A methodology, not just a position

Nutrition advice is everywhere. Much of it is confident, commercially motivated, and not well-anchored to the evidence. Evidentia Nutrition exists to do something different: to apply rigorous, transparent evidence appraisal to nutritional science and communicate the results honestly, including when the honest answer is that we do not yet know.

The problem we are solving

Most public nutrition communication fails in one of two ways. Either it oversimplifies, presenting a single conclusion when the evidence is complex, contested, or population-specific. Or it is inaccessible, buried in academic language that excludes the people who need it most.

The result is a space dominated by commercial claims dressed as science, observational associations presented as causal findings, and a chronic failure to distinguish between what the evidence actually shows and what supplement brands, influencers, and even well-meaning practitioners would like it to show.

How we evaluate evidence

Every claim on Evidentia Nutrition is assessed against an explicit evidence hierarchy and assigned a rating that reflects the totality of the evidence for that specific outcome in that specific population context. Ratings are not assigned to ingredients in general. An ingredient can have a Strong rating for deficiency correction and an Insufficient rating for cognitive enhancement. Both appear on the same entry.

Evidence hierarchy

We prioritise human outcomes over surrogate markers, and controlled evidence over observational data. The hierarchy, from strongest to weakest, runs from systematic reviews and meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials, through individual RCTs, systematic reviews of observational studies, prospective cohort studies, to mechanistic and animal research. Mechanistic studies are used to explain biological plausibility. They are not used as the basis for evidence ratings.

Risk of bias

Study design alone does not determine quality. We assess risk of bias within each study using named validated tools: RoB 2 for randomised trials, AMSTAR 2 for systematic reviews, and the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale for observational studies. Risk-of-bias findings directly affect evidence ratings through defined downgrade triggers documented in our published decision appendix.

Handling conflicting evidence

Conflicting evidence is the norm in nutrition research, not the exception. Where studies reach different conclusions, entries explain the conflict and explore possible reasons: differences in population, baseline status, dose, form, duration, or study quality. We do not present false consensus. We give readers the tools to understand why studies disagree.

Form specificity

Evidence for one preparation of an ingredient does not automatically transfer to other preparations. Magnesium bisglycinate, citrate, and oxide have different bioavailability profiles and different evidence bases. The same is true for curcumin phytosome versus standard curcumin, methylcobalamin versus cyanocobalamin, and KSM-66 ashwagandha versus generic root powder. Where evidence is form-specific, we state clearly which form was studied and do not extend that evidence without a specific basis for doing so.

Evidence ratings

What Evidentia Nutrition is not

Evidentia Nutrition is an educational resource. It does not provide individual health advice, clinical recommendations, or therapeutic guidance. Where evidence exists only for specific populations, this is stated explicitly. Where evidence is weak or absent, we say so directly rather than hedging with language that implies more certainty than exists.

We do not accept commercial sponsorship, affiliate arrangements, or any funding relationship that could create a conflict of interest with our evidence appraisal role. Advertising does not appear on this site.

Governance and oversight

Evidentia Nutrition is founded and directed by a surgeon and Professor at University College London, with an MSc in Evidence-Based Healthcare from the University of Oxford. The editorial methodology was developed from first principles and reviewed against established evidence appraisal frameworks including GRADE, RoB 2, and AMSTAR 2.

An advisory board comprising registered dieticians, clinical academics, and public health specialists provides independent oversight. Member details will be published with their consent.

All entries follow a five-stage editorial workflow: scoping with PICO framing, structured literature search, risk-of-bias appraisal using named tools, evidence rating against published decision thresholds, and review before publication. The full workflow is documented and available on request.

Funding

Evidentia Nutrition is currently founder-funded. There are no commercial sponsors, no affiliate relationships, and no advertising. The organisation is operated with a non-commercial educational mission and is working towards a formal non-profit structure.

Any external funding accepted in the future will be disclosed here in full, along with the terms under which it was accepted and an assessment of any conflict of interest implications.

Conflicts of interest

All individuals contributing to Evidentia Nutrition content make annual written declarations of relevant interests. Declared interests that are relevant to a specific entry are noted on that entry. A summary of declared interests is reviewed annually.

The founding director holds a clinical leadership role at Personally (Supplement Technology Limited), a direct-to-consumer personalised supplement company. Evidentia Nutrition is legally and operationally independent of Personally. There is no commercial relationship between the two organisations and Evidentia content does not promote or reference Personally's products. Topics that directly overlap with Personally's commercial ingredient range are reviewed by an advisory board member before publication. This arrangement is reviewed annually.

Evidentia Nutrition does not accept commercial sponsorship, affiliate arrangements, or any funding relationship that could create a conflict of interest with its evidence appraisal role.

Corrections and contact

Correction requests are taken seriously and reviewed against the published editorial methodology. If you have identified a factual error, a study we have not considered, or a risk-of-bias concern with our appraisal of a specific entry, we want to hear from you.