Methodology
The eight steps every product clears before it earns a place on this shelf.
I publish my methodology because you deserve to see the work. Most affiliate sites don't. They rank by commission rate. I rank by what I'd actually take, eat, or wear myself.
Below is the full process — sourcing intake to editorial scoring — every brand on Regeneralive walks through. It's deliberately slow. That's the point.
The eight phases
Slow, on purpose.
Listings on most affiliate sites take an afternoon. The difference is in the bottle — and on the plate.
01
Sourcing intake
Every brand has to clear a transparency check before I'll consider listing it. I want to know the farm or extractor of origin, the contract manufacturer, the country of cultivation, and the practices on the land. If a brand can't or won't disclose, the product doesn't move forward — full stop.
- Farm or wild-harvest origin documented
- Contract manufacturer named ("manufactured by," not just "manufactured for")
- Country of cultivation documented
- Regenerative or organic certifications verified at the registry, not just on the label
02
Formulation review
I read the supplement facts panel against the published clinical literature. The right form of the active ingredient, the right co-factors, and a clinically meaningful dose — not a fairy-dust dose engineered for the label.
- Bioavailable form (e.g., methylated B-vitamins, glycinate vs. oxide)
- Clinically relevant dose vs. RDI vs. study dose
- No proprietary blends without per-ingredient amounts
- Excipients reviewed for known sensitivities
03
Independent COA review
I want to see a third-party Certificate of Analysis dated within the last 12 months. I read it. I compare label claim to assayed potency. I look at heavy metals, microbial counts, and residual solvents. Anomalies kill the listing.
- ISO 17025-accredited lab preferred
- Heavy metals (Pb, Cd, As, Hg) below California Prop 65 thresholds
- Glyphosate residue testing for grains, oats, legumes
- Microbial + yeast/mold within USP <2021>
04
Clinical relevance check
Beyond "does the dose match the studies" is the harder question: does this product actually fit the goal someone would buy it for? I cross-reference each formulation against the relevant peer-reviewed literature and flag mismatches in the review when they're worth flagging.
- Mechanism check against PubMed-indexed RCTs
- Goal alignment (sleep, stress, recovery, longevity, etc.)
- Stack interaction notes when relevant
- Contraindications surfaced in the review
05
Real-world use
I don't list things I haven't lived with. Foods get cooked. Supplements get taken. Devices go on a wrist or in a bedroom for the full battery cycle. The review only goes up after the product has been used — not just researched.
- Hands-on evaluation before publication
- Notes on taste, texture, and kitchen use for foods
- Real-world wear, app, and data quality for devices
- Notes on packaging, fulfillment, and customer service
06
Pricing and value
Premium pricing for a premium product is fine. Premium pricing for a marketing skin over commodity ingredients is not. I calculate cost-per-clinical-dose and benchmark against peer products before scoring.
- Cost per serving + cost per active milligram
- Subscription discount honesty (true price vs. anchor price)
- Peer benchmarking across competing SKUs in the same category
- Shipping + return policy factored into final value score
07
Editorial scoring
Every product is scored against a 100-point rubric across five pillars: sourcing, formulation, testing, clinical relevance, and value. Anything below 70 is a 'pass' — it doesn't get published. Between 70 and 84 earns a standard listing. 85+ becomes an Editor's Pick.
- Sourcing — 25 points
- Formulation — 25 points
- Independent testing — 20 points
- Clinical relevance — 15 points
- Value — 15 points
08
Conflict-of-interest disclosure
Affiliate commissions on outbound links are how this site stays free to read. I disclose them on every product page. I've turned down brands who wanted to pay for placement — that's a hard wall between editorial review and paid promotion.
- Affiliate commissions disclosed on every product page
- No paid placement in editorial reviews — ever
- Free samples noted in the review byline when received
- Equity or advisory relationships disclosed prominently if any exist
What didn't make it
The kinds of red flags that end an evaluation.
These are the exact failure modes I look for in any product under consideration. Any one of them is enough to take a brand off the shortlist.
- 01Refused to disclose contract manufacturer
- 02COA older than 18 months on a perishable active
- 03Glyphosate residue above 75 ppb on an oat-based product
- 04Marketing claims unsupported by any human RCT
- 05Heavy-metal failure on a greens powder (lead > 0.5 µg/serving)
- 06Proprietary blend hiding sub-clinical doses of headline actives
Read more