Editorial reviews · Medically reviewed
Plain-language reviews of the clinical studies and guidelines that shape what we know about insulin resistance, type 2 diabetes, PCOS, and metabolic disease. Each review is checked by a board-certified clinician and updated as the evidence changes.
What we do
We sit between the generalist medical encyclopedias and the advocacy-heavy corners of metabolic health. Every review reflects what the original paper argued, what later peer-reviewed work has confirmed, and where the evidence is still under real dispute.
Claims are anchored in PubMed-indexed journals, government health agencies, and established medical societies. We do not cite Substacks or advocacy sites as evidence.
Every review is checked by a board-certified clinician in a relevant specialty. Reviewers are named, their NPI numbers are visible, and their disclosures are on the page.
When a newer trial or meta-analysis contradicts an older finding, we say so on the page and refresh the review. The last-reviewed date is visible on every article.
Every research review ships with original figures: usually a timeline of the post-publication evidence, plus a side-by-side comparison of the original findings with what came after.
Research reviews
2026 editorial reviews of clinical studies that shaped how we understand insulin resistance and metabolic disease. What has held up, what has not, and what has changed since publication.
A look back at the 2023 review arguing that low-salt diets worsen insulin resistance, what the broader cardiovascular and sodium-substitution evidence has shown, and how the specific mechanistic claim sits within the wider sodium-and-health debate.
Read the review →A look back at the 2019 review proposing that hyperinsulinemia drives the hyperandrogenism of polycystic ovary syndrome, what the 2023 international PCOS guidelines have validated, and how the treatment landscape has changed.
Read the review →A look back at the 2018 commentary on sugar reduction as public health policy, what subsequent natural experiments and meta-analyses have shown, and where the broader framing requires careful reading.
Read the review →Editorial standards
Each page clears seven editorial checks plus a credentialed medical review before publication.
Every medical claim cites a current authoritative source: peer-reviewed journal, government agency, or established medical society.
When the underlying research has industry funding or author conflicts, we say so on the page rather than in a footer.
For claims about current clinical practice, most references are recent. Older citations appear only when they remain canonical.
Reference lists exclude Substacks, blogs, and anonymous sources. Peer-reviewed venues and official bodies only.
If a paper's headline claim has been contradicted by larger studies, the page names the contradiction directly.
Every research review includes original figures: typically a timeline of post-publication evidence and a comparison of key outcomes.
Every page passes an editorial pass for readability and an AI-writing-pattern check before it's published.