Plumb
B

Evidence-based fitness and nutrition research

Stronger By Science

Greg Nuckols / Stronger By Science LLC

Editorial reviews Free to read Visit Stronger By Science ↗

A genuinely independent editorial operation whose supplement grades are built on deep literature review rather than vendor relationships — but it reviews ingredient categories, not specific products, so readers still need to verify what is actually in the bottle they buy.

What it's really for To translate sports science research into practical supplement and training guidance, with an explicit skeptical stance toward industry marketing claims

What our grade covers The grade on this page is about Supplement ingredient categories graded by published clinical evidence quality (not branded products or specific SKUs), not everything the site does.

Medium Scoring Confidence Mostly sourced, but a detail or two still needs a primary source, so the grade could shift slightly.

Operating since
2015 (11 years) · source
What it costs you
Free to read The reviews are free to read.
How they make money
Primary revenue is the MASS paid subscription research review. Secondary revenue includes Amazon affiliate commissions embedded in supplement articles and direct coaching services. No pay-for-placement advertising in supplement rankings.
What they do
Publishes long-form, literature-grounded supplement reviews and ranked guides authored by Greg Nuckols and Eric Trexler (both with advanced exercise science credentials). Supplement articles evaluate the evidence base for each compound, typically grading it by research quality and practical effect size, and recommend only a short list of supplements with strong clinical support. The site also co-produces MASS (Monthly Applications in Strength Sport), a paid monthly research review with Eric Helms and Mike Zourdos, which is the primary revenue source.
What to watch for
Does not conduct independent lab testing of specific supplement products (purity, label accuracy, contamination). Reviews assess the ingredient category using published research, not the specific brand or batch the reader is about to buy. The site uses Amazon affiliate links in some supplement articles, creating a modest commission relationship, though this is not disclosed with the same prominence as major review sites. Supplement guides do not compare specific branded products head-to-head.
Composite score
3.50 / 5.00 → grade B

How the grade was reached

Independence · 30% weight 3 / 5

Does the site take money from the very entities it ranks? Pay-for-placement, vendor-funded data, and affiliate commissions all pull this down. The less the ranking can be bought, the higher the score.

Evidence basis · 30% weight 4 / 5

What is the ranking actually built on? Hands-on testing scores highest, then verified first-hand reviews, then opinion or popularity surveys and self-reported figures, then pay-to-rank, which scores lowest.

Method transparency · 20% weight 3 / 5

Is the methodology published, specific, and reproducible? Can a reader see how a given rank was reached, or is it a black box?

Conflict disclosure · 10% weight 3 / 5

Are commercial relationships, sponsorships, and affiliate arrangements disclosed clearly and near the rankings themselves, rather than buried?

Manipulation resistance · 10% weight 5 / 5

How hard is it to game? Controls against fake reviews, solicited reviews, and vendor gaming raise this; an open box anyone can stuff lowers it.

Evidence

Compare with others

Others reviewing supplements & health (compare all →)

← Back to the Report Card