Research Standards & References

Every factual claim on this site should be traceable to a source. This page explains the standard we hold ourselves to, so you can tell when we fall short of it.

The hierarchy we use

Not all evidence is equal, and the difference matters most in exactly the places supplement marketing is loudest.

Strongest: randomised controlled trials with hard endpoints. Participants randomly assigned, outcomes that matter (cardiac events, mortality, diagnosed disease) rather than surrogate markers. Rare in nutrition and rarer in supplements. When it exists, it settles the question.

Strong: systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Multiple trials pooled. Quality depends entirely on the quality of the included studies, so we look at what went in.

Moderate: randomised trials with surrogate endpoints. A supplement moves a blood marker. Useful, but a marker moving is not the same as an outcome improving, and the history of medicine has several expensive lessons on that point.

Weak: observational and epidemiological studies. Shows association, not causation. People who eat more vegetables differ from people who do not in many ways besides vegetables.

Weakest: animal studies, in vitro work, mechanistic reasoning. A compound does something in a petri dish or in mice. This is where the overwhelming majority of supplement ingredient claims come from, and it justifies further research, not a purchase.

How we cite

Numbered references appear at the end of each article, listing author, title, journal and year, so that you can find the paper regardless of whether a URL still resolves. Where we describe a study in the text, we say what population it studied and what it actually measured.

Where evidence is animal-only, industry-funded, or absent, we say so in the body of the article rather than leaving it to be inferred from the reference list.

Sources we rely on

• PubMed and the National Library of Medicine
• The Cochrane Library
• Peer-reviewed journals in nutrition, endocrinology and cardiology
• The NIH Office of Dietary Supplements fact sheets
• Regulatory positions from the FDA, EFSA and equivalent bodies

Sources we do not treat as evidence

• Manufacturer white papers and sponsored “clinical studies” that were never published or peer-reviewed
• Testimonials and before-and-after imagery
• Predatory or pay-to-publish journals
• Secondary health-content sites, including our own. We cite the underlying paper, not an article about it

Corrections

If a citation on this site does not support the claim it is attached to, that is a real error and we want it reported. Email [email protected] with the page and the specific reference. We will correct it and note the revision date.

This is not a formality. Fabricated and misattributed citations are endemic in this category, and the only thing that makes a reference list worth anything is somebody being willing to check it.