Editorial Policy
Last revised: 7 October 2026
BodyFat.Tips is a publication of TAK Marketing, LLC and part of the Omnishun information systems. This page explains how our content is made, how we rate evidence, and how the site makes money.
How our content is made
Our claim-checks and research write-ups start from the research itself, not from news coverage or press releases about it: the original studies and trials, the systematic reviews and meta-analyses that pool them, and regulators’ own documents. A review is a summary of other studies, which is how the US National Library of Medicine defines both a systematic review and a meta-analysis and how the Cochrane Handbook describes them, so it is secondary research, not primary. Most of our verdicts lean on reviews. We read them in full wherever we can get the full text, and we go to the original trials where a finding turns on one; when we could read only part of a paper, the source list says so.
We link what we rely on so you can check it yourself, and where a source carries no link, its entry in the source list says what it is and who issued it. We use research and writing tools, including AI-assisted drafting, as part of the process. Everything is reviewed and edited before it goes live, and we update pieces when the evidence changes.
How we rate evidence
Every verdict carries a confidence rating that says how much weight the evidence can bear. We use four levels, and we’d rather tell you something is uncertain than pretend it isn’t:
- Established. Multiple good studies agree. Treat as settled.
- Supported. Evidence is consistent, with known limits.
- Preliminary. Early, small, conflicting, or animal-only. Not actionable alone.
- Unsupported. We looked, and the evidence does not back the claim: either it was tested and did not hold up, or nobody has tested it and nothing that was tested supports it. The verdict says which.
Which sentence on a verdict each rating goes with, how we read the numbers behind a rating, and the full method — where our information comes from and how a claim gets checked — are on our How We Read a Study page.
Corrections
When we get something wrong, we fix it — and we leave the correction on the page rather than quietly editing it away. A visible record of what we changed, and when, is part of how a site with no famous byline earns trust. If you spot an error — a misread study, an outdated figure, a claim that newer research has overturned — tell us and we’ll correct the article.
How the site makes money
The promise that matters most here: nobody pays us to reach a conclusion. No company can pay to change a verdict, to be rated favourably, or to influence what we conclude about their product.
We intend to carry display advertising served by third-party ad networks. None runs on the site today. When it does, the ads will be visually distinct from our content, advertisers will not review, approve, or influence what we write, and no ad will appear inside a verdict’s evidence panel.
Where we point you toward a product — for example in a buying guide — that section may contain affiliate links, and it will say so clearly at the top. But we hold a hard line between the two jobs: a verdict page never carries affiliate or sponsored links. A verdict sometimes links a seller’s own page as evidence, of how a product is sold or what a test reports, and its source list names the company. You can be a referee or a reviewer; the same page can’t be both. A product only appears in a buying guide if the claim behind it has already been rated Established or Supported on a verdict written first. The evidence decides; the commerce follows.
Not medical advice
Everything here is journalism about health research, for general information only. We are not doctors or dietitians, and nothing on this site is medical advice or a substitute for it. Health decisions about your own body should be made with a qualified clinician who knows your situation.
Corrected on 7 October 2026 after an independent editorial review of this page. This page said the site is supported by display advertising served by third-party ad networks. It is not: no page on the site carries display advertising. We intend to run it, on the terms set out under “How the site makes money”, and that section now says so. The page also said a verdict never carries product links. That holds for affiliate links, but some verdicts link a seller’s own page as evidence, and the source list names the company; the sentence now says that.
Also changed: the page called meta-analyses primary sources, and a meta-analysis is a summary of other studies; that sentence now gives the standard definition. The four ratings are now worded exactly as the site defines them, which changes the Preliminary line from “Interesting, not yet actionable” to “Not actionable alone”. “We link what we rely on” now says what a source with no link carries instead. A comparison with “most modern publishers”, which we had not sourced, is gone. And the page now carries the date it was last revised. No verdict’s rating has changed, and nothing about how the site rates evidence or makes money has changed.
Changed again on 7 October 2026. The Unsupported rating used to read “The claim fails against the available evidence”. Several verdicts rate a claim nobody has properly tested, and that wording did not cover them, while three verdicts rated Preliminary applied it narrowly. It now covers both kinds of no evidence, says each verdict tells you which, and leaves Preliminary for a claim with early, small, conflicting or animal-only evidence behind it. No verdict’s rating changed.