Editorial standards and content methodology

Who is responsible for publication

Content is published under the GetMacros.net editorial identity unless a page names an individual author or qualified reviewer. “GetMacros.net editorial team” is an organizational byline; it must not be read as a claim that a physician, registered dietitian, professor, or public figure wrote or medically reviewed the page.

We do not attribute articles to Andrew Huberman, another clinician, researcher, institution, or established writer unless that person or organization actually authored or formally reviewed the work and permission permits the attribution. A source citation means the source supports a factual claim—not that its author endorses GetMacros.net.

Drafting and production may use software-assisted workflows, including language and code tools. Publication responsibility remains with the site publisher. Automation is never presented as professional medical review, and generated wording is checked against cited material before publication.

Source hierarchy

For health and nutrition facts, we prefer current primary or authoritative sources: government health agencies, official dietary reference publications, peer-reviewed systematic reviews and consensus reports, clinical guidelines from accountable professional bodies, and original research when a narrower claim requires it.

Examples include the NIH Office of Dietary Supplements, U.S. Food and Drug Administration, USDA FoodData Central, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Academies, and comparable public-health authorities. Commercial blogs, influencer posts, retailer pages, and supplement marketing are not treated as primary evidence.

A single study rarely settles a broad nutrition question. We distinguish mechanistic plausibility, observational association, randomized evidence, surrogate outcomes, and demonstrated clinical outcomes. When evidence conflicts or remains incomplete, the article should say so plainly.

Writing rules

• Explain the useful context before optimizing for a keyword.
• Use original language rather than copying source passages.
• Separate established functions from proposed benefits and marketing claims.
• State units, populations, and comparison conditions when they change the meaning.
• Avoid “good” and “bad” food scores that erase dose, pattern, culture, affordability, allergy, or medical context.
• Do not diagnose deficiency from nonspecific symptoms.
• Do not promise disease treatment, guaranteed weight loss, or supplement outcomes.
• Label calculators as estimates and explain their assumptions.

Medical boundaries

The site provides education, not diagnosis or individualized treatment. Pregnancy, childhood, eating disorders, allergies, kidney or liver disease, diabetes, medication interactions, symptoms of deficiency, and high-dose supplements can require personal clinical assessment. Relevant pages identify these boundaries and direct readers toward a qualified clinician, registered dietitian, or pharmacist.

Emergency symptoms belong with emergency services, not a website calculator or comment form.

Dates, updates, and review

Pages may show published and modified dates. A modified date should reflect a meaningful editorial or technical change, not an automatic date refresh intended to look current. We revisit pages when reference values, labeling rules, safety advice, major evidence, or site tools change.

Older pages are progressively brought into the same sourcing and accessibility standards as new work. Presence in the library does not imply that every page has received identical depth of review on the same date.

Corrections and reader challenges

Material factual errors are corrected promptly when verified. Changes that alter the conclusion, safety advice, calculation, or interpretation should be recorded in the corrections log. Typographical, formatting, and broken-link repairs may be made without a public entry when they do not alter meaning.

Readers can use the contact page to identify the URL, disputed sentence, and supporting source. Specific evidence is more useful than a general disagreement, but all good-faith reports are welcome.