The source hierarchy
Not all sources carry the same weight. When we research a protocol, we look for support in roughly this order:
- Systematic reviews, meta-analyses, and consensus statements
- Randomized controlled trials in humans
- Large observational and cohort studies
- Standards and guidance from technical bodies (EPA, WHO, ASHRAE, and similar)
- Mechanistic and animal research
- Expert opinion and professional practice
Source volume does not equal source quality. One relevant standard or well-run trial outweighs any number of wellness blog posts, and we treat manufacturer claims as commercial claims until independently verified.
Evidence labels
Every protocol carries one of four labels. The label reflects the evidence for the core claim of the protocol — not for every sentence on the page, which is why individual claims are also calibrated in the language itself.
Supported by consensus and multiple strong human studies.
Useful evidence exists, but outcomes or dosing vary.
Studies conflict or benefits depend heavily on context.
Mechanistically interesting but not proven enough to recommend.
A practice can be worth doing at any label — a sauna session doesn't need a meta-analysis to be a good evening. But the label tells you what is known versus what is hoped, and an experimental label means we are documenting a practice, not recommending it.
How claims are reviewed
Protocols are researched and written by Compound's editorial team. Before publishing, every meaningful health or performance claim is checked against its source, language strength is matched to evidence strength, and known contradicting evidence is stated rather than omitted. We do not invent firsthand experience, testing, or outcomes, and we do not publish specific numeric results (“20% more deep sleep”) unless a cited study reports them — and even then, as that study's finding, not as a promise.
Compound does not currently use external medical reviewers. Where a protocol touches genuine medical risk — cardiovascular stress, cold-water immersion, heat exposure — we say so explicitly, and the page is not a substitute for advice from a physician who knows your history.
Commercial separation
Compound links to products, and some of those links may earn a commission. That relationship never runs backward: protocols are researched first, and products appear because they implement the protocol, not the reverse. Evidence citations and commercial links get different treatment on the page so you can always tell which is which. No conclusion on a protocol page is available for purchase.
Updates and corrections
Every protocol shows a last-reviewed date. When new evidence meaningfully changes a conclusion, we update the page and the evidence label rather than defending the old version. Protocols that no longer meet this standard are unpublished — several were removed in July 2026 for exactly that reason, and their URLs now redirect here or to their replacements.
If you believe something on a protocol page is wrong, unsupported, or unsafe, we want to know. Corrections make the library better, and factual errors are fixed rather than quietly edited away.