harm at doses people actually take.
Review and updates
Our content is reviewed internally for accuracy and alignment with current evidence. We update guides when new, meaningful research appears or when dosing, safety, or regulatory information changes. We show a “last updated” or review date where relevant so you can see how current the information is.
What we don't do
Our guides are educational. They don't diagnose, treat, cure, or prescribe, and they don't replace a healthcare provider. We summarise the evidence and general practices so you can have better conversations with your clinician or dietitian — especially if you take prescription medications or manage a chronic condition.