How We Research & Review Supplements
Our evidence-based methodology for evaluating biohacking products. Transparent, rigorous, and committed to scientific integrity.
Not all supplement reviews are created equal. Many sites give everything 5 stars to maximize affiliate commissions. Others rely on personal anecdotes instead of research.
At Biohack Health Now, we use a systematic, evidence-based approach to evaluate every product. Here’s exactly how we do it.
Our 7-Step Research Process
Product Selection
We choose products based on reader requests, scientific innovation, marketing claims that need verification, or emerging trends in biohacking and longevity research.
Literature Review
We search PubMed, Google Scholar, and university databases for peer-reviewed research on each ingredient. We examine randomized controlled trials (RCTs), meta-analyses, systematic reviews, and mechanistic studies.
Study Quality Assessment
We evaluate research methodology: sample size, study design, participant demographics, control groups, statistical significance, funding sources, and potential conflicts of interest. Not all studies are created equal.
Ingredient Analysis
We examine the product’s formulation: ingredient forms (bioavailability matters), dosages compared to research-effective amounts, synergies or conflicts between ingredients, and transparency of labeling.
Mechanism Verification
We explain how the supplement is supposed to work at a biological level. We distinguish between theoretical mechanisms and proven pathways. Marketing claims often exaggerate or misrepresent mechanisms.
Context & Applicability
We consider: Who is this product appropriate for? What lifestyle factors impact effectiveness? What are realistic expectations for results? Are there better or cheaper alternatives?
Honest Synthesis
We write reviews that balance what the evidence shows with practical considerations. We highlight both strengths and limitations. We don’t hide weaknesses to increase affiliate sales.
What We Evaluate
Every product is assessed across multiple dimensions:
π¬ Clinical Evidence
Number and quality of studies supporting claims. RCTs > observational studies > in vitro research. Sample sizes, statistical significance, replication across studies.
π Ingredient Quality
Bioavailable forms? Research-backed dosages? Proprietary blends (red flag) or transparent labeling? Synergistic combinations or random kitchen-sink formulas?
π Dosing Accuracy
Does the product contain effective amounts based on research? Many supplements are severely underdosed. We call this out explicitly.
π― Mechanism Clarity
Can we explain how it’s supposed to work? Is the mechanism proven or speculative? Do marketing claims match the science?
π₯ Target Population
Who will benefit? Who should avoid it? Individual variation matters. Not every supplement works for everyone.
π° Value Proposition
Price relative to ingredient costs and dosing. Monthly cost sustainability. Better alternatives at lower prices?
β οΈ Safety Profile
Known side effects? Drug interactions? Contraindications? Long-term safety data? Quality control and third-party testing?
π Realistic Timelines
How long until you see results? What’s a realistic outcome? We set honest expectationsβno miracle claims.
Our Rating System
Important: We don’t give 5-star ratings easily. Most supplements fall in the 3.0-4.5 range because perfection is rare. If you see a 5-star rating from us, it’s earned.
Red Flags We Watch For
Certain practices immediately raise concerns:
- Proprietary Blends: Hiding ingredient dosages is often a sign of underdosing.
- Exaggerated Claims: “Miracle cure” or “guaranteed results” are red flags.
- Cherry-Picked Research: Citing only favorable studies while ignoring contradictory evidence.
- Fake Scarcity: “Limited supply” or “one weird trick” marketing tactics.
- Underdosing: Including ingredients at 10-20% of research-effective amounts.
- Fake Doctor Endorsements: Stock photos or actors pretending to be doctors.
- No Third-Party Testing: Lack of quality verification from independent labs.
- Unrealistic Timelines: Promising overnight results for processes that take weeks.
What We Don’t Do
We Don’t Test Products in a Lab
We’re not a testing facility. We rely on published research, ingredient analysis, and critical evaluation of manufacturer claims. For third-party testing results, we reference independent lab reports when available.
We Don’t Rely Solely on Personal Experience
Anecdotes are interesting but not evidence. While some team members use products we review, ratings are based on scientific research, not just personal outcomes. Individual variation is too high to trust single experiences.
We Don’t Accept Payment for Reviews
Companies cannot pay for positive reviews. We earn affiliate commissions on purchases, but ratings are never influenced by commission rates. We’ll recommend a cheaper alternative if it’s better supported by evidence.
We Don’t Claim Medical Expertise
We’re educated consumers and researchers, not doctors. We provide educational information and always recommend consulting healthcare professionals before starting supplements.
Sources We Trust
We prioritize evidence from:
- Peer-Reviewed Journals: Published research from reputable scientific journals
- University Research: Studies from academic institutions (e.g., UniversitΓ© de Louvain, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam)
- Meta-Analyses: Studies that synthesize results from multiple trials
- Systematic Reviews: Comprehensive evaluations of existing research
- Cochrane Reviews: Gold-standard evidence synthesis
- Government Health Agencies: NIH, FDA, EMA data and guidelines
- Third-Party Testing Labs: Independent verification of product quality
We’re skeptical of:
- Company-funded studies with no independent replication
- In vitro (test tube) studies without human trials
- Small sample sizes (N < 20)
- Non-peer-reviewed preprints or conference abstracts
- Marketing white papers masquerading as research
Updates and Corrections
Science evolves. When new research emerges that changes our understanding of a product, we update our reviews accordingly.
- Reviews are dated and include a “last updated” timestamp
- Significant updates are noted at the top of the review
- If we make an error, we correct it transparently and acknowledge the mistake
- Reader feedback helps us improveβif you spot an issue, contact us
Our Commitment
We promise to:
- Evaluate products using consistent, evidence-based criteria
- Cite all sources and provide access to research
- Disclose affiliate relationships clearly
- Call out poor-quality products even if it costs us commissions
- Update reviews when new evidence emerges
- Admit uncertainty when evidence is limited or conflicting
- Prioritize scientific integrity over sales
If you ever feel we’ve failed to meet these standards, please hold us accountable. Use our contact form to let us know.