Our Methodology
How Metabolicum Evaluates and Presents Scientific Evidence
We Believe You Deserve Honest Science
Most health websites present information with false certainty. They tell you "the optimal level is X" as if it's settled fact. We take a different approach. The reality is that metabolic health research — like all medical research — involves uncertainty, ongoing debate, and multiple valid interpretations. We think you're smart enough to handle that complexity. In fact, we think presenting it honestly is the only ethical approach.
The Problem With "Trust the Science"
Here's something most health websites won't tell you: the research landscape has serious structural problems.
The Reproducibility Crisis
When researchers at Amgen tried to replicate 53 landmark cancer studies, only 11 could be reproduced. That's a 79% failure rate. None of the failed studies have been retracted. They're still in the literature, still cited, still influencing treatment decisions. This isn't fringe skepticism. John Ioannidis's paper "Why Most Published Research Findings Are False" is the most-cited methodology paper in medical literature. The problems are widely acknowledged — just rarely discussed publicly.
What "Peer-Reviewed" Actually Means
When you see "peer-reviewed study," you might imagine rigorous verification. The reality:
- Peer reviewers are unpaid volunteers
- They often don't receive the raw data
- They're sometimes told not to critique study design (too expensive to redo)
- They have no requirement to disclose conflicts of interest
- They remain anonymous
This doesn't mean peer review is worthless. It means "peer-reviewed" is a much lower bar than most people assume.
Our Evidence Grading System
We grade evidence by reliability, not by whether it supports a particular conclusion.
Replicated findings across multiple studies
Well-designed single studies
Observational data with strong patterns
Mechanistic/theoretical — interpret cautiously
Practitioner experience without formal trials
When we cite evidence, we tell you which grade it falls into. You can decide how much weight to give it.
The Multi-Paradigm Approach
Different clinical communities interpret metabolic markers through different lenses. Rather than pretending one is "correct," we show you all of them.
Example: TG/HDL Ratio Thresholds
| Framework | Target | Philosophy |
|---|---|---|
| Conventional Medicine | <3.5-4.0 | Population risk stratification |
| Research Consensus | <2.0-3.0 | Preventive optimization |
| Metabolic Practitioners | <1.0-2.0 | Metabolic restoration |
| Functional Medicine | <1.5 | Root cause resolution |
Why We Do This
No single authority has the final answer
You can evaluate frameworks for yourself
Knowing whose range you're in helps you understand next steps
Acknowledging uncertainty is more credible than false certainty
What Our Calculators Tell You
When you use a Metabolicum calculator, you'll see:
- Your result — The calculated value
- Multiple interpretations — How different clinical frameworks view it
- Evidence basis — Specific studies supporting each interpretation
- Confidence level — How strong the evidence actually is
- What we don't know — Honest acknowledgment of limitations
We never say "you have metabolic syndrome" or "you're healthy." We say "your markers fall in a range that research associates with [specific outcomes], interpreted differently by different clinical frameworks."
Individual Variation Is Real
One of the most important insights in metabolic health: thresholds vary by individual. Your personal threshold for carbohydrate tolerance, for example, depends on cumulative metabolic stress over your lifetime, genetic factors, current metabolic flexibility, activity level and muscle mass, and how much prior damage exists. This is why approximately 25% of normal-weight individuals have insulin resistance that traditional measures miss entirely. BMI doesn't capture metabolic reality. Neither does a single "optimal" threshold.
The Duration Problem
Another issue most health websites ignore: study duration matters enormously. Research shows that metabolic adaptation to dietary changes takes time. Studies shorter than 2-3 weeks often show different results than longer studies. A 2-week metabolic ward experiment may completely miss chronic adaptation effects.
When we cite dietary intervention evidence, we prioritize:
- ✓ 1-year or longer studies (gold standard)
- ✓ 90-day studies (clinically meaningful)
- ✓ Meta-analyses of longer-term trials
We're skeptical of dramatic claims based on short-term data.
What We're Not
We're not giving medical advice
We provide tools for detection and education. Clinical decisions should involve qualified healthcare providers who know your full context.
We're not advocating for any specific diet
While our founders have personal dietary preferences, Metabolicum takes no position on what you should eat. We show you your metabolic markers and what the research says about them.
We're not claiming to have all the answers
Metabolic science is evolving. Some things we're confident about; others are genuinely uncertain. We tell you which is which.
Further Reading
If you want to understand the research landscape better, we recommend:
- • "Why Most Published Research Findings Are False" — John Ioannidis (2005)
- • The Broken Science Initiative — brokenscienceinitiative.org
- • Hyperlipid Blog — Peter Dobromylskyj's deep mechanistic work
- • The Feldman Protocol — Dave Feldman's citizen science approach
Metabolicum exists because metabolic dysfunction often hides in plain sight. Our job is to help you detect it early — with evidence presented honestly, uncertainty acknowledged, and your intelligence respected.
Metabolicum is for educational purposes and does not replace professional medical advice.