Flexible Fasting Guide publishes educational content about intermittent fasting, eating schedules and related books and programmes.
This policy explains the standards we aim to follow when preparing, reviewing and updating our content.
Our purpose
We help readers understand different fasting approaches, their practical demands and their limitations.
Our articles cover questions such as how schedules differ, what research can establish, who should avoid fasting and what to consider before purchasing a commercial programme.
We do not provide personalised treatment plans or suggest that everyone needs to fast.
Start with our intermittent fasting beginner’s guide or learn more about this website.
How we use sources
For health-related statements, we prioritise sources relevant to the specific question, including:
- Systematic reviews and other peer-reviewed research.
- Public health organisations and government health agencies.
- Established medical institutions.
- Professional guidance relevant to nutrition, medication and safety.
We consider the study population, fasting schedule, comparison group, duration and measured outcomes before applying findings to an article.
A study of one eating pattern does not automatically establish the benefits of every fasting schedule.
Where useful, we link to the source so readers can examine the evidence and its limitations.
Distinguishing evidence from uncertainty
We aim to make clear whether a statement describes:
- Findings from human research.
- Findings from animal or laboratory research.
- A proposed explanation that requires further investigation.
- Practical suggestions rather than tested interventions.
- Claims made by a product seller.
We avoid presenting a biological mechanism as proof of a meaningful health benefit.
We also distinguish changes measured during a study from outcomes that remain uncertain over longer periods.
Our intermittent fasting benefits article discusses how to interpret potential benefits without treating them as guarantees.
Health and safety
Safety considerations belong within relevant articles, where readers can see them while considering a schedule or recommendation.
We do not describe longer fasting as automatically better or encourage readers to ignore symptoms to complete a fasting target.
Our content does not provide medical clearance, medication adjustments or individual diagnoses.
Readers should consult our Medical Disclaimer and guide to who should avoid intermittent fasting.
Product reviews
Our product coverage considers what readers need to know before making a purchase. Depending on the available information, this can include:
- The product’s stated approach and intended audience.
- What the seller says is included.
- Practical demands and potential limitations.
- Publicly advertised prices and purchase conditions.
- Alternatives, including approaches that do not require a purchase.
- Whether evidence supports a specific claim.
Seller information helps establish what is being offered. It does not independently establish effectiveness.
Our Eat Stop Eat review should be read alongside relevant safety information and the seller’s current purchase terms.
Firsthand experience and qualifications
We do not present research-based summaries as personal product testing.
Unless an article explicitly identifies verified firsthand experience, readers should not assume that we purchased, completed or tested the programme discussed.
We do not invent testimonials, reader results, professional qualifications or medical-review credentials.
An author byline alone does not establish healthcare expertise. Content should only be labelled “medically reviewed” when an appropriately qualified person has actually reviewed it and the review is accurately documented.
Affiliate relationships
Some articles contain links through which we may earn a commission from qualifying purchases.
This gives us a financial interest in purchases made through those links. Readers should consider that interest when assessing our recommendations.
Commission disclosures should appear where readers encounter relevant recommendations and links. Our Affiliate Disclosure provides further details.
A commercial relationship does not establish that a product is suitable for a particular reader or that its advertised outcomes are supported by independent evidence.
Comparisons and alternatives
Comparisons should explain meaningful differences rather than declare one approach best for everyone.
We consider factors such as schedule demands, flexibility, nutritional adequacy, available evidence and circumstances requiring medical advice.
When an article compares products or schedules, the conclusion should reflect the criteria discussed. We do not imply that a comparison includes every available option.
Readers can explore our fasting schedule guide and Eat Stop Eat alternatives.
Writing and presentation
We aim to use plain language and explain technical terms when they help answer the reader’s question.
Headings, tables and internal links should make information easier to navigate. They should not hide important limitations or steer readers away from relevant safety information.
Meal examples and schedules are educational illustrations. They are not personalised prescriptions.
Publication dates and updates
A publication date identifies when an article first appeared.
A review or update date should reflect an actual review or meaningful revision. Dates should not change automatically merely to make an article appear current.
Content may need updating when research, safety guidance, product details or linked resources change. We cannot promise that every page immediately reflects every development.
For purchase decisions, readers should check the seller’s current checkout and terms.
Corrections
We welcome reports of factual errors, misleading wording, outdated product details and broken links.
To report a concern, email info@flexiblefastingguide.com and include:
- The article title or page address.
- The statement or link concerned.
- A short explanation of the issue.
- A supporting source, where available.
We assess reports against the available evidence. When a material correction is warranted, we aim to explain the change on the affected page.
A disagreement about an interpretation does not always establish a factual error, but it can identify wording that needs clarification.
Limits of our content
Our articles cannot cover every study, individual circumstance or possible risk.
They support informed questions and further reading. They do not replace individual healthcare advice, professional assessment or the seller’s current contractual terms.
For questions about our editorial approach, visit our Contact page.