About Supplete
Supplete started with a simple frustration: as supplement users ourselves, we couldn't find health information we could trust. Reliable, unbiased, plainly written facts were almost impossible to find — search results were dominated by sites earning commissions on the products they "reviewed," and claims that sounded scientific but never cited anything. That gap is our niche: factual, easy-to-read, honest information about supplements and nutrition.
So we do the work most sites skip. Before we write a single line, we research each topic extensively — reading the actual studies, not just the abstracts. This is the step that earns trust: we don't write to market a nutrient or to inflate claims the evidence doesn't support. Every article reflects what the research genuinely shows, including where it runs out.
Supplete is a small independent editorial project covering supplements, nutrients and the evidence behind common health claims. Every claim links to a source you can check, every article says how strong the evidence is, and there is nothing for sale here.
Recommendations aren't for sale
No brand can pay for a rating or favourable review. Any advertising is brand-neutral and independent of what we recommend.
Every claim sourced
Primary literature and official bodies, linked so you can check them yourself.
Uncertainty acknowledged
Where evidence is limited or conflicted, we say so plainly instead of picking a side.
What we do
We write evidence-based guides on supplements, nutrients and nutrition topics: what a substance does, what the research actually shows, what dose was studied, what the safety limits are, and where the evidence runs out. Our supplement monographs cover mechanism, clinical evidence, common myths, EU and US regulatory status, dosage and safety. Our explainers answer single questions directly.
We cover what the evidence supports and, just as importantly, what it doesn't. A large share of our content exists to explain why a popular claim is weaker than it appears.
How we're different
Most supplement content online is written by people who profit from the products described. We take a different position:
- We don't sell supplements. No shop, no products, no fulfilment.
- Our conclusions are never for sale. No brand can pay to be included, rated, ranked or reviewed favourably.
- No sponsored content, no paid placements. We don't publish paid content dressed up as editorial.
- Advertising is brand-neutral and separate. Any advertising or affiliate links we carry are chosen to stay neutral toward specific supplement brands — for example, general retailers or resellers (such as iHerb) rather than individual supplement makers — and any income from them is independent of what we recommend.
- Every factual claim is sourced. Primary literature and official bodies, linked so you can check them yourself.
How we research and write
Research comes first — and it is the part we take most seriously. Before anything is written, we read the evidence in depth, because thorough research is what separates honest information from marketing. Our full process is documented in our Editorial Standards. In summary:
- Research. We identify the relevant scientific literature and authoritative sources for the topic: systematic reviews, meta-analyses and randomised trials first, then official bodies such as EFSA, the NIH Office of Dietary Supplements, Cochrane and national health agencies.
- Verification. Claims are checked against full texts rather than abstracts, including the study population, dose and endpoint — because those details often change what a finding actually means.
- Writing. Evidence is translated into plain language, with uncertainty preserved rather than smoothed over.
- Editorial review. Structure, claims, citations, dosage figures, safety language and evidence grading are checked before publication.
- Updating. Articles are revised when meaningful new evidence appears, and the update date is changed only when the content materially changes.
How we grade evidence
Each guide carries an evidence-strength label so you can see, at a glance, how much confidence the research supports:
- Strong — consistent findings from multiple well-conducted randomised trials, meta-analyses or systematic reviews, supported by official bodies.
- Moderate — meaningful supporting evidence with real limitations: smaller trials, mixed results, or unresolved patient-relevant outcomes.
- Limited / Emerging — plausible mechanism and early or small human studies, but not enough evidence to draw firm conclusions.
We distinguish clinical evidence in humans from laboratory, animal and observational research, and we say so in the text when a claim rests on the weaker categories. See the full grading system →
Who publishes Supplete
Editorial responsibility rests with Kristian Lindberg, Founder & Editor-in-Chief — read his profile. Articles are prepared by the Supplete team and edited by the Editor-in-Chief, who is accountable for what is published.
General enquiries: editorial@supplete.eu · Corrections: editorial@supplete.eu
What Supplete is not
Supplete is an educational publication, not a medical service. We do not provide medical advice, diagnosis or treatment recommendations, and nothing here should delay or replace care from a qualified clinician. Supplement decisions — especially during pregnancy or breastfeeding, in children, alongside prescription medication, or with existing medical conditions — should be made with a healthcare professional.
We are not doctors, pharmacists or dietitians, and we don't present ourselves as any of those. What we do is read the research carefully and report it accurately.
Corrections
If you find an error, tell us: editorial@supplete.eu. We aim to respond within 2–3 working days, correct confirmed errors promptly, and record substantive corrections in our corrections log.