Editorial standards

Our content is not medically reviewed

No licensed clinician reviews our articles before publication. Nobody who writes or edits this publication is a physician, nurse, registered dietitian, licensed nutritionist, psychologist or therapist. Articles are researched, written and edited by a non-clinical editorial team working from published sources.

We state this first, and plainly, because our articles cite the American Diabetes Association, the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases, and peer-reviewed journals, and they carry an “Editorial Team” byline. Publications that look like this often do carry clinical review. Ours does not, and we would rather you know that than assume otherwise. Where an article is reviewed by a named clinician in future, that person will be credited on the article itself and identified by name and credential. If you do not see such a credit, no clinical review took place. See our medical disclaimer.

What we cover

We publish on a deliberately narrow set of related subjects: blood sugar and A1C, insulin resistance, type 2 diabetes, nutrition as it bears on metabolic health, heart health, healthy aging, sleep and stress, and body composition. We stay in this lane so that our writing can be specific rather than general.

Source hierarchy

When evidence conflicts, we weight it in this order. A claim supported only by a lower tier is presented as weaker than one supported by a higher tier, and we say which is which in the text.

1. Systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Where a body of trials has been synthesised, that synthesis outranks any single study within it — including studies with more striking results.
2. Randomized controlled trials. Trials that can support a causal claim, read with attention to size, duration, population and what the trial actually randomized.
3. Large cohort and longitudinal studies. Useful for long-horizon questions a trial cannot ethically or practically answer. These show association, not causation, and we describe them that way.
4. Recognized clinical guidelines. Standards of care from bodies such as the American Diabetes Association, and material from government health institutes such as NIDDK, for describing accepted clinical practice and diagnostic thresholds.

Below that line we do not go. We do not build articles on press releases, conference abstracts, animal or in-vitro studies presented as if they applied to people, single case reports, or the claims of commercial parties. Where we mention a preliminary finding, we label it as preliminary.

How we handle sources

Every article carries a source list. Sources link to a DOI resolver where one exists, otherwise to the publisher’s own page — not to a secondary article about the study. Where a study reports a specific figure we quote, that figure comes from the study itself, not from coverage of it.

We do not invent statistics, quotes, authors, credentials or reviewer names. If a number is not in a source we can point you to, it does not appear.

Corrections

We correct errors rather than quietly deleting them. When we make a substantive correction — one that changes the meaning of a claim, a figure, or the conclusion a reader would draw — we fix the article and note what changed and when.

Typographical fixes, broken-link repairs and formatting changes are made without a note, because recording them would bury the corrections that matter.

If you believe something here is wrong, tell us and we will check it. A specific pointer — the article, the sentence, and what the evidence actually says — gets a faster answer than a general objection. Write to the address at the bottom of this page.

Updates

Nutritional and metabolic science moves. An article that was accurate when published can be overtaken by a later trial or a revised guideline. Each article shows the date it was last updated.

We revisit articles when a guideline we cite is revised, when a major synthesis is published on a question we have covered, or when a reader shows us that a claim no longer holds. We make no commitment that every article reflects the most recent research at all times, and an older article should be read with its date in mind.

How AI is used

Our content is AI-assisted with human editorial oversight. We use AI tools in drafting and editing. A person is responsible for every article: for choosing the sources, for checking that each claim matches what its source says, and for what is finally published.

AI is not permitted to supply the evidence. Sources are located and verified by a person, because a language model will produce a plausible citation that does not exist. Any claim traceable only to an AI tool, and not to a source we can link you to, does not get published.

Independence and commercial interests

This publication is operated by Coaching Companies LLC, which also owns products discussed in a small number of commercial articles. That relationship is set out in full on our advertising disclosure page.

It does not affect the editorial articles. No source is cited, omitted or characterised differently because of what the company sells, and where the evidence is weak or points away from a commercially convenient conclusion, we report it that way.

What we will not publish

• Claims that a food, supplement or protocol cures or treats a disease
• Advice to change, reduce or stop a prescribed medication. We say the opposite, everywhere: talk to the physician who prescribed it
• Fabricated reviewers, credentials, testimonials or reader counts
• Before-and-after claims presented as typical, or any implication that a reported result is what you should expect
• Content presented as clinically reviewed when it has not been

Contact the editorial team

For corrections, source queries or editorial feedback: