Millions of readers visit SelfHacked each month because they trust us to provide them with accurate, high-quality information about complex health subjects. Because these topics are so complex, we have many scientific references for each post – often over 100. It probably looks easier than it actually is to get good original content out.
At SelfHacked, we always invest a lot of time and effort into making sure that everything we post is as comprehensive and accurate as possible. In order to release the best content, we’ve created a rigorous system to ensure the accuracy and quality of our content.
First, we have a rigorous and involved process to find and select our writers….
Our writers must have a science background. Writers must also have extensive training and previous experience writing scientific content.
We also put all of our writers through cognitive and technical testing to ensure they can understand and reason effectively with complex content:
– We test them on their technical science knowledge on a broad range of topics.
– There is a vigorous reading comprehension test.
– There are several tests measuring logical reasoning.
– These tests are difficult – approximately 90% of people don’t pass.
We then give them a writing test:
– If they interpret the science incorrectly in any area OR
– If they reference something incorrectly, they are automatically out.
– They also must demonstrate thoroughness, attention to detail, and excellent critical thinking skills.
Our team of PhDs reviews the writing test to ensure scientific accuracy. A single factual error means the writer is automatically out. Writers who make it through (only about 1% make it through) are carefully trained in our process of producing a quality post.
Once an article is written, it goes through our internal peer-review process:
– Our editorial team reviews each article for accuracy and quality.
– The writer makes corrections and edits.
– The editorial team does a second review.
– A resident scientist (from our PhD team) makes a final review of the article.
– If it is up to our standards, then the article gets published on the site!
A typical post on SelfHacked often contains over 100 references, and even with our best efforts, occasional errors may sometimes slip through. Therefore, we welcome our readers to bring any incorrect references they find to our attention — in fact, we’ll even pay you $10 for each error you find! An incorrect reference is considered to be any situation where the statement that is being made isn’t supported by the reference or any other study (once in a while a copy and paste error occurs, but the information is correct). This means that the statement we made must be scientifically incorrect and unsupportable.
If you come across any reference that you think is a mistake, send an email to caroline (at) selfhacked.com including your PayPal address, a link to the post in question, and the part of the post that you believe to be an error. Our science team will check it out, and if there is indeed a mistake, we will gladly pay you $10 for each one so that we can continue to be as accurate as possible.
SelfHacked is science-based.
Our first goal is to include the best studies on a subject. But for many of the topics discussed, great studies don’t exist.
For this reason, SelfHacked will often include all available information, including low-quality studies, animal studies, mechanistic studies, and test tube/cell studies.
However, we don’t believe that these studies necessarily translate to benefits or harms in humans.
For example, animal studies usually involve dosages that humans will never take, and there are significant differences between humans and animals.
We include these studies to be as comprehensive as possible.
Animal and certainly test tube studies should be looked at with caution.
These studies might serve as clues, but are not definitives.
The clues can then be a template for self-experimentation or consultation with a health professional.
A common theme on this website is our attempt to be as unbiased as possible.
Biology is complex and a balance is always in play. Different people are physiologically imbalanced in different ways. Everyone has a different set of issues that needs to be dealt with in different ways. Hence, one person’s poison is another person’s medicine and vice versa.
For example, there is still no scientific consensus if saturated fat is bad or not. There are obviously complexities here. Whether it’s bad or not would likely depend on the dosage, your genetic makeup, what you replace it with, how many calories you’re consuming, the other contents of your diet (doesn’t go well with fructose), if you’re getting into ketosis, your microbiota, etc…
At SelfHacked, we present information to guide you on your own experiments if it’s a safe substance with a long history of use or talk to a medical professional if it’s not.
Comments that add value will be approved.
Comments linking to products will be removed.
If you make a statement that’s not common knowledge in the comments, you should try to back it up with studies.
Try to keep your comments concise.
Joe started SelfHacked because he was sick of:
-Mainstream doctors telling you that you’re perfectly healthy when you obviously aren’t.
-Quackery
-Dogma
-Shallow articles
SelfHacked is bringing back the basic science, paired with the spirit of self-experimentation, to offer you cutting-edge health information.
100% BS free.
A comprehensive study done in 2013 looked at 702 occupations and found that 47% are at risk of being computerized. These are the jobs with less cognitive demand.
Even if your job doesn’t disappear, cognitive performance will dictate how successful you are. Intelligence has always been important for the modern economy, but as technology advances and takes away repetitive jobs, we have to improve our skills.
As technology develops, economies become more competitive and more reliant on higher intellectual ability. Simultaneously, we have many technologies to improve performance that we never had before.
Every year, we have greater access to new technologies that are allowing people to heal themselves better than ever before. Access to information is also unprecedented.
Think about how much the internet has developed in the past 15 years. Scientific studies are increasing at an incredible rate. Devices like LLLT, for example, are ubiquitous and cheap. The number of dietary supplements hitting the market is also astounding. There’s perhaps dozens of different types of bioavailable curcumin, whereas 15 years ago this supplement didn’t exist in the marketplace. The supplements that were available were much more expensive as well. Quality control in the industry has also gotten better, especially after the passing of cGMP laws.
Drug developments have also been promising. Blood, genetic, and other kinds of tests have been developed and have become significantly cheaper.
These breakthroughs will only increase in time and maybe even accelerate. We are at an exciting time period and you don’t have to be rich to take advantage of the technology we have in the 21st century to upgrade yourself.