How We Write the Content You Read

You're reading something that could shape decisions about your health — what to take, what to skip, what to bring up with your doctor next time. That's a responsibility we don't think any supplement brand should handle lightly. And we don't think you should have to take a brand's word for things blindly, ours included.

So here's the long version of how this site actually works. Who's behind the articles. Where our information comes from. How you can check any claim we make. What happens between deciding to cover a topic and the article appearing in front of you. Where we honestly stand on medical review. And what to expect when we get something wrong.

Read what's useful, skim the rest. It's all here so you can decide for yourself whether our content meets your standard.

On this page

1. Where the information in our articles comes from

2. How you can verify anything we write

3. Who writes these articles — and what happens before publication

4. Why we keep coming back to articles we've already published

5. About medical review — and where we honestly are with it

6. Why a supplement brand asking you to trust it is a problem we take seriously

7. When we get something wrong

8. Talk to us

 

---

 

1. Where the information in our articles comes from

The fundamental problem with most supplement content online is that it cites other supplement content, which cites other supplement content, until somewhere down the chain a number was made up. By the time it reaches you, the original source is gone and the claim is more rumour than research.

We don't work that way. Every statistic, finding, or claim you'll read in our articles comes from one of three source types — and nothing else. Here they are, so you can check any article on this site against this standard yourself.

If we ever cite a summary of a primary paper — a press release describing a journal article, say — we'll tell you that explicitly and flag when the primary source is still pending direct verification.

 

---

 

2. How you can verify anything we write

When you read a statistic in one of our articles — "NAD+ drops 40–50% by age 50," for example — four pieces of information come with it. Each one exists so you can check the claim yourself if you want to. Here they are.

1. The year, in the sentence itself. "In 2025, a randomised trial published in eClinicalMedicine…" — not buried in a parenthesis after the fact. So you can see at a glance how recent the evidence is.

2. The publisher and the document title. Not "researchers found," but which researchers, in which journal, in which paper. So you can find the original if you want to read it.

3. The URL plus the date we retrieved it. Every article ends with a numbered Endnotes section listing the full URL of every source we cite and the date we pulled it. That way you (or anyone, including an AI assistant on your behalf) can confirm the source still says what we claimed it said at the time we cited it.

4. A numbered footnote. Every claim in the article body links to its endnote with a small superscript number. So you don't have to scroll back and forth hunting for the citation.

Why we do it this way: This four-part standard is the only way we know to draw a real line between content you have to take on faith and content you can actually check. We hold ourselves to it because asking you to trust us without it isn't fair — especially in a category where overclaims and fabrications are routine.

 

---

 

3. Who writes these articles — and what happens before publication

Before we walk you through the process, here's who's behind it.

The team that writes and reviews every article on this site is small but specialised. We work as a team because supplement content done properly is too much work for any one person to handle alone, and because more than one set of eyes on each article catches the things one editor would miss.

You'll see each role described by what it contributes to the article you read, not by individual names. Until we have a credentialed medical professional on the team — see Section 5 for our honest position on that — we'd rather show you the work behind every article than show you a stock photo and a title.

Research

Reads the studies so you don't have to

Spends hours reading the actual clinical research — the randomised trials, the meta-analyses, the systematic reviews — and pulls out what's worth knowing. Also flags what's uncertain or contested, so we don't paper over the parts of the evidence that don't fit a clean narrative.

Editorial

Turns the research into plain English without losing the science

Takes the research the team has reviewed and writes the article you actually read. The job is to make complex evidence understandable without distorting it — keeping the caveats, the qualifications, and the honest uncertainty that real science always comes with.

Fact Check

Re-reads every cited source independently

The second set of eyes on every article. Independently re-reads each cited source — every PubMed paper, every NIH review, every clinical trial — and confirms the article says what the source actually says. The step most supplement publishers skip.

Standards

Holds the line on independence

Reviews every article against the standards on this page before it goes live, and makes sure marketing doesn't quietly soften the science when the evidence doesn't say what would be commercially convenient. Also the person who responds when you write in with a correction or a question.

What happens before an article reaches you

Between the moment we decide to cover a topic and the moment the article appears in front of you, six things happen. Here's the short version of each, and what it means for the content you're reading.

1. We start with a question we think you're asking. Before we write anything, we work out exactly what question the article is meant to answer for you — and which sources we'll need to answer it honestly. If we can't see how to source it, we don't start.

2. We read the research first. The clinical literature on the topic gets read, summarised, and noted. Statistics get extracted with their original publishing details intact. Anything that can't trace back to a tier 1–3 source gets flagged for replacement or removal before it has a chance to make it into a draft.

3. We outline only what the evidence supports. The article structure is built around the verified evidence — not the other way around. Sections are written in question format where you're likely to be searching for an answer, and each section is mapped to the sources it draws from.

4. We write with sources already in place. Every statistic appears in the article with its publisher, document title, year, and citation already attached from the first draft. Not added afterwards as a polish step. If a sentence drifts away from the evidence while we're writing, the source brings it back.

5. A second editor independently checks every citation. A different editor re-reads each cited source from scratch and confirms the article actually says what the source actually says. We don't skip it because it's the step that separates "trust me" content from content you can verify yourself.

6. One more review before it goes live. A final pass for clarity, honesty, independence, and consistency with everything on this page. Once approved, the article is published with a publication date, a last-updated date, and an author byline.

 

---

 

4. Why we keep coming back to articles we've already published

Health research moves. An article that was accurate when we published it can be outdated within a month if a pivotal new trial comes out. So we don't treat published articles as finished — we maintain them.

• Every article gets reviewed at least once a quarter. We check whether new evidence has emerged that changes any conclusions, statistics, or recommendations. If yes, we update the article and bump the "Last updated" date.

• Pivotal new evidence triggers a faster update. When a meta-analysis, head-to-head trial, or major systematic review publishes on a topic we cover, the relevant articles get updated within four weeks — not at the next scheduled review.

• Once a year, every article gets audited from the ground up. Every article is re-read end-to-end against current evidence. Citations that have been superseded by stronger evidence get replaced. Sections that no longer reflect consensus get rewritten.

• The dates you see tell you exactly where you stand. Every article carries both a publication date and a "Last updated" date in the byline. Together they tell you when the article was first written and when it was last reviewed against current evidence.

 

---

 

5. About medical review — and where we honestly are with it

This is the section we want to be most direct about, because it's where most supplement brands say less than they should.

The strongest possible review process for content like ours includes a credentialed medical professional — a Registered Dietitian Nutritionist (RDN), a Medical Doctor (MD), or a Doctor of Osteopathic Medicine (DO) — who signs off on every article before it goes live, with their name and credentials attached.

Where we are right now: the team behind the content on this site is an editorial team, not a clinical one. The articles you're reading are not currently signed off by a credentialed medical professional. They're researched, written, and reviewed by experienced editorial staff working exclusively from tier 1–3 sources.

What we're doing about it: we're actively recruiting a Registered Dietitian Nutritionist as a contracted medical reviewer. Once that reviewer is in place, every blog article — new and existing — will carry a "Medically reviewed by [Name], RDN" byline that links to their individual bio.

What this means for you, the reader, today:

• The content you're reading is sourced exclusively to peer-reviewed clinical evidence and authoritative health institutions — the same source pool a clinical reviewer would use.

• Where the evidence is uncertain — long-term safety beyond 24 weeks for NAD+ precursors, say — we say so directly. We don't paper over the gaps.

• We don't give medical advice. Our articles explain what the published research shows, and where it's still uncertain. For decisions about your own health, we always direct you to a qualified healthcare professional you trust.

We'll update this section the day a credentialed reviewer signs on. Being honest about where we are today is part of the standard we hold ourselves to.

 

---

 

6. Why a supplement brand asking you to trust it is a problem we take seriously

Vital Vitamins sells supplements. The team that writes our content is paid by the same company that sells some of the products our articles discuss. That's a real conflict, and the only honest way to deal with it is to explain — out in the open — how we manage it.

Here's what we do, and what we don't:

• No product claim survives a missing source. A benefit doesn't appear in an article unless it can be traced to a tier 1–3 source. If a product page makes a stronger claim than the evidence supports, that's a flag for marketing to revise the product page — not for the editorial team to soften the evidence.

• When research shows a supplement doesn't do something, we say so. The 2024 meta-analysis showing NMN doesn't improve fasting glucose or HbA1c, for example, is in the same article that recommends NMN for the things the evidence does support. Honest null results stay in.

• Competitor mentions are evidence-led, not strategic. When we compare products to other brands, the comparison is based on published evidence and verifiable label data — not on what would be commercially convenient for us.

• Marketing doesn't edit the science. Marketing and editorial are separate functions here. Marketing can ask that a topic be covered. They can't rewrite what the evidence says on it.

• Affiliate disclosure where it applies. If a link on this site carries an affiliate or commercial relationship, we disclose it at the link — not in fine print at the bottom of the page.

None of this makes the underlying conflict disappear. But it does mean that what you read in an article isn't an extension of a product pitch. It's the evidence, presented as honestly as we know how to present it.

 

---

 

7. When we get something wrong

We will get things wrong from time to time. When we do, here's what happens — and what you can expect from us.

1. We investigate within five business days. When you report an error, we re-read the article against the original source within five business days of the report.

2. We correct at the point of the error — and we log it. If the error is confirmed, the article gets corrected, and the correction is logged in a "Corrections" section at the bottom of the article. We don't quietly edit and pretend nothing happened.

3. Material errors get a notice at the top of the article. If the error affected a key claim, statistic, or recommendation, a correction notice runs at the top of the article for at least 30 days after the fix is published.

4. We credit the reader who flagged it. If a reader caught the error, we credit them in the correction note — unless they'd rather stay anonymous, in which case we don't.

 

---

 

8. Talk to us

If you've spotted a mistake in one of our articles, have a question about a citation, or want to suggest a topic we should cover, write to us at support@vitalvitamins.us with "Editorial" in the subject line. We reply to every editorial email within five business days.

This page applies to all content published on the Vital Vitamins blog and nutrition guides. None of it is medical advice. Always speak with a qualified healthcare professional about decisions that affect your health — particularly if you're pregnant, breastfeeding, taking medications, or have a relevant medical history.