19 ms·

I was going to say that "examine.com is one of the best sites on the internet for information about supplements/nutrition". But it's not. It's the best site on

by darawk 7y ago

I was going to say that "examine.com is one of the best sites on the internet for information about supplements/nutrition". But it's not. It's the best site on the internet for that sort of thing. It's great that Google is attempting to fix the issue of bullshit nutrition sites ranking highly, but I sincerely hope someone at Google sees this and does something to help out Examine, which is a tremendous resource.

AhmedF 7y ago
Thank you!
sambroner 7y ago
Do you buy their guides or use it to individually research compounds? It doesn't appear to be much different than other health websites, except they sell guides, which may change the incentive structure away from marketing and towards research.
- AhmedF 7y ago
  > It doesn't appear to be much different than other health websites We go faaaaaaaaar more in-depth. Eg collating human in-vivo research: https://examine.com/supplements/creatine/#effect-matrix https://examine.com/supplements/creatine/#effect-matrix Summarizing body of research: https://examine.com/supplements/creatine/#scientific-research https://examine.com/supplements/creatine/#scientific-researc... We sell information because that keeps us on our mission - to analyze health research. Our primary driver is a monthly subscription utilized by professionals that breaks down the latest nutrition research. Here's a preview if you want to see how in-depth we go: https://a99d9b858c7df59c454c-96c6baa7fa2a34c80f17051de799bc8e.ssl.cf1.rackcdn.com/erd/sneakpeek.pdf https://a99d9b858c7df59c454c-96c6baa7fa2a34c80f17051de799bc8...
- swtrs 7y ago
  Its a bit like wikipedia, it doesnt look like much initially but going in with purpose shows you just how much more in depth they are. Examine also updates their research regularly, that alone puts them above "any old health site"
- plutonorm 7y ago
  It's in a different class. It's a top notch resource. Carefully researched and thorough. Collates academic papers for each supplement and provides overviews of effectiveness for various medical purposes. It also contains extensive technical discussions of their mechanism of action. It is very easy to see that it's not a scam site.
qwerty456127 7y ago
Also take a look at selfhacked.com. It's a treasure.
- pennaMan 7y ago
  I went in with high hopes of quality resources but I was met with one of those guide selling sites. I never knew exactly what it was trying to sell me either.
  - qwerty456127 7y ago
    I don't care about the guides they sell (they have to sell something to those interested to make their living and I don't mind). I just type a substance name in the search field and get a list of good and bad things it may do with links to relevant papers. Or I type a condition name and get a list of substances which may have relevant effects. The fact they are sincere as science makes me feel very sympathetic: they don't hesitate to mention nicotine (don't confuse it with cigarettes, it's about pure nicotine which may be delivered by many ways while cigarettes also load your lungs with tar and heavy metals) is great for weight loss and many other things. I don't really like the idea of using nicotine (because I mind physiological addiction) but I'm pleased they let me know and think for myself. They also don't hesitate to mention beneficial effect of some illegal substances.
- Malician 7y ago
  Selfhacked doesn't vet or validate very well. Tons of information that makes you feel like everything under the sun is going to solve your issues, but without the extreme evidence required to prove it.
  - qwerty456127 7y ago
    It's supposed to provide ideas to check yourself by reading the papers, googling for more and mindfully trying yourself (considering counterindications also listed) to find out if it works for you (get your own empirical evidence). This is valuable for specific kind of pracrically-scientifically-minded people. Those who prefer a ready solution meant to be fool-proof (although it rarely is) and off-load research, experimentation and responsibility to someone else should really stick with a doctor. Googling medical advices and expecting them to be correct (for you in particular) by default is a nonsensical approach, sadly many people seem practicing it.
puranjay 7y ago
Agreed. There is nothing remotely close in terms of depth and quality on off-mainstream supplements. I suspect Google is really coming down on anything that might be construed as "alternative" medicine. Somehow Examine.com gets clubbed with the "just take essential oils to cure cancer" crowd
tallanvor 7y ago
I don't think I've come across the site before, but at first glance it doesn't look reputable at all. --I realize that looks aren't everything, but I see the following that look like red flags to me: 1. They show logs for news sources such as The New York Times, BBC, etc., but they don't actually link to those sites, let alone to articles that actually mention this site. 2. I see click-bait titles like "The top 19 nutrition myths of 2019". 3. Reviews by "professionals" that I can't easily verify. "Mike Hart, MD" is an example. Who is he? How do I know he's a real person? If he is a real person and a real doctor, how do I know he actually recommended this site? 4. The attempts to get me to spend money feels slimy. --This is pretty subjective, I know, but that's how it comes off to me. So I can understand how this site wouldn't rank high in a search engine. I would need to do a lot of research to decide whether or not to trust it, let alone whether or not they have information that's actually worth spending money on.
- johnnyfaehell 7y ago
  >3. Reviews by "professionals" that I can't easily verify. "Mike Hart, MD" is an example. Who is he? How do I know he's a real person? If he is a real person and a real doctor, how do I know he actually recommended this site? One of the reviews by professionals is John Berardi of Precision Nutrition if you're into nutritional research and can't verify him. Then, in my opinion, this site is not for you. You'll need something simplier.
  - domnomnom 7y ago
    Yeah that's really all there is to it. I'll admit it's a bit difficult with the UX at first, but there's a lot of info there.
  - tallanvor 7y ago
    The question is twofold: 1) why should I trust him, and 2) assuming I trust him, how do I know he actually recommended this site? Now, for the first one, why should I trust him? He apparently earned a PhD, but his research credits seem to be minimal, at least in terms of what he lists on his own website. Second, he seems to be a co-founder of Precision Nutrition, which suffers from a lot of the same problems as Examine.com. Seriously, let's look at the first entries in their "Free Articles" section: "How do you rank as a health, fitness, and nutrition coach?" "Opening October 2019: The Brand-New Precision Nutrition Level 1 Certification" "Opening October 2019: The Precision Nutrition Level 2 Certification Master Class. " "FREE 5-day course: Fitness and Nutrition Coaching Breakthroughs" "How to answer the most common nutrition questions like a boss." Click-bait and attempts to sell things. And then there's the second part of the question - how do I know John Berardi actually recommends this site? I don't without taking the site at their word.
ajcarpy2005 7y ago
I wish the Life Extension Foundation listed higher as they have reputable advice.
80386 7y ago
> It's great that Google is attempting to fix the issue of bullshit nutrition sites ranking highly When I search Google for "astaxanthin", I get a HuffPost article as the fifth result on the first page.
tus88 7y ago
The problem is who is examine? Take this random page for exmaple. https://examine.com/nutrition/lemon-water/ https://examine.com/nutrition/lemon-water/ It's written by some guy called "Wyatt Brown". Who is he? Is he a scientist? A doctor? A university professor. Oh - I don't need to worry about that, because: > Our evidence-based analysis features 42 unique references to scientific papers. Right then. Quoting papers makes you a reliable expert and able to make claims about medicine and science and health. No, I think I understand why Google has de-ranked this one. This website is clearly a fraud - and looks like one too - that uses a form of sophistry to make claims as to it's own reliability, namely that by quoting "references" a non-person can make claims they ought not to be making. References help boost the credibility of an already credible publication or individual, that don't make something out of nothing.
- Dumblydorr 7y ago
  That's overly critical, one of cofounders was a very knowledgeable supplement expert who was getting his PhD in the subject. It's definitely not a fraud, its had great quality science based content for a number of years, I've been checking back in every few months for various questions.
- tallanvor 7y ago
  I have my own issues with how the site presents itself, but I don't think it's correct to claim that the site is "clearly a fraud". Digging in, the studies they link to do seem to correlate with what they're saying, but I'm not skilled at performing a meta-analysis of scientific research, nor have I fully examined all of the sources for any of their articles, or looked for additional articles that might contradict what they're presenting. So it's ok to suggest taking the site with a grain of salt, but claiming they're a fraud is definitely unsubstantiated.
- simonsarris 7y ago
  > Right then. Quoting papers makes you a reliable expert and able to make claims about medicine and science and health. Does being a researcher or doctor make you a reliable expert and able to make claims about medicine and science and health? It is very good to doubt papers. In doing so you are doubting countless scientists [many of whom perform poor studies] though. There isn't any thing epistemologically sacred about doctors or scientists. Not defending the site itself, but a person who does a study roundup of various claims made with citations has some value. You can't expect him to interpret the studies well, that's still up to you, but that's fine. Unlike a doctor, our internet rando doing the link roundup isn't presuming any authority. But he is giving a lot more information, with more citations that you can further examine, than a typical doctor.
zymhan 7y ago
Yeah their list of "researchers" doesn't exactly inspire confidence. There would appear to be a single degree in a related field amongst all of them.
chx 7y ago
At this moment the only thing we almost surely know about nutrition is we do not know one goddamn thing about it. For a popular version, see Ben Goldacre's Bad Pharma.
olingern 7y ago
Personally, I've found how they aggregate research and list it a valuable resource for how I continue my own research on a particular supplement. I find it much more valuable than the empty Mayo Clinic and WebMD articles that are so conservative in the information they provide that it's basically just reading common knowledge. I think if you're using one site for your source of information for supplements, you're doing a disservice to yourself and potentially putting your body in harms way. So, with that said -- I also do not think Google should be removing this from their search results.

by darawk 7y ago

AhmedF 7y ago

Thank you!

sambroner 7y ago

Do you buy their guides or use it to individually research compounds? It doesn't appear to be much different than other health websites, except they sell guides, which may change the incentive structure away from marketing and towards research.

AhmedF 7y ago
> It doesn't appear to be much different than other health websites We go faaaaaaaaar more in-depth. Eg collating human in-vivo research: https://examine.com/supplements/creatine/#effect-matrix https://examine.com/supplements/creatine/#effect-matrix Summarizing body of research: https://examine.com/supplements/creatine/#scientific-research https://examine.com/supplements/creatine/#scientific-researc... We sell information because that keeps us on our mission - to analyze health research. Our primary driver is a monthly subscription utilized by professionals that breaks down the latest nutrition research. Here's a preview if you want to see how in-depth we go: https://a99d9b858c7df59c454c-96c6baa7fa2a34c80f17051de799bc8e.ssl.cf1.rackcdn.com/erd/sneakpeek.pdf https://a99d9b858c7df59c454c-96c6baa7fa2a34c80f17051de799bc8...
swtrs 7y ago
Its a bit like wikipedia, it doesnt look like much initially but going in with purpose shows you just how much more in depth they are. Examine also updates their research regularly, that alone puts them above "any old health site"
plutonorm 7y ago
It's in a different class. It's a top notch resource. Carefully researched and thorough. Collates academic papers for each supplement and provides overviews of effectiveness for various medical purposes. It also contains extensive technical discussions of their mechanism of action. It is very easy to see that it's not a scam site.

qwerty456127 7y ago

Also take a look at selfhacked.com. It's a treasure.

pennaMan 7y ago
I went in with high hopes of quality resources but I was met with one of those guide selling sites. I never knew exactly what it was trying to sell me either.
- qwerty456127 7y ago
  I don't care about the guides they sell (they have to sell something to those interested to make their living and I don't mind). I just type a substance name in the search field and get a list of good and bad things it may do with links to relevant papers. Or I type a condition name and get a list of substances which may have relevant effects. The fact they are sincere as science makes me feel very sympathetic: they don't hesitate to mention nicotine (don't confuse it with cigarettes, it's about pure nicotine which may be delivered by many ways while cigarettes also load your lungs with tar and heavy metals) is great for weight loss and many other things. I don't really like the idea of using nicotine (because I mind physiological addiction) but I'm pleased they let me know and think for myself. They also don't hesitate to mention beneficial effect of some illegal substances.
Malician 7y ago
Selfhacked doesn't vet or validate very well. Tons of information that makes you feel like everything under the sun is going to solve your issues, but without the extreme evidence required to prove it.
- qwerty456127 7y ago
  It's supposed to provide ideas to check yourself by reading the papers, googling for more and mindfully trying yourself (considering counterindications also listed) to find out if it works for you (get your own empirical evidence). This is valuable for specific kind of pracrically-scientifically-minded people. Those who prefer a ready solution meant to be fool-proof (although it rarely is) and off-load research, experimentation and responsibility to someone else should really stick with a doctor. Googling medical advices and expecting them to be correct (for you in particular) by default is a nonsensical approach, sadly many people seem practicing it.

puranjay 7y ago

Agreed. There is nothing remotely close in terms of depth and quality on off-mainstream supplements. I suspect Google is really coming down on anything that might be construed as "alternative" medicine. Somehow Examine.com gets clubbed with the "just take essential oils to cure cancer" crowd

tallanvor 7y ago

I don't think I've come across the site before, but at first glance it doesn't look reputable at all. --I realize that looks aren't everything, but I see the following that look like red flags to me: 1. They show logs for news sources such as The New York Times, BBC, etc., but they don't actually link to those sites, let alone to articles that actually mention this site. 2. I see click-bait titles like "The top 19 nutrition myths of 2019". 3. Reviews by "professionals" that I can't easily verify. "Mike Hart, MD" is an example. Who is he? How do I know he's a real person? If he is a real person and a real doctor, how do I know he actually recommended this site? 4. The attempts to get me to spend money feels slimy. --This is pretty subjective, I know, but that's how it comes off to me. So I can understand how this site wouldn't rank high in a search engine. I would need to do a lot of research to decide whether or not to trust it, let alone whether or not they have information that's actually worth spending money on.

johnnyfaehell 7y ago
>3. Reviews by "professionals" that I can't easily verify. "Mike Hart, MD" is an example. Who is he? How do I know he's a real person? If he is a real person and a real doctor, how do I know he actually recommended this site? One of the reviews by professionals is John Berardi of Precision Nutrition if you're into nutritional research and can't verify him. Then, in my opinion, this site is not for you. You'll need something simplier.
- domnomnom 7y ago
  Yeah that's really all there is to it. I'll admit it's a bit difficult with the UX at first, but there's a lot of info there.
- tallanvor 7y ago
  The question is twofold: 1) why should I trust him, and 2) assuming I trust him, how do I know he actually recommended this site? Now, for the first one, why should I trust him? He apparently earned a PhD, but his research credits seem to be minimal, at least in terms of what he lists on his own website. Second, he seems to be a co-founder of Precision Nutrition, which suffers from a lot of the same problems as Examine.com. Seriously, let's look at the first entries in their "Free Articles" section: "How do you rank as a health, fitness, and nutrition coach?" "Opening October 2019: The Brand-New Precision Nutrition Level 1 Certification" "Opening October 2019: The Precision Nutrition Level 2 Certification Master Class. " "FREE 5-day course: Fitness and Nutrition Coaching Breakthroughs" "How to answer the most common nutrition questions like a boss." Click-bait and attempts to sell things. And then there's the second part of the question - how do I know John Berardi actually recommends this site? I don't without taking the site at their word.

ajcarpy2005 7y ago

I wish the Life Extension Foundation listed higher as they have reputable advice.

80386 7y ago

> It's great that Google is attempting to fix the issue of bullshit nutrition sites ranking highly When I search Google for "astaxanthin", I get a HuffPost article as the fifth result on the first page.

tus88 7y ago

The problem is who is examine? Take this random page for exmaple. https://examine.com/nutrition/lemon-water/ https://examine.com/nutrition/lemon-water/ It's written by some guy called "Wyatt Brown". Who is he? Is he a scientist? A doctor? A university professor. Oh - I don't need to worry about that, because: > Our evidence-based analysis features 42 unique references to scientific papers. Right then. Quoting papers makes you a reliable expert and able to make claims about medicine and science and health. No, I think I understand why Google has de-ranked this one. This website is clearly a fraud - and looks like one too - that uses a form of sophistry to make claims as to it's own reliability, namely that by quoting "references" a non-person can make claims they ought not to be making. References help boost the credibility of an already credible publication or individual, that don't make something out of nothing.

Dumblydorr 7y ago
That's overly critical, one of cofounders was a very knowledgeable supplement expert who was getting his PhD in the subject. It's definitely not a fraud, its had great quality science based content for a number of years, I've been checking back in every few months for various questions.
tallanvor 7y ago
I have my own issues with how the site presents itself, but I don't think it's correct to claim that the site is "clearly a fraud". Digging in, the studies they link to do seem to correlate with what they're saying, but I'm not skilled at performing a meta-analysis of scientific research, nor have I fully examined all of the sources for any of their articles, or looked for additional articles that might contradict what they're presenting. So it's ok to suggest taking the site with a grain of salt, but claiming they're a fraud is definitely unsubstantiated.
simonsarris 7y ago
> Right then. Quoting papers makes you a reliable expert and able to make claims about medicine and science and health. Does being a researcher or doctor make you a reliable expert and able to make claims about medicine and science and health? It is very good to doubt papers. In doing so you are doubting countless scientists [many of whom perform poor studies] though. There isn't any thing epistemologically sacred about doctors or scientists. Not defending the site itself, but a person who does a study roundup of various claims made with citations has some value. You can't expect him to interpret the studies well, that's still up to you, but that's fine. Unlike a doctor, our internet rando doing the link roundup isn't presuming any authority. But he is giving a lot more information, with more citations that you can further examine, than a typical doctor.

zymhan 7y ago

Yeah their list of "researchers" doesn't exactly inspire confidence. There would appear to be a single degree in a related field amongst all of them.

chx 7y ago

At this moment the only thing we almost surely know about nutrition is we do not know one goddamn thing about it. For a popular version, see Ben Goldacre's Bad Pharma.

olingern 7y ago

Personally, I've found how they aggregate research and list it a valuable resource for how I continue my own research on a particular supplement. I find it much more valuable than the empty Mayo Clinic and WebMD articles that are so conservative in the information they provide that it's basically just reading common knowledge. I think if you're using one site for your source of information for supplements, you're doing a disservice to yourself and potentially putting your body in harms way. So, with that said -- I also do not think Google should be removing this from their search results.