EDITORIAL TRANSPARENCY
A visible record of the evidence.
See how these explanations are prepared, what kind of review has been completed, and which changes affect the sources you are reading.
CURRENT REVIEW STATUS
Curated educational synthesis
The site explains selected public research and records the source checks behind those explanations. An editorial source check is different from independent clinical review of this site’s content.
- Editorial work
- Selected sources are checked and explained by Fasting Free, with access notes and limitations attached.
- Independent clinical review
- Not completed. No named, documented independent clinician review of this site content is currently recorded.
- How to use the material
- Use it to understand research and prepare questions. It does not assess personal suitability or provide a fasting, dietary or medication protocol.
THREE DIFFERENT DATES
A source check is not a new study.
- Original publication or correction
- When the paper, guidance or correction was published by its original organization. A correction keeps its original date when we add it to this site.
- Recorded source check
- The editorial date already recorded for a source or guide. It identifies a source check; it does not mean every source was rechecked or that a clinician reviewed the site.
- Site release
- When the education change was released, shown in America/Los_Angeles time. November 4 site releases can carry November 5 editorial records because the dates describe different events and time conventions.
MATERIAL CHANGES
What changed on this site
This is a curated record of releases and source notes, not a live research feed. The entries distinguish our clarifications from corrections issued by a journal.
- Site release · Pacific timeReading tools
Four ways to work with the evidence
Added guided claim checks, optional browser-saved reading and notes, printable question sheets, and this public editorial history.
Guided claim checks help readers examine a conclusion against its population, comparison, measurements and limits. The reading workspace can keep selected material and notes in this browser when the reader explicitly chooses to save them.
The sheet starts with existing guide discussion questions. Selection and wording edits stay in page memory; printing and copying include a complete guide-reference appendix.
The review-status page separates editorial source checking from independent clinical review and records known source clarifications without changing their original dates.
- Site release · Pacific timeCollection update
Three research guides, with 50 source records in the collection
Added detailed guides to fitness and fasting, prolonged fasting, and ketogenic diets, bringing the source collection from 30 to 50 records.
Each guide follows six questions to the papers, with methods, measured outcomes, limitations, access notes, and verified disclosure information.
New sources and guides carry the recorded November 5 source-check date. Earlier sources keep their existing check dates, except the Moro study, which was rechecked.
The site release was verified on November 4 in Pacific time. Its recorded editorial dates use November 5; these labels describe different events.
- Recorded source check
- Site release · Pacific timeEarlier journal correction recorded
Keto-Med’s earlier figure correction is linked beside the study
The source record includes the journal’s 2022 correction to the percentage labels in Figure 3.
The correction changes the axis display from fractions to percentages. It does not change the underlying data.
This entry records how the correction is represented in our source summary. It is not a new correction issued in 2026 or a new trial result.
- Recorded source check
- Original journal correction published
- Read the original correction
- Site release · Pacific timeSource clarification
The water-only safety summary keeps visits and percentages distinct
The Finnell source summary preserves the count of two serious-event visits among 768 qualifying visits and flags an inconsistent percentage in the paper.
The printed 0.002% does not match two divided by 768. Our summary labels approximately 0.26% as calculated and retains the original denominator.
This is an editorial arithmetic note, not a journal-issued correction or a reanalysis of individual records. It does not imply that every recorded adverse event was caused by fasting.
- Recorded source check
- Original study published
- Read the original source
- Site release · Pacific timeSource clarification
The resistance-training summary makes the dietary-control limits explicit
The Moro source record was rechecked when the fitness guide was added.
The summary now states that intake was intended to match and was assessed using food diaries and interviews. This was not a controlled feeding study.
It distinguishes maintained fat-free mass and strength from proof of superior muscle growth, and names the measurements used. This is a clarification of our educational summary, not a correction issued by the journal.
- Recorded source check
- Original study published
- Read the original source
- Site release · Pacific timeCollection update
The learning center expanded to 12 lessons and 30 source records
Added deeper lessons, three learning paths, practical examples, and original-source references across foundational, everyday and scientific questions.
Lessons pair takeaways with chapters, reading questions, evidence limitations and source summaries. The expanded source library includes research on muscle, shift work, late eating and human autophagy.
These are historical release counts. Later additions appear separately above, and individual source pages retain their own publication and check dates.
- Recorded source check
THE EDITORIAL PROCESS
Follow the claim back to its source.
The guides are curated educational explanations. They are not systematic reviews or formal evidence grades.
Identify the claim and its original evidence
Begin with the question, population, intervention, comparison and outcome. Prefer original papers, registered study records and official guidance. A news report is labeled as reporting and linked to its underlying evidence.
Record what was available to inspect
Source notes identify access to abstracts, full text, methods, supplementary material, registrations and correction notices. Missing access or an unverified detail stays visible rather than being filled in by assumption.
Keep the measurements and their limits together
Check sample counts, study design, duration, primary and exploratory outcomes, uncertainty, funding and disclosures where available. Explain the difference between a biological marker and a clinical outcome, or a measured scan category and muscle function.
Publish a traceable explanation
Connect the explanation to identifiable original sources. Keep the source’s publication date, the site’s source-check date and any search cutoff separate. Educational examples are labeled hypothetical.
Record material changes
When a source correction or a change in interpretation affects the site, update the relevant record and add an entry describing what changed, why it matters and which content is affected. Retain the original event’s date and describe any unresolved uncertainty.
BEFORE A CLINICAL REVIEW LABEL IS ADDED
A name, a scope, and a documented review.
Any future clinical-review claim must describe the work actually completed. It must include:
- A named reviewer with relevant professional credentials and a documented credential check.
- A defined scope: the exact pages, claims and content revision reviewed, including any exclusions.
- A completed, documented review with its date, findings, resolved changes and remaining limitations.
- Disclosed relevant interests and clear permission to publish the reviewer’s name and review scope.
A review of one page would apply to that page and revision. It would not certify the entire site or make the material personal medical advice.