How Evidence vs Hype Works

Big claims deserve clear questions. We investigate health, fitness, nutrition, psychology, wellbeing and lifestyle claims without judging people for asking or believing them.

From claim to context

1. Claim: define the strongest reasonable version, the outcome and who it applies to.
2. Why people believe it: explain origins, plausible mechanisms and partial truths.
3. Evidence: examine relevant research and distinguish meaningful outcomes from laboratory findings or biomarkers.
4. Limitations: explain study size, duration, bias, uncertainty and who findings may not apply to.
5. Evidence Rating: summarise the strength and consistency of evidence for the specific claim.
6. What this means for you: give a proportionate, plain-English takeaway.
7. Sources: link to research so you can check it yourself.

How We Assess Evidence

We consider study design, comparison groups, sample size, duration, directness of outcomes, consistency and conflicts of interest. A review is only as reliable and relevant as the studies it includes. One study rarely settles a broad claim.

• Strong: consistent findings from high-quality research, with few important limitations.
• Moderate: generally supportive findings, with limitations that affect confidence.
• Limited: some relevant evidence, but important gaps or small studies remain.
• Weak: little reliable support for the claim in the research reviewed.
• Unclear: findings conflict, or the evidence cannot yet give a useful answer.

Ratings apply to a claim, not a product or person. Each investigation explains the direction of findings. Weak evidence is not proof a claim is false; a reassuring short trial is not a guarantee about every person over many years. Ratings are editorial judgements, not a formal clinical guideline or numerical score.

A quick guide to checking a claim

Five useful questions before you share a headline or spend your money.

1. What exactly is being claimed?

   Look for a specific outcome, who it applies to and the size of the promised effect.

2. Can you trace the source?

   Follow the claim back to the original research. A headline is only the starting point.

3. What did they actually measure?

   A laboratory result, a biomarker and a meaningful everyday benefit answer different questions.

4. What are the limitations?

   Check study size, comparison groups, duration and whether the findings have been repeated.

5. What would change your mind?

   Look for findings that challenge the claim as well as those that support it.

Uncertainty is useful.

“We don’t know yet” can be the most accurate answer. You don’t need a verdict on everything.

Editorial Standards

We investigate rather than ridicule. We separate association from causation, a plausible mechanism from a demonstrated effect, and absence of evidence from evidence of no effect. We avoid inflated promises, cherry-picked results and certainty the research cannot support.

We explain important uncertainties and relevant conflicts where known. We do not claim clinical credentials, independent peer review or specialist approval unless explicitly identified. Content is educational and does not provide individual diagnosis or treatment.

Sources and References Policy

We prioritise original research, systematic reviews and authoritative scientific guidance relevant to the question. News stories and social posts can explain how a claim spread, but do not substitute for the underlying evidence.

Study links appear beside the discussion and in the sources section where useful. We identify author, year and publication, distinguish reviews from trials, and record the review date. Inclusion does not imply that a study proves the claim. Abstract-only evidence is treated with appropriate caution.

Corrections Policy

Spot a factual error, broken link or important missing evidence? Use our contact page. Include the investigation title, passage in question and a supporting source where possible.

Substantive corrections should appear in a dated note on the investigation, explaining what changed and whether the takeaway or rating changed. Minor spelling and formatting fixes may be made without a separate note. New evidence may lead to an updated review and revised review date.

See the process in practice

Does creatine cause hair loss? Read the investigation, or browse the Evidence Library.

Read about Evidence vs Hype and our affiliate disclosure.