About Us
What’s Optimal is an evidence-based health and fitness resource covering supplements, training, nutrition, and longevity. We review the scientific literature and translate it into practical, honest advice with no sponsorship bias and no conflicts of interest. The evidence is the authority.
Who We Are
What’s Optimal currently publishes under a brand byline rather than individual names. Our focus is on the strength of the evidence behind what we cover, not on building personality around a person. The editorial decisions, research methodology, and content standards described on this page are the work of our team.
If our structure changes in the future and we publish under named bylines, this page will be updated to reflect that.
How We Research, Evaluate, and Rate What We Cover
What’s Optimal publishes evidence-based content on supplements, training science, nutrition, and longevity. This page explains how we pick topics, evaluate research, assign ratings, and keep our editorial conclusions independent.
How We Select Topics
Every topic we cover has to pass four checks before we write about it.
There needs to be enough human evidence to form an honest position. At minimum, that means one systematic review or three randomised controlled trials in humans. Animal studies and cell research do not count toward this threshold.
The topic has to map to one of our four content pillars: supplements, longevity, training science, or nutrition.
There needs to be a finding worth communicating. If the evidence just confirms what everyone already believes, the article adds no value. We look for something counterintuitive, overlooked, or widely misunderstood.
There needs to be a practical recommendation we can give readers at the end. Evidence without a takeaway is not content.
If a topic cannot clear all four checks, we do not cover it.
How We Conduct Research
All research starts with PubMed and the primary peer-reviewed literature. We read the studies themselves, not summaries or secondary reporting.
For every topic we actively search for contradicting evidence, not just supporting evidence. What did the studies that found no effect show? Where has the consensus been challenged? What methodological limitations apply? This adversarial check runs before any writing begins. If we cannot find contradicting evidence, that absence is worth noting in the article.
We also check funding sources. When the primary evidence base for a supplement comes from industry-funded research with limited independent replication, we say so in the article. Glycine is one example: the published human trials on glycine for sleep have largely been funded by Ajinomoto, a major commercial glycine producer. That does not automatically invalidate the findings, but readers deserve to know it.
How We Evaluate Evidence
We apply a standard evidence hierarchy.
Meta-analyses and systematic reviews carry the most weight. They pool results across multiple studies and reduce the influence of individual outliers. Below those sit randomised controlled trials, then observational studies, then mechanistic and animal research.
We do not present animal or in vitro findings as evidence of human efficacy. Where we cite them, we label them explicitly as non-human evidence.
When Studies Disagree
Studies on the same question often point in different directions. When this happens, we follow a consistent protocol rather than averaging conflicting findings into a soft conclusion.
We lead with the consensus position when one exists. A meta-analysis or systematic review usually outranks individual trials. We name the conflict openly rather than glossing over it: if three studies found a 5 to 8% improvement and two found nothing, we say so, and we identify what methodological differences appear to track the discrepancy when the research notes provide that reasoning.
When we cannot explain why studies disagree, we say that too. We do not invent reconciliations.
Genuine conflict often means a more conditional recommendation or a lower tier rating. We adjust accordingly.
Our Rating System
We rate supplements and interventions on a six-tier scale based on the weight, quality, and consistency of human evidence. The rating also accounts for practical factors: how large the effect actually is, what dose is realistically achievable, what it costs, and who is likely to benefit.
S — Overwhelming evidence. Most people benefit. Multiple large RCTs, meta-analyses, and systematic reviews with consistent findings. A real, noticeable effect at a practical dose. Creatine monohydrate is the clearest example.
A — Strong evidence. Situational benefit. Multiple human studies with solid findings, but the benefit depends on a specific population or gap such as diet, deficiency, age, or training status. Magnesium bisglycinate for sleep and vitamin D3 for deficiency sit here.
B — Promising but limited. Worth considering. A handful of human studies pointing toward benefit, but not enough replication or scale to draw firm conclusions. Collagen peptides for joint health is a reasonable example.
C — Insufficient human evidence. Probably skip it. Interesting mechanistic rationale or early animal data, but human trials are too few or too small to support the marketed claims. Most nootropics land here.
D — Overhyped. Marketing outpaces the science. Human studies have been done and the results are weak or negative, but the product is still aggressively marketed on the strength of animal research or one flawed trial. Turkesterone sits here: two modern double-blind RCTs both found no significant effect on muscle mass or strength. The studies were done. They came back empty.
F — No meaningful evidence. Avoid. No credible human evidence for the claimed benefits. Often a proprietary blend designed to obscure ingredients. Detox supplements and testosterone-booster blends fall into this category.
The D vs F distinction matters. D means we looked and the science did not deliver. F means there is nothing credible worth evaluating. These are not the same thing.
Tier assignments are reviewed when new high-quality evidence is published, typically a new meta-analysis, large RCT, or systematic review. When a rating changes, we note what the new evidence showed and link to it.
How Our Content Is Produced
Our current process uses AI assistance for drafting articles from research notes verified by our editorial team. Citations are checked against the primary source before drafting begins, and every draft is reviewed for accuracy before publication. Some of our videos use synthetic voice generation.
Editorial conclusions, evidence evaluations, and rating decisions are made by humans. Our production tools may change over time, but the standards on this page apply regardless of which tools are used to produce a particular piece.
Corrections
If we publish an error, we correct it openly with a dated note explaining what changed. Email corrections to [email protected].
Updates that reflect new evidence are handled the same way: a dated note at the top of the article explains what changed, what was added, and which new sources informed the update.
Our Editorial Standards
Editorial conclusions are not for sale. We do not accept payment to alter a rating, soften a criticism, or insert a recommendation that is not supported by the evidence. If a sponsor’s product does not hold up to scrutiny, we say so or we do not cover it.
We do not recommend products we have not evaluated against the published research. Where a product category has a clear evidence leader, we recommend it whether or not it is an affiliate product. When the best-evidence option is not an affiliate link, we say so in the article and link to it anyway.
When a product we recommend through affiliate links has a negative finding worth reporting, we report it. Our editorial conclusions reflect the evidence regardless of which retailers offer affiliate commission.
If our standards or practices change, this page will be updated to reflect that. The current version is the one that applies.
Disclosures
Affiliate links. Articles on this site may contain affiliate links. When you buy something through one of these links, What’s Optimal may earn a commission at no extra cost to you. We only recommend products we have evaluated against the published evidence, and our recommendations are not influenced by which retailers offer affiliate commission. When the best-evidence option is not an affiliate product, we say so and link to it anyway.
Sponsored content. Where sponsored content appears on the site, it is labelled explicitly and held to the same evidence standards as our regular content.
Health disclaimer. All content is for informational and educational purposes only. It does not constitute medical advice and is not a substitute for consultation with a qualified healthcare professional. Always speak to your doctor or pharmacist before starting a new supplement, especially if you have a medical condition, are pregnant or breastfeeding, or are taking prescription medication. Statements about dietary supplements have not been evaluated by Medsafe (New Zealand) or the FDA (United States) and these products are not intended to diagnose, treat, cure, or prevent any disease.
Contact
For corrections, editorial questions, or partnership enquiries: [email protected]
Last updated: June 2026