Supplement analysis grounded in clinical evidence, not brand claims.
Every review examines dose-level data and ingredient sourcing. No products for sale. No affiliate obfuscation. Just the analysis.
What the evidence actually shows
EPA/DHA dose vs. label claims
KSM-66 vs. root extract: does it matter?
Form determines absorption, not milligrams
Third-party assay data vs. label claims — most products deliver less active EPA than the serving size implies. We quantify the gap.
Standardized withanolide content separates effective from inert products. We cross-reference trial dosing against what's in each bottle.
Oxide, glycinate, malate — bioavailability varies sharply by form. We cite the comparative absorption studies brands won't mention.
Clinical citations in every review
Dose-level scrutiny. No exceptions.
We reference PubMed-indexed trials, systematic reviews, and meta-analyses — not manufacturer white papers. Sources are linked, not paraphrased.
Independent from the brands we assess
Each review verifies active ingredient concentration against peer-reviewed trial dosing, checks for proprietary blends that obscure individual quantities, and flags third-party testing status.
No sponsored placements. No revenue from products reviewed. Conclusions follow the data — not commercial relationships.
Start with the ingredient list. We already did.
Browse evidence-graded reviews and ingredient breakdowns — written for readers who need data, not reassurance.