Methodology
This page describes how content on this site is researched, evaluated, and written. It is a companion to the Editorial Standards page; standards explain what we will and will not do, while methodology explains how we do it.
1. Question framing
Every article and Q&A on this site begins with a specific question. Pages are organized around questions a reader actually asks — "How much copper bisglycinate should I take?" — rather than around topics we want to explain. This produces tighter scope and forces the content to deliver an answer rather than a survey.
2. Literature search
For each question, we identify the highest-tier sources available. Starting points are the NIH Office of Dietary Supplements, the Institute of Medicine Dietary Reference Intakes, and PubMed-indexed reviews. We then search for primary studies, with preference for human randomized trials, systematic reviews, and meta-analyses. Where human data are not available, we identify the best available animal or mechanistic evidence and label it as such.
Forms Compared3. Evidence classification
Each claim used in a page is classified by the strength of evidence behind it.
| Level | Type of evidence | How we present it |
|---|---|---|
| Established | Strong consensus across primary authority sources and multiple human studies | Stated directly, without hedging. |
| Supported | Reasonable peer-reviewed support but limited replication or some heterogeneity | Stated with appropriate language: "evidence suggests," "studies indicate." |
| Plausible | Mechanistic reasoning and/or animal data support the claim; human data are limited | Labeled explicitly. "Animal data suggest…" or "plausible based on mechanism." |
| Contested | Conflicting evidence or active scientific debate | Both sides are presented. We do not pick a side without strong basis. |
| Unsupported | Common claim with weak or absent evidence | Identified and corrected. We do not repeat industry claims that exceed the evidence. |
4. Citation discipline
Every factual claim has a source. Sources are listed at the end of each article and Q&A. Where a claim is contested or the evidence base is limited, we say so in the body of the text — not just in a footnote.
5. Numeric precision
When we cite a specific number — a dose, a percentage, an upper limit — we cite the source. We do not give specific bioavailability multipliers (e.g., "three times more absorbable") unless a peer-reviewed human study supports the figure. Most chelate-versus-non-chelate comparisons in humans are not precise enough to support specific multipliers, so we avoid them.
6. Handling uncertainty
Where the evidence is genuinely unclear, the content says so. This is one of the largest differences between this site and most supplement-industry content. "More research is needed" is sometimes the correct answer; we use it when it is correct.
7. Updating
New evidence is incorporated as it is published. Substantive updates are noted on the page. The review schedule is set out in Editorial Standards. Corrections are logged on the Corrections page.