Editorial standards.
so you can check my work.
How I test
Most of what I publish is n=1: one person (me), changing one variable at a time, tracked with the same tools night after night. I report the boring numbers, and I report the nulls — when something does nothing, that's the result, and you'll hear it. n=1 is a hypothesis generator, not proof. What moves my nervous system may do nothing for yours, and I'll keep saying so.
How I read the research
I link the actual studies so you can poke holes in them yourself. I lean on human randomized trials and systematic reviews over single small studies, and I flag plainly when the evidence is preclinical, in animals, or just thin. If the science is unsettled, I'll say it's unsettled instead of pretending otherwise — even when a confident answer would sell better.
Where the money is
I won't hide my conflicts of interest — I'll put them in front of you and let you weigh them.
Not medical advice
I'm a guy with a tracker and two rebuilt hips, not a doctor. Nothing here diagnoses, treats, or replaces a clinician. Talk to a professional before you change anything that matters — especially if you take medications or have a health condition.
When I get it wrong
I will, eventually. When I do, I fix the piece and say what changed rather than quietly editing it. If you spot an error or a study I've misread, tell me and I'll chase it down.