Source selection
Content on Nofoje draws primarily from peer-reviewed journals indexed in PubMed, the Cochrane Library, and similar scientific databases. We prioritize systematic reviews and meta-analyses where they exist, because they represent synthesized evidence across multiple studies rather than a single experiment's findings.
Where systematic reviews aren't available for a particular question, we cite the most methodologically rigorous individual studies we can identify, and we note explicitly when evidence is based on smaller or earlier-stage research. The distinction between "a few studies suggest" and "there is substantial evidence that" matters, and we try to reflect it accurately in our language.
We also draw on position statements from established health bodies - the American College of Sports Medicine, the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, and equivalent European institutions - when their guidance reflects current evidence. Position statements are treated as useful starting points, not final authorities.
Handling conflicting evidence
Hydration science, like most nutrition science, contains genuine debate. Studies disagree. Populations studied vary. Methodologies differ. We don't resolve this by picking the study that makes the most intuitive or compelling story.
When evidence is genuinely mixed, we say so. We explain what the points of disagreement are, why they might exist, and what the more plausible interpretations look like given the totality of available research. Intellectual honesty about uncertainty is more valuable than false confidence.
We specifically avoid the common practice of citing a single attention-grabbing study to support a dramatic claim. A single study, however well-designed, is a data point. Pattern of evidence is what guides the explanations we provide.
Commercial independence
Nofoje does not sell hydration products, supplements, testing devices, or consulting services of any kind. There is no affiliate relationship with any brand. We receive no compensation for mentioning any product, company, or study.
This independence matters because hydration is a topic with substantial commercial interest attached to it. Supplement companies, sports drink brands, and wearable technology companies all have financial incentives to influence how people think about their fluid intake. We don't.
When we discuss research that was funded by an industry source, we note it. Industry funding doesn't automatically invalidate a study, but it's information a reader deserves to have when evaluating claims.
Not medical advice
The content on this site is educational. It explains research and physiological mechanisms. It does not constitute medical advice and should not be used as a substitute for consultation with a qualified healthcare provider.
Individual health situations vary in ways that population-level research cannot fully capture. A person with kidney disease, a person taking certain medications, a pregnant person, or a person with a history of eating disorders may have hydration considerations that differ meaningfully from what general research describes. A doctor who knows your history is better positioned to advise you than any website.
We say this not as a legal disclaimer but because it's genuinely true and we think it's important to be clear about it.
Updating content
Science moves. Recommendations that reflected the best evidence in 2010 may need revision in 2026. We review articles when significant new research is published on topics we've covered and update them where the evidence warrants it.
Where an article has been substantially updated, we note it. The original publication date and the most recent review date are both visible. This transparency helps readers understand where they're encountering settled evidence versus an area that's still developing.
Feedback and corrections
If you believe we've misrepresented a study, cited a source incorrectly, or made a factual error, we want to know. Contact us at [email protected] with details of the specific claim and the source you believe contradicts it. We'll review and respond.
Corrections, when warranted, are made promptly and noted in the article. We don't quietly edit errors without acknowledgment.