How we select, evaluate, and report research

Raw Findings is built on a simple premise: men deserve accurate information about their health, presented with the context and caveats intact.

Here is exactly how we do it.

What "Peer-Reviewed" Means

Every study we cite has been peer-reviewed — meaning it was evaluated by independent scientists in the relevant field before publication. Peer review is not a guarantee of accuracy, but it is the baseline standard of credibility in scientific research.

We source primarily from:

• PubMed / the National Library of Medicine
• Major journals in endocrinology, sports medicine, and nutrition
• Cochrane Reviews and other systematic review databases
• Direct citations from meta-analyses

We do not cite press releases, news articles, podcast claims, or influencer summaries as evidence. If a claim interests us, we find the original study.

How We Select Studies

For each article, we aim to cover a minimum of four peer-reviewed studies on the topic. We prioritize in this order:

1. Systematic reviews and meta-analyses — studies that pool and analyze data from multiple trials. These represent the strongest form of evidence because they reduce the influence of any single outlier finding.

2. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) — studies where participants are randomly assigned to treatment or control groups. The gold standard for establishing causation.

3. Large observational studies — studies tracking real-world populations over time. These can show association but cannot establish causation. We always note this distinction.

4. Mechanistic studies — research on the biological pathways involved. Useful for understanding why something happens, but not sufficient alone to establish that it does.

We do not cherry-pick studies that support a predetermined conclusion. If the evidence is mixed, we say so. If a single dramatic study exists but has not been replicated, we say so. If the honest answer is "the research doesn't tell us yet," we say that too.

What We Look For in a Study

When evaluating any study, we assess:

Sample size — small studies (under 20 participants) can produce dramatic results by chance. We flag when findings come from very small samples.

Population — who the study was conducted on matters enormously. A finding in elderly men with testosterone deficiency may not apply to healthy men in their 30s. We always note the study population.

Duration — short-term acute effects and long-term chronic effects are often completely different. We distinguish between them.

Replication — has the finding been replicated by independent researchers? A single study, however well-designed, is not consensus. We note when findings stand alone vs. when they are part of a consistent body of evidence.

Conflicts of interest — who funded the study? Industry-funded research is not automatically invalid, but we note funding sources when they are relevant.

What We Are Not

We are not doctors, clinicians, or academic researchers. Nothing on Raw Findings constitutes medical advice. We report what the research shows — what you do with that information is your decision, ideally made in consultation with a qualified healthcare provider.

We do not diagnose, prescribe, or treat. We translate research.

Corrections Policy

We get things wrong sometimes. When we do, we correct it publicly in the original article, note what was changed, and explain why. We do not silently edit errors.

If you find an error in our reporting — a misrepresented finding, an incorrect statistic, a study cited inaccurately — email us. We take this seriously.

Why We Do This

Because the men's health information landscape is dominated by confident people saying things the evidence doesn't support.

We think the research is interesting enough on its own. It does not need to be exaggerated to be worth reading.