What this index is
This page collects long-form research write-ups: pieces that examine one topic in depth rather than answering a single question. They tend to be the articles people cite — trial breakdowns, comparisons between compounds in the same class, and practical guides that walk through a full workflow from first dose to first review.
It is deliberately a small library. An article earns a place here when there is enough substance to justify the length; otherwise the material goes into the blog or into a library entry where it is easier to find.
How articles are researched and reviewed
Each article is built from primary material where primary material exists — published trials, regulatory documents and manufacturer labeling — and says plainly where it is relying on convention, community practice or extrapolation instead. Where a figure is contested, the range is given rather than a single confident number.
Articles are versioned. Substantive corrections are made in place with the reviewed date updated, and the correction is described rather than quietly absorbed. If you find something wrong, telling us is genuinely useful; the fastest fixes here have come from readers who checked the arithmetic.
- Primary sources first, community convention labeled as such
- Ranges instead of false precision where the evidence disagrees
- Corrections made in place, with the reviewed date moved
- No sponsored placements and no vendor recommendations
Turning an article into a protocol
The gap between reading something and benefiting from it is usually the record. Most of the questions these articles answer — is this dose working, did that interaction matter, is the timing change helping — can only be settled by a few weeks of consistent logs, because the effects are too small to notice by memory.
If an article changes your plan, put the change in the app with a start date and a note about why. When you revisit in a month, you will have a before and an after rather than an argument with yourself about when you switched.
How an article differs from a blog post or a library entry
The three formats on this site answer different questions and it is worth knowing which one you want. A library entry is a reference card for a single compound: what it is, the studied ranges, timing, half-life, interactions. A blog post answers one narrow question quickly — how to store a reconstituted vial, why a weekly dose seems to drift by a day. An article is the long form: it takes a subject that cannot be settled in four hundred words, lays out the evidence, shows where the evidence disagrees with common practice, and follows the reasoning to a practical conclusion you can act on.
That is why this index is short and grows slowly. Publishing a thin article on a subject that deserves depth is worse than not publishing at all, because it occupies the slot a proper treatment would have taken and it teaches readers that the long pieces here are not worth the time.
- Library entry — one compound, reference facts, read in two minutes
- Blog post — one narrow question, answered directly
- Article — a full subject with the evidence and the trade-offs laid out
What we will not publish
No sponsored articles, no affiliate links to sellers, and no vendor rankings. Health content funded by the people selling the product is the reason so much of this subject area is untrustworthy, and there is no version of that arrangement that survives contact with an honest dosing recommendation.
We also avoid the two habits that make health writing feel authoritative while making it less useful: false precision, where a number is stated to two decimal places on the strength of one small study, and confident silence, where a real disagreement in the literature is simply not mentioned. If experts disagree, the article says so and explains what would settle it.