Where the material comes from
Entries are written from a personal research library collected over more than a decade: papers, guidelines and position statements gathered while working in the fitness industry, not assembled from a search at the point of writing.
There is no formal evidence-grading framework here, and claiming one would be inventing a process that does not exist. What happens instead is simpler: studies with stronger methodology are prioritized over weaker ones, and every entry states what kind of evidence a claim rests on. Randomised trial, observational cohort, animal study, and mechanism only are four different things, and an entry that blurs them is doing the reader a disservice.
Where a threshold appears, it traces to a named source on the page. Where the number is the app's own estimate rather than a published cut-off, the page says so.
The six rules
Every entry is written against these.
- State the number. If there is a threshold, benchmark or target, the entry gives it rather than gesturing at one. Vague advice is not safer, it is just less useful.
- Grade the evidence. Randomised trial, observational cohort, animal study and mechanism-only are different things, and entries say which applies.
- Name the limits. Where a study population does not generalise, where reverse causation is plausible, where a marker is a proxy rather than the thing itself, the entry says so.
- Answer against interest. Several entries conclude that a popular supplement is not worth taking, or that a widely repeated claim does not hold up. That is the point of writing them.
- Separate the clinical from the optimal. A normal lab range tells you that you are not ill. A percentile tells you where you actually stand. The two frequently disagree.
- Update when the evidence does. Entries carry a review date, and figures are corrected when the underlying research or the app's own scoring changes.
How often entries change
Reactively, when new research appears or when something here turns out to be wrong. There is no fixed review cadence, and it would be easy to write "reviewed quarterly" on this page without it being true.
In practice that means an entry can sit unchanged for a long time because nothing has happened to it, which is the correct outcome when the underlying evidence has not moved. Each entry carries the date it was last reviewed so you can see for yourself rather than take a schedule on trust.
Clinical review
There is currently no clinical reviewer. No doctor, dietitian or other registered clinician signs off these entries before they are published. On a site that states numeric thresholds for blood markers, that is a real limitation and worth saying outright rather than leaving to inference.
Three things are in place instead, and they are checkable rather than reassuring:
- Every threshold the longevity coaching app scores against is published on the benchmark sources page, with its origin and a label saying whether it comes from a guideline body, general clinical consensus, or the app's own estimate.
- The scoring methodology is written out in full, including how domains are weighted.
- Entries name their sources on the page, so a claim can be taken back to the original paper rather than accepted here.
Clinical review is being sought. Until it is in place, this paragraph stays on the page.
Use of AI tools
AI tools assisted in drafting and editing entries on this site. Every claim, number, threshold and citation was verified by a human before publication, and the judgements about what the evidence supports are human ones.
This is disclosed because a reader deciding how much weight to give a health claim is entitled to know how it was produced.
Corrections log
When something here is wrong, it gets fixed and the fix is recorded below. Corrections are also logged in the app under Updates, but a log behind a login is invisible to the people this page exists for, so it is mirrored publicly here.
| Date | What changed | Why |
|---|---|---|
| 16 Aug 2026 | The body fat scoring curve for men had its peak moved from 24% to 17%, and the body fat percentage entry was rewritten around the ACE classification. | 24% is the top of ACE's acceptable band and one point below its obesity threshold. The intended anchor was the fitness-to-acceptable boundary, which is 17% for men and 24% for women. The male value had been copied across from the female one. The women's curve was unaffected. |
Older corrections predate this log and are not reconstructed here, because writing entries for changes without a verifiable record would defeat the purpose of keeping one.
Reporting an error
If something here is wrong, please say so: support@longevitycoachiq.com. Corrections that change a number or a conclusion are recorded above.