health headlines can be confusing, and sometimes misleading. this page is a practical guide to reading research more critically, so you can form your own view of claims about seed cycling, hormones, nutrition or anything else you come across.
start with the study, not the headline
headlines are written to attract attention, and often simplify or exaggerate findings. where possible, try to find the original study, or at least a detailed summary of it, rather than relying on a headline alone.
questions worth asking
who took part?
a study on ten people is very different from a study on ten thousand. small studies can be a useful starting point, but their findings need to be confirmed by larger research before they're treated as reliable.
was there a control group?
studies that compare an intervention against a control group, ideally with participants randomly assigned to each, are generally more reliable than studies without any comparison.
correlation or causation?
a study might find that two things are linked, without proving that one causes the other. for example, people who eat more whole foods might also exercise more, sleep better or smoke less, any of which could explain a health difference.
who funded the research?
funding source doesn't automatically invalidate a study, but it's worth knowing, since it can sometimes influence how a study is designed or reported.
has it been peer-reviewed?
peer review means other experts in the field have checked the study's methods and conclusions before publication. it isn't a perfect filter, but it's a meaningful one.
has it been replicated?
a single study, however well designed, is rarely the final word. findings that are repeated across multiple independent studies carry more weight.
watch out for these common issues
- small sample sizes presented as if they apply broadly.
- animal or lab studies described as if they were proven in humans.
- a single study described as "proof," rather than one piece of evidence.
- results that haven't yet been peer-reviewed or published in a recognised journal.
- headlines that use words like "could," "may," or "linked to" being reported as certainties.
how we apply this ourselves
throughout our content, we try to distinguish between what is well established, what is plausible but unproven, and what remains genuinely uncertain, particularly when it comes to seed cycling, where large-scale trials are still lacking.
our aim
we would rather help you evaluate evidence for yourself than simply tell you what to think. informed decisions begin with accurate information, and accurate information includes understanding its limits.