Evidence first
Reviews and RCTs lead every score.
Supplement evidence ratings
We review high-quality studies and rate popular supplements on whether they do the job people reasonably buy them for, including performance, recovery, sleep, mood, appetite, and health-support claims.
Source linked
Every verdict links to its papers.
Claim specific
Scores stay tied to the stated job.
Live evidence stack
129 reviews
731 linked sources. Scores answer the claim, not the hype.
Evidence-backed and still subject to product quality checks before any specific product is highlighted.
May work for a narrow use case, but claims need tighter context and caveats.
Too weak, redundant, inconsistent, or poorly matched to the claim being sold.
Editorial standards
Evidence guides built for skeptical readers
Readers can see why a supplement earned its score, what claim it supports, and whether that claim is direct or indirect for training. These guide surfaces give context around claims, dosing, and when a product is not worth using.
Claim-level control
Each recommendation is tied to a specific outcome. A mood or sleep signal can matter without becoming a muscle-gain claim.
Dose and timing context
Dose notes reflect commonly studied ranges and flag when protocols are inconvenient, acute, or tolerance-limited.
Practical replacement logic
Ingredients that duplicate diet basics, sleep, or training quality are scored conservatively even when plausible.
Safety and sport caveats
Cards separate claim evidence from safety constraints, drug-tested sport risk, and medical edge cases.
Methodology
How ratings are assigned
Scores summarize evidence that a supplement does its stated job. A direct gym-performance claim, a recovery claim, a sleep claim, and a mood-support claim are each judged against their own evidence base. Strong evidence can still receive a restrained recommendation if the effect is small, hard to use, medically sensitive, or product quality is difficult to verify.
Evidence hierarchy
- Highest weightSystematic reviews, meta-analyses, and major society position stands.
- Supporting weightRandomized controlled trials in trained or relevant populations.
- Lower weightMechanistic, observational, animal, or unpublished evidence.
- Excluded from scoringBrand claims, testimonials, influencer content, and under-dosed proprietary blends.
Score bands
5.0Consistent high-quality evidence, practical dosing, and a clear claim match.
4.0-4.9Good evidence with limits around population, timing, effect size, or tolerability.
3.0-3.9Mixed or narrow evidence; useful for some users but not a broad recommendation.
1.0-2.9Weak, redundant, inconsistent, or unsupported for the marketed claim.
Decision rules
- Rate the claim users actually buy the supplement for, not the most favorable possible endpoint.
- Do not penalize a legitimate mood, sleep, appetite, or health-support claim simply because it is indirect for training.
- Reduce confidence when studies rely on untrained users, small samples, short duration, or surrogate markers.
- Separate efficacy from fit: a supplement can do its job and still be a narrow, cautious, or medical-context recommendation.
Review cadence
- High-traffic high-rated pages get priority review when new meta-analyses appear.
- Low-scoring ingredients stay visible so users can see why they are not recommended.
- Source drawers preserve paper links and caveats so verdicts remain auditable.
Affiliate policy
Monetization rules before links go live
Affiliate status is treated as a product-quality layer on top of the evidence score. A high score makes a supplement eligible for review; it does not automatically make a specific product recommendable.
Eligible only when evidence is strong enough
Default threshold is 4.0 out of 5, with lower-scoring supplements excluded from commercial links.
Product must match the evidence
Serving size, ingredient form, dose, and usage instructions must align with studied protocols.
Quality checks come first
Third-party testing, contaminant screening, transparent labels, and sport-risk disclosures are favored.
Editorial score stays independent
Commercial availability never increases a rating, and weak supplements remain visible as non-recommendations.
Trust documents