Editorial Standards

People use FitnessReviews.org to decide what to put in their bodies, what to lift and what to strap to their wrists. These standards explain how we earn that trust. They apply to everything we publish: product pages and FR Scores, best-of guides, comparisons, articles and our newsletter.

Sourcing standards

We base our conclusions on the best evidence available, and we show where it came from.

• Research. We give the most weight to systematic reviews, meta-analyses and randomized controlled trials in people, followed by position stands and guidance from expert and public bodies such as the American College of Sports Medicine, the International Society of Sports Nutrition, the NIH Office of Dietary Supplements, the FDA and the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission. Observational studies are suggestive, not conclusive. Animal and lab studies are preliminary.
• Product facts. Ingredients, doses, weight ranges, dimensions, battery life, warranties and certifications come from primary sources: the label, the manufacturer's official product page or manual, and certifiers' own databases. If we can't verify a detail, we leave it out rather than guess.
• Context. We point out when a study was small or short, used a different dose or setup than the product, or was funded by a company with a stake in the result.
• What doesn't count as evidence. Brand marketing, press releases, testimonials and before-and-after photos don't show that a product works. Buyer feedback and creator videos tell us about taste, comfort, build quality and durability, never about whether a supplement is effective.
• Showing our work. Our articles carry numbered references, and we link to key sources so you can check them yourself.

Independence

• Brands can't pay to be listed, reviewed, ranked or scored. We don't sell sponsored reviews, advertorials or "featured" spots.
• Brands don't see our reviews before publication, and they can't approve, edit or veto them.
• We don't charge for awards, badges or places in a best-of guide.
• We don't accept gifts, travel or other perks in exchange for coverage.
• No brand, manufacturer or retailer owns FitnessReviews.org or directs our editorial decisions.

Affiliate links and scores

We earn commissions when readers buy through some of our links, as explained in our Affiliate Disclosure. To keep that from shaping our judgment:

• Commission rates aren't an input to the FR Score. The full method is published in How We Review & Score Products.
• We review and score products whether or not we can earn a commission on them.
• We publish low scores for products we could profit from, and we never soften or remove a review because a product sells well or pays well.
• Where-to-buy links have no effect on a product's score or ranking.

Conflicts of interest

Everyone who contributes to FitnessReviews.org must disclose any relationship that could reasonably be seen as affecting their work, such as employment by, consulting for or a significant financial stake in a fitness, supplement or retail company. Anyone with a conflict doesn't review or score that company's products, and when a relationship is relevant to a page, we disclose it there.

If a brand ever sends us a free product, we say so on that product's page. A free product never obligates us to cover it or to say anything positive about it.

Creator videos

The FR Score leans on independent video reviews, so we choose them carefully, using the criteria in How We Review & Score Products.

• We label every video's overall verdict (positive, mixed or negative) honestly, and we include critical reviews, not just glowing ones.
• When we know a creator was paid or gifted the product by the brand, we mark the video Sponsored and give it less weight. Brand-owned channels never count toward reviewer consensus.
• We never accept payment to feature a video, and any creator can ask us to remove their video.

How we use AI

We use AI tools to help with research and drafting: finding and organizing sources, summarizing studies and long video reviews, extracting label and spec details, and preparing first drafts. AI tools make mistakes, so we follow these rules:

• An editor reviews AI-assisted content before it's published, checks facts, doses, specs and figures against the original sources, and is accountable for the result.
• Every FR Score follows our published rubric and is approved by an editor.
• We never use AI to invent reviews, testimonials, quotes, credentials, studies, test results or personal experiences.
• Some illustrative images, such as article cover images, are created with AI image tools. We never use AI-generated images to depict a real product, a person's results or anything presented as a photograph of real events.

Health and safety claims

What we publish can affect people's health and safety, so we hold it to a high bar.

• No disease claims. Under U.S. law, claims that a product diagnoses, treats, cures or prevents a disease are generally reserved for drugs. We don't describe supplements, wearables or recovery tools that way, and we say so when a brand does.
• Evidence-appropriate language. We write "research suggests" or "may help" when that's what the evidence shows, and we say plainly when evidence is weak, mixed or missing.
• Brand claims get checked, not repeated. When marketing outruns the evidence, we say so, and it counts against the product.
• Safety comes first. We flag stimulant content, common allergens and groups who should avoid a product or check with a clinician first. For equipment, we point out weight limits, setup and space requirements, and recalls or safety notices we know about.
• No personal medical advice. We explain the evidence; we don't diagnose, prescribe or tell individuals what to take or how to train. See our Health & Safety Disclaimer.

Keeping pages current

Products change: formulas are reformulated, hardware gets revised and subscriptions change terms. We revisit best-of guides at least quarterly and recheck every FR Score at least once a year. A recall, safety notice, reformulation, new model or a meaningful shift in reviewer consensus triggers an immediate review. Each product page shows the date it was last reviewed.

Corrections policy

We work hard to get things right. When we don't, we fix it quickly and openly.

• Reporting an error. Tell us through our contact page. Include the page, what you believe is wrong and, if possible, a source.
• How we respond. We review every report, usually reply within 2–3 business days and correct confirmed errors promptly.
• How corrections appear. For significant errors, such as a wrong dose, ingredient, weight limit, certification, safety detail or score, we fix the page and add a note saying what changed and when. Typos and broken links are fixed without a note.
• Updates versus corrections. When a score changes because the product or the evidence changed, rather than because we made a mistake, we call it an update.
• Requests from brands. We correct documented factual errors, for example when a brand provides an updated label, spec sheet, current certificate or certificate of analysis. We don't change opinions or scores because a brand disagrees with them.

Questions

If you have a question about these standards or a concern about something we've published, please contact us.