The sources we trust, the SALT method for judging any claim, and honest notes on trends, traditions, and experiments. Read as much or as little as you want.
SALT is a simple lens for supplement information. Here it means Source, Authority, Location, and Timeliness — where "Location" covers where the information is published, its context, and possible commercial bias.
S
Source
What kind of source is this — a research summary, a government fact sheet, a position statement, a retailer's product page? Each type answers different questions.
A
Authority
Does it link conclusions to evidence, distinguish strong findings from uncertain ones, and disclose who wrote it and how?
L
Location
Where is it published and what's the context? A sales page, a military program, and an elite-sport framework each carry different biases.
T
Timeliness
When was this page last substantively updated? For newer ingredients, recent research matters more.
One critical distinction
A website explaining whether an ingredient works is not verifying whether a particular brand's product contains that ingredient, is uncontaminated, or is safe for you. Ingredient research and product quality are two separate questions.
The 60-second SALT check
Five quick questions. Score 4 or more — that’s a passing grade.
The top five
Ranked by evidence and usefulness
This is an evidence-and-usefulness ranking — not a ranking by traffic or popularity. These are our assessments, not an externally published league table.
Assessing supplement risks and investigating ingredients
Military-specific guidance doesn't always apply to civilians
1
Examine
examine.com — best overall starting point for a fitness enthusiast
Examine analyzes and summarizes research on supplements and nonpharmaceutical interventions, including effectiveness, safety, and dosage — particularly useful when investigating whether a supplement is worth taking for a specific goal.
S Source
A research-summary resource. Its value is translating a body of research into a form a nonspecialist can use — an isolated study can mislead, while a pattern across studies is harder to fake.
A Authority
Judge it by the quality and transparency of the analysis: does the page link conclusions to evidence and separate stronger findings from uncertain ones? For any ingredient, ask who was studied, what was measured, whether the benefit is big enough to matter, whether the dose matches the studied dose, and whether side effects are explained.
L Location
A standalone nutrition-and-supplement research site, not a government or university domain. That doesn't make it less accurate — it means evaluating its methods and disclosures rather than trusting the domain name. Check the current access model and commercial disclosures.
T Timeliness
Check the last substantive update of the specific page you use. Older high-quality reviews can still serve for established ingredients; for newer or heavily marketed ones, recency matters more.
Best practical use: start with "Does this ingredient improve strength or muscle growth in someone like me?" — then cross-check safety with NIH ODS and sporting relevance with AIS.
Overall judgment: our first choice for an accessible, research-focused overview.
2
NIH Office of Dietary Supplements
ods.od.nih.gov — best for a trustworthy safety and evidence baseline
NIH ODS publishes a dedicated exercise-and-athletic-performance fact sheet with an extensive reference list, plus fact sheets on common vitamins, minerals, and plant-based ingredients.
S Source
The Office of Dietary Supplements within the U.S. National Institutes of Health. An excellent baseline when you want public-health information rather than marketing.
A Authority
Traceable references to research and professional guidance on creatine, protein, caffeine, beta-alanine, and more. The references let you check where a claim originated instead of just accepting it.
L Location
A U.S. government domain, presented as educational material rather than a sales page. Low direct product-selling pressure — but U.S. regulatory descriptions may not apply exactly elsewhere, and population guidance can't account for your full medical history.
T Timeliness
References span multiple years, including older foundational research — not inherently a problem. The key question: could newer evidence materially change the conclusion? Check the page's update info and compare with a recent review on evolving topics.
Best practical use: "What evidence supports this ingredient? What risks should I investigate? Am I treating a deficiency, or expecting a performance boost?" — correcting inadequate intake and boosting performance beyond adequacy are different questions.
Overall judgment: our strongest general reference for cautious, well-documented supplement information.
3
Australian Institute of Sport
AIS Supplements Framework — best for sport-specific decision-making
The AIS framework explicitly asks whether there is evidence that a supplement "works" — focused on evidence-based use of supplements and sports foods within high-performance sport.
S Source
The Australian Institute of Sport, hosted by the Australian Sports Commission. Designed around sporting use rather than general wellness claims — strong for separating a credible performance application from something that merely sounds athletic.
A Authority
Draws on sports-nutrition expertise and international work on dietary supplements in high-performance sport; NIH ODS references its classification system. Read it by asking: what situation is this for, what outcome should it improve, does that resemble my training, and what are the risks?
L Location
An Australian government sports site focused on high-performance sport. An elite athlete may reasonably chase a small gain that means little to a recreational lifter — don't treat athlete-focused guidance as universal instruction.
T Timeliness
Check the current ingredient guidance at the source rather than relying on an old screenshot or a classification quoted in a blog. A supplement's category and use conditions should always be verified live.
Best practical use: "Does this supplement have an evidence-based role in my type of exercise, and under what circumstances?"
Overall judgment: our first choice for practical sporting relevance, especially for competitive athletes.
4
International Society of Sports Nutrition
sportsnutritionsociety.org — best for detailed scientific position statements
The best way to use ISSN material is to locate its position statements and read the associated scientific publication — the NIH fact sheet references ISSN publications on creatine, protein, caffeine, beta-alanine, and HMB.
S Source
Identifiable sports-nutrition publications with named authors and references. A strong source type when you want to go beyond a consumer summary and understand the scientific rationale.
A Authority
"Position statement" doesn't mean beyond debate. Evaluate how each paper handles conflicting findings and study quality — and check whether it separates acute effects from long-term adaptations, mechanisms from demonstrated benefit, and statistical significance from practical improvement.
L Location
For consequential claims, use the full journal article — not a society webpage or press release. Read each paper's funding and competing-interest disclosures; an industry relationship doesn't automatically invalidate research, but it's relevant context.
T Timeliness
Timeliness must be evaluated paper by paper. Before using a statement for a dose or protocol, check whether a newer version or substantial subsequent review exists.
Best practical use: "What is the detailed scientific argument behind this recommendation?"
Overall judgment: a valuable deeper-reading resource; less convenient for a beginner who wants a quick answer.
5
Operation Supplement Safety
opss.org — best as a supplement-risk cross-check
OPSS is a military-oriented supplement-information resource — included here for a different purpose than the others: risk screening should accompany efficacy research. It also directs readers to NIH ODS fact sheets for common ingredients.
S Source
A supplement-safety resource with a military audience. Useful as an additional safety perspective, particularly for unfamiliar ingredients or aggressive performance claims.
A Authority
Its referral to NIH ODS provides a route to well-documented evidence. For any specific warning, look for supporting references, a clear explanation of the risk, and the date.
L Location
The military context matters: a substance can be a service-policy problem as well as a health concern. Civilian legality, military permission, and anti-doping eligibility are separate questions — and absence from a warning list is never proof of safety.
T Timeliness
Safety information changes as new products, ingredients, and adverse-event reports emerge. Check the date of any individual warning and its underlying policy.
Best practical use: "What risks or policy issues should I investigate before taking this product?"
Overall judgment: a useful safety complement to the first four.
Hype check
Trends, traditions & experiments
Where marketing runs ahead of evidence. None of what’s below is endorsed — it’s here so you can see exactly where the marketing ends and the science begins (or doesn’t).
Spot the marketing trick
What people claim versus what the evidence actually shows — make your call first, then see the answer.
The viral powder
People claim: dramatic transformations in weeks, backed by before-and-after photos.
Your call: proven or marketing?
Evidence says: usually zero human trials — only testimonials, animal studies, or borrowed science from a different ingredient entirely.
The celebrity protocol
People claim: a famous athlete's "secret stack" is the reason behind their physique.
Your call: proven or marketing?
Evidence says: the protocol is rarely published, dosed, or tested — it's a story attached to a product link, not a finding.
The ancient rediscovery
People claim: an old remedy is brand-new science for modern performance.
Your call: proven or marketing?
Evidence says: traditional use is real history, but it doesn't automatically equal clinical proof for the marketed claim — check whether modern research supports that specific use.
The proprietary blend
People claim: a "matrix" or "complex" of ten ingredients working in synergy.
Your call: proven or marketing?
Evidence says: if every ingredient wasn't tested together at these doses, the blend's claims are borrowed, not earned — and hidden doses mean you can't even check.
The 60-second trend check
Look the ingredient up on the shelf above — no strong-evidence card, no safety profile, only sales pages? You have your answer.
The experimental shelf
New peptides, novel botanicals, synthetic nootropics, “longevity” compounds — interesting is not the same as proven.
House rules for the experimental shelf
Interesting is not the same as proven.
Mechanism isn't a result
A plausible biological mechanism — or a change in a lab marker — is not proof of strength, muscle, or performance gains in people.
One study is a rumor
Small, short, or unreplicated trials are starting points, not conclusions. Look for replication in trained people doing your kind of training.
Unknown safety is a cost
For new compounds, the absence of reported harm is not evidence of safety. Long-term data simply may not exist yet.
Watch the seller's incentives
Run every experimental claim through SALT — especially Location. Who profits if you believe this, and what would change their mind?
How to research an experimental ingredient
Check the shelf above first — if an ingredient has no strong-evidence card there, that's itself a signal: the evidence base is thin. Check whether human trials exist (not just animal or cell studies), who funded them, what dose was used, and whether anyone has replicated the result. If you can't answer those four questions, you're not ready to decide.
Eastern traditions, through an evidence lens
Traditional Chinese Medicine, Ayurveda, Kampo and other systems carry centuries of observational history — but tradition and clinical evidence are different kinds of knowledge.
Claims vs. evidence here
What people claim: that centuries of traditional use prove these remedies work for modern performance goals. What the evidence shows: traditional use is real observational history, not a clinical trial — when a traditional ingredient is marketed for strength, energy, or recovery, hold it to the same standard as anything else: human trials, relevant populations, meaningful outcomes. Where that research doesn't exist yet, say so plainly.
1
Respect the system
Traditional systems diagnose and treat differently than western sports nutrition. Judging a traditional formula solely by "does it raise my bench" can miss what it was designed for.
2
Demand the same evidence
When a traditional ingredient is marketed for performance, hold it to the same standard: human trials, relevant populations, meaningful outcomes, disclosed funding.
3
Watch product quality hardest here
Traditional and imported products have a documented history of contamination and adulteration issues — heavy metals, undeclared pharmaceuticals, misidentified species. Ingredient research says nothing about the jar in your hand.
Interactions deserve special attention
Many traditional botanicals are pharmacologically active — that's why they're interesting, and why they can interact with medications or affect blood pressure, blood sugar, and clotting. This is exactly the kind of question a qualified professional is for.
Put it together
How to use these sources for a real decision
1
Define the goal
"More muscle" is too broad. Are you trying to meet protein intake, improve repeated high-intensity performance, support endurance, or correct a diagnosed deficiency?
2
Read Examine
Get the evidence overview. Look for results in people and training conditions similar to yours.
3
Cross-check NIH ODS
Check the evidence and safety context — risks, interactions, and whether you're fixing a deficiency or chasing a boost.
4
Judge sporting relevance with AIS
Does the supplement have an evidence-based role in your type of exercise, and under what circumstances?
5
Go deeper with ISSN if needed
Read the position statement for the scientific detail — checking its date and disclosures.
6
Risk-check with OPSS
Use it as an additional safety screen, especially for unfamiliar ingredients or complex products.
Then assess the actual product separately
Ingredient research doesn't establish product purity, accurate labeling, or batch-level anti-doping safety. Third-party testing or certification can help with some product-quality questions — but it doesn't prove a supplement will improve your fitness.
Stay sharp
What should make you distrust a supplement page
Apply these warning signs everywhere — especially to retailer and influencer content.
It recommends a product before explaining the evidence.
It relies mainly on testimonials, before-and-after pictures, or animal studies.
It treats a change in a hormone or lab marker as proof of muscle gain.
It gives a precise protocol without stating who was studied.
It presents a proprietary blend as though every ingredient was tested together.
It hides funding, affiliate links, or competing interests.
It omits adverse effects, uncertainty, or reasons the supplement might not help.
It has no clear publication date, update information, or supporting references.