Methodology
From a question to a published answer, step by step.
Most health content never shows its working. This page does: the order we do things in, how we weigh one study against another, and what happens when the evidence simply is not good enough to give you a clean answer.
- Primary literature first
- Evidence graded, not flattened
The process
Start with the question men actually ask
Topics come from real search behaviour and reader questions, not from what is easiest to write. “Does creatine make you gain weight” is a better starting point than “the role of phosphocreatine in ATP resynthesis”, even when the answer involves both.
Go to the primary literature
We search PubMed and PMC before we read anything secondary, so that other people’s framing does not set ours. Where a systematic review or meta-analysis exists, that becomes the spine of the article.
Grade what we find
Studies are weighted by design, size and recency using the hierarchy below. A single small trial does not get to overturn a body of consistent evidence, and a mechanism demonstrated in rats does not become advice for humans.
Cross-check against clinical guidance
We compare our reading against guidance from bodies such as the NIH, NHLBI, NIDDK, the National Cancer Institute and the Office of Dietary Supplements. Where our conclusion and official guidance diverge, we say so and explain why rather than quietly picking one.
Write it so it is usable
Drafting is where numbers become decisions: what dose, what test, what to change on Monday. If a section cannot survive the question “so what should I do?”, it gets rewritten or cut.
Review, then cite everything
Nutrition, fitness and supplement articles go to our reviewer for a qualifications check. Sources are then listed at the foot of the article, linked out, so you can read the original and disagree with us if you want to.
How we weigh evidence
Not all research deserves equal billing. This is the order of preference we apply, strongest first.
Systematic reviews and meta-analyses
Pooled human evidence, ideally recent and with clearly stated inclusion criteria. These carry the most weight and are what we quote when stating something confidently.
Randomised controlled trials
Well-designed human trials, with more weight given to larger samples, longer follow-up and populations that resemble our readers, which usually means adult men rather than young athletes alone.
Observational and cohort studies
Useful for associations and long-horizon outcomes that trials cannot ethically test, but never described as proof of cause. When we rely on these, we say “associated with”, not “causes”.
Mechanism, animal and in-vitro work
Explains why something might work. It does not establish that it does. We use this to describe plausibility and label it clearly as such.
Where our sources come from
Across the library we have published 699 outbound citations to 103 separate sources. The great majority point at the primary literature or at national health bodies.
The primary literature
PubMed and PubMed Central account for 385 of our citations, the single largest group, and deliberately so.
US national health bodies
The NIH and its institutes, including the Office of Dietary Supplements, NHLBI, NIDDK, NCCIH, NIMH and the National Cancer Institute, plus the CDC and FDA.
Academic medical centres
Harvard Health Publishing, Mayo Clinic and Cleveland Clinic, used for clinical framing and for explaining how guidance is applied in practice.
Specialist associations
Bodies such as the American Heart Association and the US Preventive Services Task Force, particularly for screening intervals and risk thresholds.
When the evidence is thin
This is the part most health sites skip. A great deal of men’s health research is unsettled: small trials, mixed results, or findings that have never been replicated in the people asking the question.
When that happens we say so in the article itself. You will find phrases like “the evidence is mixed”, “this has not been tested in men”, and “we do not know” throughout the site, because they are accurate. We would rather give you an honest “it depends” than a confident answer we cannot support.
A worked example. Our coverage of joint supplements concludes that glucosamine and chondroitin perform little better than placebo in large trials, despite their popularity. That conclusion is less commercially attractive than the alternative. It is also what the evidence shows, so it is what we published.
The review step, stated precisely
Nutrition, fitness and supplement content is reviewed by Laiqa Sami, who holds a BSc (Hons) in Food Science and Human Nutrition and is a certified Dance Fit, Zumba, Yoga and Pilates coach with experience as a senior instructor. Her review covers whether the nutrition science is represented accurately and whether the training guidance is realistic for the people it is written for.
Her qualifications do not extend to diagnosis, medication or clinical decisions, and we do not present them as though they do. Articles touching those areas are written from published clinical guidance and carry an explicit instruction to consult your own doctor. We think naming the boundary is worth more than claiming a review we cannot give.
Check our working
Every article lists its sources. If one does not support what we wrote, that is a correction we want to make.