Editorial Standards

1. The standard, in one sentence

If a claim cannot be defended in front of a working clinician, a federation director, and a competitive masters-age athlete, it does not go on the site.

2. Minimum requirements for every published article

• Length. Minimum 2,000 words for substantive analysis. Shorter pieces are categorized as briefings or notes and labeled as such.
• Citations. Every empirical claim is linked to a peer-reviewed source, a public dataset, or our own published methodology. We name our sources.
• Recency. Where the science is moving, we cite work from the past five years and flag any older foundational sources we rely on.
• Actionable takeaways. Every article ends with a section that translates the analysis into something the reader can do or audit.
• Visual integrity. Charts must show their axes, units, and source. We do not use truncated axes to dramatize differences.

3. Evidence grading

Where we make recommendations, we grade the evidence behind them. Our grades — A through D — reflect:

• Grade A. Multiple high-quality controlled trials in trained populations, replicated, with effect sizes meaningful at the level of athletic performance.
• Grade B. Substantial mechanism plausibility plus at least one controlled trial in trained populations, or replicated controlled trials in adjacent populations.
• Grade C. Strong mechanism plausibility and observational evidence; controlled trials limited or pending.
• Grade D. Plausible mechanism but evidence insufficient. We may discuss; we do not recommend.

4. Conflict of interest

Every author and reviewer discloses material commercial relationships at the time of publication. We do not accept payment for editorial placement, ranking, or favorable mention of products. We do not own equity in companies whose products we evaluate. We do not run advertising on the site.

5. External contributors

Articles contributed by external authors — clinicians, physiologists, sports scientists — are reviewed by at least two members of our editorial board and held to the same standards as staff work. Contributors are credited by name and affiliation; their disclosures are published alongside the work.

6. Corrections

When we get something wrong, we say so. Corrections are issued under a dated correction notice at the top of the affected article. We do not silently revise published work. Substantive corrections that alter conclusions are flagged in the next monthly newsletter.

7. Quotation, attribution, and AI

Direct quotations are short and clearly attributed. Long-form summaries are written in our own words and explicitly cited. We do not use generative AI to produce substantive editorial content. We use it for tasks like grammar review, internal research summaries, and accessibility — and we say so when we do.

8. Sources we will not use

We do not cite predatory journals, manufacturer-funded studies presented as independent, or contested claims circulating exclusively in commercial sports-supplement marketing. We do cite preprints when methodology is sound and we say they are preprints.

9. Athlete privacy in case studies

Case studies presented on this site are either (a) anonymized with sufficient detail removed to prevent identification, or (b) published with the explicit written consent of the athlete. We do not name athletes in connection with biomarker or injury data without their permission.

10. Editorial board

Our editorial board comprises sports physicians, exercise physiologists, biostatisticians, and athletic directors across multiple disciplines. The board meets quarterly to review published work, flag emerging issues, and audit our adherence to these standards. Board members are credited on the About page; the chair rotates every two years.

11. Reporting concerns

If you believe a piece of our published work is inaccurate, misleading, or in conflict with these standards, write to our contact form. We will respond within ten working days and will issue a public correction where warranted.