Evidence-based supplement reviews, with the evidence shown

The supplement aisle is unusually hard to shop honestly. Labels are loosely regulated, marketing claims outrun the research behind them, and most “top 10” lists are written to sell rather than to inform. We can’t fix that market — but we can be specific about what we checked, what we found, and what we don’t know.

Start with what you’re trying to improve

  • Sleep & Stress — magnesium, melatonin, ashwagandha, L-theanine, valerian root
  • Energy & Focus — caffeine, B vitamins, adaptogens, iron, and when fatigue is a medical question
  • Gut Health — probiotics and strain specificity, fiber and prebiotics, digestive enzymes, “leaky gut”
  • Healthy Aging — collagen, NAD+ precursors, resveratrol, and what actually slows age-related decline
  • Joints & Mobility — glucosamine and chondroitin, curcumin, omega-3s, and the “rebuilds cartilage” claim
  • Weight Management — fat burners, garcinia cambogia, glucomannan, green tea extract, GLP-1 comparisons

How we work

Most articles open with an evidence rating — a short verdict on the state of the research, not on our enthusiasm. Moderate, Limited and Weak all appear. So far, nothing we have reviewed has earned a Strong.

The most common verdict is Split, and that is not a hedge. The evidence for a supplement routinely differs depending on which use, which dose, or which formulation you mean — an ingredient can have real support for one claim and almost none for the claim it is actually marketed on. Collapsing that into one word would be exactly the tidying this site exists to avoid, so the rating says Split and the sentence next to it says what splits.

Some articles carry no rating at all. Pieces about how a claim is regulated, what a contested term actually means, or when a symptom is a question for a doctor review no supplement — so there is nothing to rate, and we say that instead of inventing a score.

Every article has a section on what we could not check. Which sources we read in full, which we read only in summary, and which claims remain weakly supported. You can judge our reasoning against the sources we cite, because we cite them.

We are not clinicians. No one who produces this content holds a clinical credential, and no licensed professional reviews it. That is a real limitation on a health site, and we would rather name it than paper over it. For decisions that matter to your health, talk to a qualified healthcare professional.

The full process is described in our Methodology, and the rules we hold ourselves to are in our Editorial Policy.

How this site is funded

Right now, it isn’t. This site carries no affiliate links and earns no commissions. We intend to add them, and when we do we will say so plainly — on the Affiliate Disclosure page with the date, and on every page carrying a commercial link. That standard is published in advance, before there is any money involved, so you can hold us to it.

Latest articles