How we source and update what we publish
Every claim on GLP-Done should be traceable to a primary source. Here is exactly how we research, cite, and keep our content current.
Where the information comes from
We start from primary sources, not from secondhand summaries. Wherever possible, a claim traces back to peer-reviewed trials and well-established medical references: published studies indexed on NIH and PubMed Central, guidance from institutions such as the Cleveland Clinic, and regulatory information from the FDA. When we describe what a medication does or what maintenance after a GLP-1 looks like, we want you to be able to follow the trail yourself.
That is why our articles cite their evidence inline and close with a “Sources and further reading” list. The goal is simple: you should never have to take our word for it. If a statement is not something we can point to in the literature, it does not belong in the article as a fact.
Honest about mixed evidence
A lot of the science around weight maintenance is genuinely mixed, and we would rather say so than overstate it. Where the research supports a nuanced picture, we present the nuance instead of a tidy headline.
- Fiber is best framed as a satiety aid, not a proven blocker of weight regain.
- Alcohol appears roughly weight-neutral in moderation, and we describe it that way rather than as a villain or a free pass.
- Practices that fall outside standard clinical guidance, such as microdosing, are not recommended here.
Being clear about uncertainty is part of being trustworthy. Mixed evidence is normal in nutrition and metabolism research, and pretending otherwise would not serve you.
How often we update
Health information has a shelf life. Each article carries a visible “Last Updated” date and, when meaningful changes happen, an update log so you can see what changed and when. On a quarterly basis we re-review the areas most likely to shift: new or updated trials, pricing, and clinical guidance. If the evidence moves, the article moves with it.
Our evidence standards
Not all studies carry equal weight, so we weigh them. We prefer systematic reviews, randomized controlled trials (RCTs), and meta-analyses over single small studies or anecdote. When we report an effect, we try to state the effect size along with its caveats rather than reducing it to “it works” or “it does not.”
- Prefer systematic reviews, RCTs, and meta-analyses as the strongest evidence.
- State effect sizes with their caveats, not just direction.
- Note that individual variation is real: results in a population are not promises for any one person.
What we will never do
We do not fabricate sources, citations, or studies, ever. If a claim cannot be supported by a real, locatable reference, we either find one or we do not make the claim. This is a hard line, and it is the foundation everything else rests on.
Read alongside this
Our sourcing standards sit next to two related commitments. Our editorial policy covers how we frame sensitive, your-money-or-your-life health topics, and our authors page is transparent about who writes for GLP-Done. Together they describe not just where our information comes from, but how we handle it.