How We Evaluate Evidence
Our methodology for separating genuine science from wellness hype—and being honest about what we don't know.
The health and wellness space is full of claims. Some are backed by decades of rigorous research. Others are based on a single mouse study, a lab observation, or just wishful thinking marketed as science.
This page explains how we evaluate evidence when writing our guides. Our goal isn't to be the final word on any topic—it's to give you an honest assessment of what we know, what we don't, and how confident you should be in different claims.
Our Evidence Tiers
We use a simple three-tier system to rate the evidence behind interventions:
Strong Evidence
Multiple large, well-designed human trials (ideally randomized controlled trials) showing consistent effects. These interventions have been tested in real humans, in significant numbers, with proper controls.
Examples: Semaglutide/tirzepatide for weight loss, exercise for longevity, sauna use (observational but extensive), metformin for diabetes
Moderate / Promising Evidence
Strong preclinical data (animal studies), small human trials, or consistent observational findings. The mechanism makes sense and early results are encouraging, but definitive human evidence is limited.
Examples: Rapamycin for longevity (excellent mouse data, limited human data), BPC-157 (extensive animal data, minimal human trials), metformin for longevity in non-diabetics
Speculative / Early Stage
Theoretical mechanisms, very early research, or anecdotal reports. The hypothesis might be plausible, but there's little or no rigorous evidence to support specific claims.
Examples: Many longevity supplements, most "biohacking" protocols, specific peptide stacks
Debunked / Failed Testing
Interventions that were tested rigorously and failed to show benefits, or where initial promising results didn't replicate. We include these to help you avoid wasting money or time.
Examples: Resveratrol for longevity (failed to replicate early claims), NR for lifespan extension (failed ITP mouse trials)
The Evidence Hierarchy
Not all research is created equal. Here's how we rank different types of evidence:
Meta-analyses & Systematic Reviews
Pooled results from multiple high-quality trials
Randomized Controlled Trials (RCTs)
Gold standard for testing if an intervention works
Large Observational Studies
Like the Finnish sauna studies—can show correlations, not causation
Animal Studies (Well-Designed)
ITP mouse trials are rigorous; single-lab mouse studies less so
Cell Culture / In Vitro Studies
Useful for mechanism, but often don't translate to humans
Case Reports / Anecdotes
Starting points for research, not evidence of efficacy
Red Flags We Watch For
When evaluating claims, these warning signs make us more skeptical:
- Claims based only on cell culture or single mouse studies
- Studies funded entirely by supplement/drug companies (without independent replication)
- Dramatic claims that haven't been replicated by other labs
- Researchers with significant financial conflicts of interest
- Marketing that emphasizes testimonials over clinical data
- "Ancient wisdom" or "natural" used as evidence (nature makes plenty of poisons)
- Claims that a single intervention fixes everything
- Lack of discussion about side effects or limitations
Sources We Trust
When researching topics, we prioritize these types of sources:
PubMed / Peer-Reviewed Journals
Primary research published in reputable scientific journals
NIA Interventions Testing Program (ITP)
The gold standard for longevity compound testing in mice
Cochrane Reviews
Rigorous systematic reviews of clinical evidence
FDA Approval Documents
Clinical trial data submitted for drug approval
Independent Researchers
Scientists without financial conflicts discussing evidence publicly
Our Limitations
We're not perfect, and we want to be transparent about our limitations:
- We're not medical professionals. This is educational content, not medical advice.
- We can't read every study. We focus on key papers and systematic reviews.
- Science changes. What we write today might be updated by new research tomorrow.
- We have biases. We try to be aware of them, but we're human.
- Some topics lack good research. We note this when relevant.
Ready to explore our evidence-based guides?