A supplement label can tell a compelling story. It may mention a biological pathway, describe an ingredient as clinically studied, and display a long list of potential benefits. My first question is simpler: what useful outcome has this particular intervention been shown to achieve? Supplements can have a worthwhile role. Correcting a deficiency, addressing inadequate intake or supporting a defined goal can be clinically valuable. The challenge is matching the claim to the ev

Peptides attract attention for understandable reasons. Their roles in biological signalling offer interesting possibilities, and early research can suggest new approaches to difficult health problems. But an exciting possibility and an established treatment occupy different places in clinical care. My approach is to remain curious while being precise about what the evidence actually demonstrates. First, peptides are not one treatment category with one evidence rating. Some pe

“Research shows…” is often the beginning of a health claim. It should also be the beginning of a few questions. What kind of research? What did it measure? And how closely does it relate to the person considering the treatment? Research takes many forms because scientists ask many different questions. Understanding those differences helps us recognise a promising idea, an observed association and a demonstrated treatment benefit. A mechanism explains a possibility Laboratory

When a health recommendation is described as “strongly supported,” what does that actually mean? Does it mean the treatment produces a large benefit? That it works for everyone? That it has no risks? An evidence rating cannot answer all those questions on its own. Its purpose is to help us understand how much confidence we can place in a particular claim. To use that rating well, we also need to understand what was studied, who was studied and which outcome was measured. Conf

By Dr D. Michael Elliott, M.Sc., D.C., CFMP A headline announces that a compound protects the brain, improves metabolism or reduces kidney injury. It sounds encouraging. Then you read the study and discover that the experiment involved mice. The finding may be scientifically valuable. Its relevance to human treatment still needs to be established. Understanding that distinction helps us appreciate promising research while keeping our expectations realistic. What animal r

By Dr D. Michael Elliott, M.Sc., D.C., CFMP A five-star rating attracts attention. It offers a quick impression that something deserves consideration. But what do those stars actually tell you? In health, a rating needs context. Five stars cannot tell you that an intervention delivers five times the benefit, works five times faster or is five times more suitable for you. Before using a rating to make a decision, we need to understand what it measures. Evidence, benefit a

ESTABLISHED VS EMERGING VS EXPERIMENTAL TREATMENTS When you hear about a new treatment, one of the most useful questions is: How much do we actually know about it for this condition? At Able Bodied Healthcare & Chiropractic, I find it helpful to distinguish between established, emerging and experimental approaches. These are plain-language descriptions of the evidence. They help us discuss options without giving an early finding more certainty than it deserves. Establishe

WHAT DOES EVIDENCE BASED ACTUALLY MEAN? “Evidence-based” is one of the most common phrases in healthcare. It is also one of the easiest to misunderstand. It does not mean that every person receives the same treatment. It does not mean that a clinician follows a research paper without considering the patient in front of them. And it does not mean that an intervention is useless simply because a large trial has not yet been conducted. Evidence-based care brings together thr

A health intervention does not have a single universal value. Its usefulness depends on the goal, the person, the starting point and the outcome being measured. An intervention may be highly effective for correcting a deficiency, moderately useful for supporting recovery and largely irrelevant for improving strength. It could help one person considerably while producing little noticeable benefit for someone who does not share the same limiting factor. This is why asking, “Is

RECOVERY VS PERFORMANCE Many people assume that recovery and performance sit at opposite ends of the health spectrum. Recovery is associated with rest, rehabilitation and taking things slowly. Performance is associated with training harder, becoming stronger and achieving more. In reality, they are closely connected. Performance depends on your capacity to recover, while effective recovery should gradually restore your capacity to perform. If either side is neglected, you may