Evidence-based

The 'functional food' world tends to promise a lot: clinically proven, scientifically verified, this-many-percent improvement. We don't write like that.

Not because we don't believe in adaptogens, but because we respect the difference between a lab experiment on isolated cells and a real person with a real life. Between 'shown in a mouse study' and 'will give you your energy back' – there is a long distance.

Three levels of claims

Lab-measured. What we can show for our specific batch: beta-glucan content, heavy-metal tests, microbiology. These are facts about the package you will receive.

Researched mechanism. What scientific literature says about a specific compound under lab conditions: receptors, pathways, effects in cell models. Always with a citation to the specific paper, and a note that it is a model, not a clinical result.

Traditional usage. How the mushroom has been used for centuries in Tibetan, Ayurvedic and Sherpa traditions. This is not our scientific claim, it is cultural context. We say 'traditionally used for', not 'proven to'.

What we never write

'Clinically proven.' 'Scientifically confirmed effectiveness.' 'Studies have shown.' Phrases like these are a marketing trick, not science. Real science says: 'in a 2019 double-blind study with 200 participants, effect X was observed with p<0.05.' The difference is enormous.

We refuse to do science-cosplay on principle. If we don't have peer-reviewed data for a specific effect, we speak in the language of 'traditionally used for…' rather than 'proven to help with…'.

What we publish

• References to peer-reviewed studies for every compound we write about
• PDF declarations (TR TS) and batch lab analysis results
• A list of what we do NOT promise – more important than what we do promise

Our benchmark: if a scientist challenged the claim, could we defend it? If not, we don't write it.