Editorial Standards

Superfoods Advisor publishes every page under one byline, the Superfoods Advisor Editors. This page sets out the rules each of those pages is held to.

Sources

• Primary literature first. PubMed-indexed studies, Nature, Cochrane and equivalent, ahead of secondary reporting.
• Every non-trivial claim is cited with a link to the study, so readers can check the source themselves.

How claims are worded

The strength of a health claim matches the strength of the evidence behind it. Preliminary or in-vitro work is described as preliminary. Converging meta-analyses are described more firmly. No superlatives, no clickbait, no "miracle" language.

Pages are not reviewed by a clinician. That is why each claim carries a citation and a qualifier, and why the medical disclaimer applies to every page. Nothing here diagnoses, treats, prevents or cures anything.

How we grade evidence

Each benefit in the encyclopedia carries one evidence grade. The grade is set by the kind of research behind the claim for that food, not by how promising the idea sounds. A short note after the grade says what that research is.

Evidence:Strong

Several consistent meta-analyses or large randomized trials, or an effect a regulator recognises. Also used for nutrient content measured directly.

Evidence:Moderate

Several randomized trials that mostly agree, or a rich source of a nutrient used to correct a shortfall.

Evidence:Limited

A few small human trials, or trials whose results conflict.

Evidence:Preliminary

Observational studies in people, or a single pilot trial. These show an association, not cause and effect.

Evidence:Lab & animal only

Cell, animal or mechanism studies, with no human outcome data yet.

Evidence:Insufficient

No meaningful evidence, or studies that found no effect.

Three rules keep the grades consistent:

• The grade is for the food, not the nutrient. Vitamin C's role in immunity is settled; whether a particular fruit helps is a separate question, and the grade answers that one. When a food is a rich source of a nutrient and the claim is about correcting a shortfall, it is graded Moderate even without trials of the food itself.
• When studies disagree, the grade is Limited, and the note says the results conflict.
• Traditional use earns no grade of its own. A long history of use is graded on the human evidence that it works, like anything else.

How products are picked

• Criteria, not marketing. Picks in the reviews are justified by third-party testing, certifications (NSF, USP, Informed Sport), purity disclosures, and cost per effective serving.
• No lab of our own. We do not run product tests. Evaluations rest on published testing, label disclosures, and patterns in customer reviews.
• No prices on the page. Prices change daily. Each button links to the current listing instead.
• No paid rankings. A product's position and score are never for sale. Links earn an affiliate commission, which does not change the order. See the affiliate disclosure.
• Sponsored content is labeled. When a brand pays for content about its product or a promotion, the page says so at the top. We write it, keep the final say, and hold it to the same evidence standards.

Updates and corrections

Pages show an "Updated" date when their content changes. If you find an error, such as a mis-cited study, an outdated claim or a broken link, send it through the contact page.