Our Methodology

The most important question: does it work? We evaluate efficacy against the peer-reviewed literature, not marketing claims. This pillar examines whether the active ingredients are present at clinically validated doses, whether the mechanism of action is supported by human trials (not just in-vitro or animal studies), and whether our panelists observed measurable outcomes during the test period.

What We Evaluate

• Active ingredients at or above clinically studied doses
• Mechanism of action supported by human RCTs where available
• Measurable outcomes tracked by panelists over minimum 30-day period
• Absence of ingredient interactions that would blunt efficacy
• Bioavailability form (e.g., chelated minerals vs. oxide forms)

We assess the full ingredient profile — not just the actives, but every excipient, filler, coating, and flavoring agent. Third-party certification is the single most important signal here. We distinguish between label certification (a company self-reports) and batch certification (an independent lab tests the actual product). Only the latter earns full marks.

What We Evaluate

• Third-party batch testing (NSF Certified for Sport, Informed Sport, USP)
• Source transparency (country of origin, supplier identity where disclosed)
• Absence of unnecessary fillers, artificial sweeteners, or proprietary blends that obscure doses
• Heavy metal and contaminant testing results
• Allergen disclosure and manufacturing facility standards

At this price point, the product experience matters. This pillar covers everything from how a supplement mixes and tastes to how a device feels on your wrist at 2am. It also includes the digital experience: app quality, subscription management, customer support responsiveness, and the unboxing experience. Products that are technically excellent but miserable to use consistently score lower here.

What We Evaluate

• Sensory experience: taste, texture, smell, mixability (supplements); comfort, fit, wearability (devices)
• Packaging quality relative to price point
• App and digital experience quality (where applicable)
• Subscription and account management friction
• Customer support response time and resolution quality (tested via direct inquiry)

We evaluate whether a brand's positioning is authentic and consistent with its actual practices. This is not a measure of marketing quality — it's a measure of integrity. Does the advisory board have real credentials and actual involvement? Does the brand's sourcing story hold up to scrutiny? Are the founders' backgrounds relevant to the product category? We are skeptical of influencer-founded brands by default, though they can earn high scores here with sufficient transparency.

What We Evaluate

• Advisory board credentials and verifiable involvement
• Founder background relevance and transparency
• Consistency between brand claims and product reality
• Supply chain and sourcing transparency
• Track record on recalls, reformulations, and customer communication

We calculate cost-per-serving or cost-per-day and benchmark it against comparable certified alternatives. Value is always relative to category — $3/day for a clinically dosed, NSF-certified magnesium glycinate is excellent value; $3/day for a proprietary blend with undisclosed doses is not. We also evaluate subscription economics, cancellation friction, and whether the price has changed materially since launch.

What We Evaluate

• Cost per serving vs. certified alternatives in the same category
• Subscription discount depth and cancellation ease
• Price stability and transparency (no hidden fees)
• Value relative to the category ceiling (what the best version of this product costs)
• Refund policy and trial period availability

We purchase every product we review at retail price, through the brand's own website, using a non-disclosed identity. We do not accept complimentary products, press samples, or early access in exchange for coverage. If a brand sends us an unsolicited product, we either return it or purchase a replacement unit independently before beginning our review.

Each product is assigned a primary reviewer and at least one secondary reviewer based on category expertise. The primary reviewer conducts the full test period and writes the review. The secondary reviewer independently scores the product across all five pillars without seeing the primary reviewer's scores. Scores are reconciled in a structured editorial meeting before publication.

Every product must be tested for a minimum of 30 days before a review can be published. Most reviews reflect 60--90 day test periods. Products that require longer timelines to assess (e.g., collagen for skin changes, creatine for strength adaptation) are held until sufficient data exists. We do not publish reviews based on a single week of use.

Dr. Webb conducts an independent ingredient audit on every product. This includes cross-referencing the label against the brand's Certificate of Analysis (where available), checking third-party certification databases (NSF, Informed Sport, USP), and flagging any ingredients that appear on prohibited substance lists. Products with proprietary blends that obscure individual ingredient doses are automatically capped at 7.0 on the Ingredient Quality pillar.

Each panelist scores the product independently across all five pillars using our standardized rubric. Scores are submitted to the editorial team before any discussion occurs. The final published score is a weighted composite of all panelist scores, with the primary reviewer's score carrying 60% of the weight and secondary reviewers splitting the remaining 40%.

The final review is written by the primary reviewer and edited by our editorial lead for clarity, accuracy, and tone. All factual claims are sourced to peer-reviewed literature or primary sources. The review is then reviewed by Dr. Webb for any safety-related content before publication. We do not share reviews with brands prior to publication.