Research StandardsSite methodology

How LiftLab Grades Evidence

LiftLab labels evidence strength so animal data, human trials and approved indications are not mixed together.

Last reviewed: 2026-08-09

Evidence hierarchy used on LiftLab

  1. Regulatory labeling and high-quality systematic reviews
  2. Randomized controlled human trials
  3. Prospective/observational human studies
  4. Case reports and pharmacovigilance
  5. Animal studies
  6. Cell/mechanistic studies
  7. Anecdote, marketing and forum claims

Why this matters

A compound can have an interesting mechanism and still fail to produce a meaningful clinical outcome. Likewise, a short study can detect a biomarker or lean-mass change without proving long-term safety or real-world functional benefit.

Conflict-of-interest and context

Readers should check who funded a study, who manufactured the drug, the population studied, trial duration, comparator, dropout rate, outcome definitions, and whether the endpoint was prespecified.

What “no evidence” means

Absence of good evidence is not evidence that a compound definitely does nothing. It means confidence should be lower and claims should be more restrained.

References

  1. Systematic review of SARM safety (PubMed)
  2. Anabolic–androgenic steroids: mechanisms and adverse effects (PubMed)
  3. Split versus full-body resistance training meta-analysis (PubMed)
This page is an educational reference, not individualized medical advice. Inclusion of a compound is not endorsement. LiftLab does not provide nonmedical cycles, stacks, sourcing, injection instructions or personalized dosing.

Share with