Editorial standards
How we decide what to publish.
01
Credentials, shown as approved
Every article names its author and reviewer with their relevant credentials, exactly as they have approved them. We do not invent or inflate expertise, and we do not publish anonymous health advice.
02
Sources on the page
Factual claims are referenced, and the references are published. We prefer systematic reviews and well-designed studies in people, and we say when the evidence is thinner than that.
03
Dated and reviewed
Each article shows when it was published and when it was last reviewed. High-stakes topics — hormones, supplements, investigational research — are reviewed by a qualified medical professional.
04
Emerging is not established
Early research is labelled as early, every time. Animal studies, small pilot trials and preprints are never presented as settled science.
05
Corrections, openly
When we get something wrong we fix it, date the correction and say what changed. Material corrections are noted at the top of the article.
06
Sponsors never edit
Sponsorship is disclosed wherever it applies, and editorial decisions stay separate from it. Sponsors do not choose topics, guests or conclusions.
Evidence labels
Four labels. Always visible.
Established evidence
Consistent findings from good-quality research in people.
Mixed evidence
Real evidence pointing in different directions.
Emerging research
Early, small, short or non-human research. Interesting, not settled.
Opinion
The experience or view of the person speaking.
Never
What we will not publish.
- Personal medical advice, diagnosis or prescribing.
- Doses, protocols or sourcing for hormones, peptides or other prescription-only or unapproved substances.
- Claims that an unapproved substance or therapy is safe or effective.
- Miracle cures, guaranteed results or before-and-after promises.
- Testimonials presented as evidence.
- Content that shames bodies or glorifies harmful behaviour.