The method
We'd rather be right
than exciting.
Most health content sells you the exciting shaky thing over the boring true one, because novelty travels. StackGuide is built to do the opposite. Here is exactly how every entry is weighted and graded — no black box, because a ranking you can't inspect is just another opinion with better typography.
The one rule
Tier decides first. Always. Before any score is compared, an intervention is placed in one of six tiers, and the tier's rank is the primary sort key for the entire guide.
This is deliberate and it is not negotiable. It means a frontier peptide with dazzling early data can never outrank a foundation like sleep or aerobic fitness, no matter how its numbers look — because the comparison never crosses the tier boundary. A guide that lets a novel molecule look more important than Zone 2 cardio has failed at its one job, so we removed the ability for that to happen in code.
- I Foundations 60%
- II Heart & Metabolic 20%
- III Tests & Labs 9%
- IV Supplements 7%
- V Medications 3%
- VI Frontier 1%
The percentages are editorial scaffolding — a defensible estimate of how much each tier moves the needle for a typical adult, not a precise medical claim. They exist to keep the visual hierarchy honest.
The honest anatomy
Inside a tier, every intervention is described by the same five attributes — the same anatomy, so nothing hides.
- Impact
- How much it moves healthspan for the people it's for, from minor to decisive.
- Evidence
- How strong the proof is — graded A to D, and attached to a specific claim rather than the whole intervention.
- Effort
- The adherence cost. A powerful thing you won't sustain is worth less than a modest thing you will.
- Risk
- From low-risk to clinician-guided. Shown plainly, never buried and never inflated into fear.
- Reach
- How broadly it applies — almost everyone, or a narrow few. "Who it's actually for," not "everyone."
Grading the evidence
A mechanistic hunch is not a randomized trial is not a meta-analysis. You always see which one you're looking at. The grade belongs to the claim, so a single intervention can carry an A on one outcome and a D on another.
Consistent randomized trials or meta-analyses in humans. You can lean on this.
Randomized evidence with limits, or strong, consistent long-term cohorts. Directionally trustworthy.
Observational signal or small/mixed trials. A reasonable bet, not a settled one.
Plausible biology, animal data, or expert reasoning — but thin human outcomes. Treat as a hypothesis.
The within-tier score
Within a tier, order comes from a deliberately legible blend. No machine learning, no hidden weights — you can hand-check any number on the site.
Sourcing & integrity
- Claims cite real, primary sources — guidelines, trials, cohorts — linked so you can check us.
- Magnitude is never overstated. Where a popular claim outruns the data, we say so and grade it down.
- We are comfortable saying "we don't know yet" or "the mechanism is plausible but the human evidence is thin."
- Rx and frontier topics get adult context — mechanism, evidence, risk, unknowns — without fear-mongering or cheerleading, and with a clear nudge toward a clinician where it belongs.
StackGuide is educational. It does not diagnose, treat, or replace a clinician, and nothing here is personal medical advice. Use professional guidance for medications, existing conditions, pregnancy, and anything that feels wrong in your own body.
Read the ranked stack →