I have a background in physics and chemistry, not medicine. But evaluating research isn’t really about credentials — it’s about a handful of habits you can learn and apply to anything. Since I write about science here and ask you to take some of it seriously, I think it’s only fair to show you how I judge a study myself, so you can check my work and everyone else’s.
First, I look at what kind of study it is. A test-tube or cell-culture study tells you something happened in a dish — useful, but a long way from proving it happens in a living person. An animal study is a step closer. A human clinical trial is closer still, and a review that pools many studies is more reliable than any single one. When someone cites “a study,” the first question is always: what kind, and in what system?
Second, I watch for the leap from mechanism to outcome. It’s common to see solid evidence that a molecule does something at the cellular level, and then a marketing claim that stretches it into curing a disease. The mechanism can be real and the outcome claim still be unproven. I try to keep those two clearly separated in my own writing, and I flag it when I’m talking mechanism rather than proven result.
Third, I consider the source and its incentive — including my own. I share a product I believe in, and that’s a bias you should factor in when you read me, just as you would with anyone. The right response to bias isn’t to dismiss the person; it’s to check the underlying evidence yourself. Good science holds up regardless of who’s pointing at it.
I mention all of this because I’d rather you trust me because you’ve checked than because I sounded confident. The redox signaling science I write about is drawn from peer-reviewed research you can look up. Ask yourself, with me and with everyone, whether the claim in front of you is a mechanism or an outcome — and hold it to the right standard.