Skip to content
⚖️ Our Methodology

How We Evaluate

HealthCompass exists to cut through health confusion for people who don't have time to sort it out themselves. That only works if you can trust what you read here. This is exactly how we decide what to say, what to label as uncertain, and what to leave out.

🧭 Our mission

Clear, evidence-backed health information — with anything unproven labeled as such.

The internet has the opposite problem of a library: not too little information, but far too much, much of it confident and contradictory. Most people just want to know what the actual evidence says, in plain language, without a sales pitch attached. That's the entire job of this site. We aim to be the calm, honest second opinion — not the loudest voice, the most accurate one.

🔬 The consortium lens

Health is multidisciplinary, so we evaluate every topic through five distinct professional perspectives — what we call the consortium lens. These are evaluation roles, not named individuals or paid endorsements: a way of pressure-testing every claim from five angles before it earns a place on the site. A supplement might look great to a performance coach but raise a flag for a safety reviewer — and you deserve to hear both.

🔬
Evidence quality
Clinical Scientist
Asks how strong the research actually is. Randomized trials and meta-analyses, or a single small study? Mechanism in a dish, or outcomes in people?
🍎
Real-world application
Registered Dietitian
Asks whether it works in real life — food first, realistic doses, and whether it fits an actual daily routine rather than an ideal one.
Training & recovery
Performance Coach
Asks what it does for strength, endurance, recovery, and energy — and whether the effect size is meaningful or just statistically detectable.
🧬
Long-term outcomes
Longevity Researcher
Asks about the long game — effects over years and decades, and where optimization-minded thinking is promising versus still speculative.
🛡️
Risks & overhype
Safety Reviewer
Asks what could go wrong — interactions, upper limits, who should avoid it, and whether the marketing is running ahead of the evidence.

📊 The evidence rating

Not all evidence is equal, and pretending otherwise is how people get misled. Wherever we rate something — a supplement, a diet, a claim — we use a simple, honest three-tier scale, and we show it plainly rather than burying the uncertainty.

Strong
Strong Evidence
Backed by multiple high-quality human studies — randomized controlled trials and meta-analyses — pointing the same direction. You can act on this with reasonable confidence.
Moderate
Moderate Evidence
Promising and reasonably supported, but with limits — smaller studies, mixed results, or questions about dose and who benefits. Worth considering, with appropriate caution.
Preliminary
Preliminary Evidence
Early or mechanistic — animal studies, small trials, or plausible theory not yet confirmed in people. Interesting, clearly labeled as unproven, never presented as settled.

📚 What we build on

We anchor our content to recognized health authorities and the peer-reviewed literature rather than influencers or trends. Where guidance comes from a major body, we say so. The tools and guides on this site draw on standards from:

CDC · disease prevention
NIH · health research
WHO · global guidelines
AHA · heart health
ADA · diabetes
ISSN · sports nutrition
ACSM · sports medicine
IOC · athlete health
AASM · sleep medicine
USPSTF · preventive screening

🧪 How we handle the cutting edge

The longevity and biohacking world is full of interesting ideas — some of them genuinely promising, many oversold, and a few unsafe. We don't ignore it, but we don't launder it into fact either. When we include an optimization-minded idea (for example, tighter blood-marker targets than standard clinical ranges), we present it in a clearly-labeled callout, explain the reasoning, and state plainly where it departs from medical consensus.

Solid foundations first, clearly-marked frontier second. That ordering is deliberate. The basics — sleep, movement, whole foods, a few well-evidenced supplements — do most of the work, and we'd rather get those right than chase novelty.

🚫 What we deliberately leave out

Knowing what not to publish is part of the methodology. We intentionally stay out of areas that are unsafe to self-direct, require individual medical supervision, or attract more hype than evidence:

Peptide protocols
Testosterone / hormone-replacement protocols
Megadosing schemes
Prescription-weight-loss (GLP-1) recommendations
Diagnosing conditions from symptoms
Anything presented as a substitute for your doctor

These are decisions between you and a qualified professional — not something a website should hand out. Where a topic touches them (such as the testosterone marker in the bloodwork guide), we explain the basics and point you to a doctor rather than offering a protocol.

🩺 We're not doctors — and that's the point

Neither the people behind HealthCompass nor this site are a substitute for medical care. We treat that as a feature, not a limitation: it's exactly why everything here is educational, non-diagnostic, and built to help you ask better questions — not to replace the person who actually knows your history.

Reference ranges vary by lab and by person. A single number rarely tells the whole story. Use this site to understand the landscape and walk into your next appointment informed — then let a qualified professional help you decide what's right for you.

🔒 Your privacy

HealthCompass collects no personal data. There are no accounts, no logins, and no tracking of your health inputs. Every calculator and tool runs entirely in your browser — your numbers never leave your device. Honest information shouldn't come at the cost of your privacy.

Explore the guides this standard is built into: