Our research standards separate food-block conventions, source measurements and evidence about health outcomes. My Zone Journey is an educational project. Its research standard is to make the origin, meaning and limits of information visible. This page describes the editorial process used for our research and calculation resources; it does not assert accreditation, clinical oversight or a medical review that has not occurred.
Research standards: start with a claim that can be checked
We distinguish three things: how the Zone framework defines a food block; what a dataset reports about a food; and what a study finds about an outcome. A source appropriate for one question may be unsuitable for another. A brand’s explanation can establish its convention, while a health-effect claim requires appropriate human evidence.
Verify the original record
Research summaries identify the actual paper title, authors, publication year, journal and DOI or PubMed reference. We check the bibliographic record and accessible abstract, looking for linked corrections and the type of publication. We do not present a commentary as a randomized trial or imply that reading an abstract equals appraising every detail of a full paper.
For this reason, we prefer primary papers and systematic reviews over promotional summaries. Where we have inspected only a public abstract, we limit the summary accordingly. The research library states this scope. Selection is editorial and is not a registered systematic search covering all publications.
Report the boundary of the finding
We include design, population, duration and relevant limitations. In particular, summaries avoid implying that results in sedentary adults settle athletic performance, or that a ketogenic experiment directly tests a 40/30/30 pattern. A review’s conclusions remain conditional on the evidence it considered. A mechanistic explanation does not demonstrate a clinical benefit.
In addition, we do not equate lack of statistical significance with proof of equality, promote a trend as a confirmed effect, or turn one biomarker into a disease-prevention promise. When a result does not justify a simple answer, the summary should preserve that uncertainty.
Keep nutrition reproducible
Food and recipe estimates identify their dataset, food state, edible mass and calculation basis. Our methodology documents fiber treatment and the separate fat references. The tools retain source energy rather than replacing it with simplified classroom arithmetic. Computational checks verify consistency with the chosen records; they are not laboratory analysis of a visitor’s meal.
Make authorship and corrections honest
We do not fabricate credentials, testimonials, medical reviewers or personal experience. We describe generated imagery as illustration; it does not establish kitchen testing. In addition, the page discloses limitations such as estimated recipe times and historical database values.
If you find a numerical or citation problem, use the contact route with the page URL, exact passage and source or reproducible calculation. A future editorial update should verify the report, correct affected records and calculations together, and describe a material change clearly. We do not promise an unstaffed response deadline or claim a recurring review has already occurred.
Read the Editorial Policy for the site’s wider approach and the disclaimer for the limits of personal use.