Editorial Policy
How we research, write, review, and update content.
Last updated: February 20, 2026
Our commitment
Every article on BioHack Metabolism is grounded in peer-reviewed research, independently reviewed by a credentialed professional, and updated when new evidence warrants it. We prioritize accuracy over speed and transparency over traffic.
Purpose
Metabolic health affects nearly every aspect of wellbeing — from energy and body composition to disease risk and longevity. Yet most health content online is shaped by ad revenue, supplement sponsorships, or oversimplified trend cycles.
BioHack Metabolism exists to provide a higher standard: accurate, practical, and responsible guidance on metabolic health, weight regulation, blood sugar control, and daily energy. We write for readers who want to understand the science, not just follow instructions.
How Topics Are Selected
We choose topics based on three criteria: strong relevance to metabolic health, prevalence of misconceptions or misinformation, and the availability of quality evidence to draw from. Trending topics are not selected simply because they are popular — they must meet our evidence threshold first.
We actively avoid publishing content on topics where the evidence is too thin to provide reliable guidance. When we do cover areas of active debate, we clearly label the uncertainty.
Our Editorial Process
Every article goes through four distinct stages before reaching you. This process ensures that what we publish is accurate, clearly written, and responsibly framed.
Research
Each article begins with a systematic review of peer-reviewed literature. We search PubMed, Cochrane Library, and established clinical databases for randomized controlled trials, meta-analyses, and systematic reviews relevant to the topic.
Drafting
Content is drafted with a focus on translating complex physiology into clear, actionable language. Every factual claim is linked to its source. We avoid sensationalism and clearly distinguish between established consensus and emerging findings.
Fact-Check & Review
Before publication, each article is independently reviewed by a credentialed professional who verifies claims against the cited evidence, flags unsupported statements, and checks for misleading framing or omissions.
Publish & Monitor
After publication, articles are monitored for reader feedback and new research. When significant evidence emerges that changes a recommendation, the article is updated and the revision date is displayed prominently.
Evidence Standards
We follow a hierarchy of evidence when sourcing claims. Higher-quality evidence is weighted more heavily, and we are explicit when drawing from lower levels:
- Systematic reviews and meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials
- Individual randomized controlled trials (RCTs)
- Well-designed cohort and case-control studies
- Clinical guidelines and consensus statements from recognized bodies
- Established physiological and biochemical principles
We do not cite press releases, social media posts, manufacturer-funded studies without independent replication, or content from non-peer-reviewed sources as primary evidence. When evidence is mixed, preliminary, or contested, we say so directly in the article.
Who Reviews Our Content
Content is written by the BioHack Metabolism Editorial Team and independently reviewed before publication by credentialed professionals with expertise in nutrition science, exercise physiology, or clinical health communication.
Learn more on the About page.
Updates & Corrections
We review published content on a regular cycle and update articles when new evidence materially changes a recommendation or conclusion. Every article displays its publication and last-updated dates so readers can assess currency.
If a factual error is identified — whether by our team, a reader, or through new research — we correct it promptly and note the correction within the article. We do not silently alter published conclusions.
Independence & Conflicts of Interest
BioHack Metabolism is independently operated. We do not sell supplements, promote paid protocols, or accept payment in exchange for editorial coverage. There are no affiliate links influencing our recommendations.
Our reviewers are required to disclose any financial or professional conflicts of interest related to the topics they evaluate. If a reviewer has a connection to a specific study, product, or company mentioned in an article, they are recused from that review.
If sponsorships or commercial relationships are introduced in the future, they will be disclosed clearly and will never influence the content or conclusions of our articles.
Use of AI Tools
AI tools may be used during the research and drafting phases to assist with outlining, literature organization, and initial drafting. However, all published content is reviewed, edited, and approved by a human editor who takes full responsibility for factual accuracy and editorial framing.
AI-generated content is never published without human review. We do not use AI to fabricate sources, generate fake expert quotes, or produce content on topics beyond our team's domain expertise.
Questions & Corrections
If you spot a factual error, have a question about our methodology, or want to suggest a topic, we want to hear from you. Reach out via the Contact page. We review all correction requests and respond within 3–5 business days.
For health-related limitations, see the Medical Disclaimer.