Metabolic Manna makes health claims. Every claim gets traced to a peer-reviewed source — and when the evidence is thin, we say so. Here is how the work gets done.
Every claim on this site is traceable to a peer-reviewed human study. If we cite a podcast, a YouTube video, or a blog post as the source for a biological claim, we mark it as a lead — not evidence. Lead means: a signal worth digging into, not a conclusion you can act on.
Mouse biology is not human biology. When a finding comes from rodents, we say so plainly — and we avoid quoting mouse-study numbers as if they apply to you. The autophagy-at-16-hours claim is the canonical example: the original evidence was rodent, the number is routinely repeated in humans, and a clean human replication doesn't exist.
A finding can be statistically significant and clinically meaningless. When we cite a study, we focus on how big the change actually was, in what population, and whether it held up over time — not just whether the paper reports p < 0.05. A small effect in a huge sample can hit significance without mattering to your week.
Honest uncertainty is more valuable than confident hand-waving. If a popular claim isn't well established, we say so — and we recommend caution instead of certainty. This is the single hardest rule to keep in a content economy that rewards confidence, and it's the rule we'd rather break the business on than break at all.