Methodology
How we read the research
Every claim on this site is graded against the same evidence scale, and every article is built the same way. Here is exactly how that works.
Why grading matters
Almost every claim you will read about peptides is technically supported by “a study”. That phrase does an enormous amount of work. A result from cells in a dish, a result from twelve mice, and a result from a randomised trial with four hundred people are all studies — and they justify wildly different levels of confidence.
Most peptide writing flattens that distinction, either by dropping citations that nobody checks or by burying the qualifications in academic language. We do the opposite: the strength of the evidence is displayed as prominently as the finding itself.
The evidence scale
Five steps, used identically on compound pages, articles and comparison tables.
Mechanistic
Findings come from cells, tissue or theory. Nothing has been tested in a living body yet.
Preclinical
Studied in animals, but not yet meaningfully tested in people. Animal results often do not carry over.
Preclinical / Early Human
Mostly animal research, with a small amount of early human data that is not yet conclusive.
Early Human
Small human studies exist, but they are limited in size, length or design.
Established Human
Supported by larger, repeated, well-designed human trials.
Editorial standards
- Plain English comes first. The opening quarter of every article must be readable by someone who has never taken a biology class. Technical depth comes after, not instead.
- Limitations are content. Every compound page and article states where the evidence runs out, in the body — never as fine print.
- We do not invent citations. Where a source has not been verified by an editor, the page shows a labelled placeholder rather than a plausible-looking reference.
- Animal and human evidence are never blurred. Study cards state the model, design and sample size so you can weigh a finding without opening the paper.
- This is education, not advice. Nothing here is a recommendation, a protocol, or a substitute for a qualified healthcare professional.
How every article is built
The same ordered structure every time, so you learn the shape once and can navigate any article by it.
- 0130-second answer
- 02Why this matters
- 03What researchers found
- 04What that actually means
- 05The deeper science
- 06How strong is the evidence?
- 07Where the evidence gets shaky
- 08Studies and sources
- 09Keep exploring
Latest explainers
All articlesCompound comparison
MOTS-c vs NAD+ precursors: what's actually being compared?
MOTS-c and NAD+ precursors get grouped together as mitochondrial or longevity compounds. They are very different kinds of thing, with very different evidence bases.
August 24, 2026 · 5 min read
Explainer
What is MOTS-c?
A plain-English explanation of MOTS-c — the peptide your mitochondria encode themselves — and an honest read on how strong the evidence actually is.
August 20, 2026 · 8 min read
Stay current
New research, decoded and sent to you
Occasional emails when we publish something worth your time. No hype, no product pitches.