FxNutrition Intelligence

Editorial Standards

Software helps us scan a wide field. A credentialed editor decides what reaches you. This page is how that decision is made.

What this brief is for

FxNutrition Intelligence is a Friday briefing for functional and integrative nutrition practitioners. The test for every item is simple: will this change what you think or do with patients?

It is not an aggregator, a journal club transcript, or a place for vendor headlines. Most of what we review does not make the issue.

What we look at each week

The scan covers a defined source list: research (including PubMed and core nutrition journals), 20+ practitioner podcasts, 30+ education and event calendars, and 50+ company newsrooms. From that, 8–12 items typically survive.

What makes the cut

  • Recent enough to be useful — generally the last month for evidence, with older material only when it still changes practice.
  • Human relevance. Animal-only or in-vitro work stays out unless the mechanism is unusually important and clearly caveated.
  • Study quality and honesty about limits: small n, short duration, surrogate endpoints, and industry funding are named, not hidden.
  • A free full-text link for every evidence item. Paywalled PDFs and abstract-only pages do not ship.
  • For podcasts, a link to the show’s own episode page — not Apple or Spotify.
  • For events, facts taken from the organizer’s page, including a plain “CEUs available” when they say continuing education is offered.

How studies are ranked

Only one to three studies make each issue, so every candidate has to pass two tests.

  • Signal strength. Study design comes first. Randomized controlled trials, systematic reviews and meta-analyses are preferred. Large, consistent observational and cohort studies can make the cut. Small trials (under 50 people) need a strong reason to be included, and case reports, expert opinion and narrative reviews are generally left out.
  • Clinical novelty. Does it change, challenge, or meaningfully add to what practitioners already know? Specific, usable details such as dose, timing or which patients benefit count for a lot. A study that only confirms what everyone already does rarely makes it.

When a small study does make the cut, the summary says so up front. Every evidence item opens with the study type and sample size, so you can judge its weight at a glance.

What we leave out

  • Weak, outdated, overhyped, or vendor-driven material.
  • Pharmaceutical-only trials with no nutrition context.
  • Consumer wellness fluff and academic work with no clinical implication.
  • Sources we cannot verify, or whose terms restrict republication.

If a functional nutrition practitioner would not change approach based on the item, it does not belong in the brief.

How summaries are written

AI helps gather facts from primary sources. The writing is paraphrased from verified material — not copied from abstracts, press releases, or other people’s recaps. Each item points you back to the original. A board-certified nutrition specialist (CNS) reviews the issue before it goes out.

This is editorial practice, not legal advice. When a source is unclear, we shorten, rewrite harder, or leave it out.

Questions about a specific item? Email hello@nutrishify.com. To see the brief itself, subscribe free or browse recent issues.