Enel Health®Atlas
Sign in
Enel Health®Atlas
Browse libraries

Not medical advice. The Atlas is not a substitute for a clinician who can examine you.

Examine.com, The Evidence Counterweight

Independent supplement research database

Evidence grade 4 of 5, Strong. Read how the Atlas grades evidence.

The written rationale for this grade is still being prepared.

FDA
Not applicable (research reference)

Reference only. Not medical advice.

What can go wrong

Not a risk but a corrective: Examine's verdicts (tribulus ineffective; D-aspartic acid mixed/null; fenugreek weak; ashwagandha modest and strongest; zinc/magnesium/vitamin D mainly correct deficiency) consistently undercut the marketing claims of the products in this category.

This is something to take to a clinician. The Atlas can tell you what is known about examine.com, the evidence counterweight in general. It cannot tell you what is happening in your body, and the difference matters most for exactly the symptoms that bring people to this page.

Examine.com, founded in 2011 by Sol Orwell and Kurtis Frank, is an independent encyclopedia of supplement research that systematically grades the human evidence (A-F per supplement-outcome pair, drawing only on human RCTs and meta-analyses). Crucially, it sells no supplements and takes no industry money, sponsors, affiliates, or ads, 100% of revenue is subscriptions, and staff are contractually barred from supplement-company ties. That structure makes it the natural counterweight to seller-driven hype: its financial interest is aligned with accuracy, not product sales.

The structurally uninentivized counterweight, it sells information, not pills.

What people take it for

What it is taken for. Approval, where it exists, covers only some of these.

  • Independent evidence grading for supplements

What people get wrong

  • Often saidIndependent reviews and seller 'reviews' are equivalent

    ActuallyMost 'best testosterone booster' sites earn affiliate commissions; Examine sells no products and takes no industry money, a genuinely different incentive structure.

Who profits, and who pushes back

Nobody is named here yet, because we have not done that work on this entry. Read that as unfinished. Somebody almost certainly sells this, and somebody almost certainly disputes it. Assume both until we have checked.

At a glance

Founded
2011 (Orwell & Frank)
Grading
A-F, human RCTs/meta-analyses only
Funding
100% subscriptions; no industry money

What this entry does not yet cover

What follows is unfinished work on our side, not a finding about Examine.com, The Evidence Counterweight. A short entry is not a safe entry.

  • Timeline. We have not built the dated record of research and regulatory events.
  • Cost and market. We have not documented what it sells for or who sells it.
  • Supply chain. We have not mapped where it is made.
  • Who uses it. We have not documented the user groups.
  • What could change. No forward-looking summary yet.
  • How it compares. We have not set it against the alternatives.
  • Children and teenagers. We have not checked what is known about younger people.

Sources

The studies below are named and described, but not linked. You cannot open them from here and check our reading against them, which means this page is our summary of the literature rather than a document you can verify. Weigh it accordingly until the links exist.

The studies that matter

  • Morgado et al. systematic review2023

    52 studies across 28 'boosters', most failed to raise total testosterone vs placebo; only HMB and betaine showed an effect in athletes

  • 'Testosterone Imposters' analysis2019

    ~90% of T-booster products claimed to boost T, but fewer than ~25% had supporting data