What we fact-check
Fact-checking at Shake Nutrition covers product names, brand ownership, serving sizes, ingredient lists, calories, protein amounts, sugar declarations, allergen statements, prices, certifications, dates, quoted claims and the distinction between current and archived product information.
We also check whether a statement is framed correctly. A label may show an ingredient; that does not prove a medical effect. A study may support a nutrient in a specific context; that does not automatically support a product claim. Our review process focuses on both factual accuracy and claim strength.
Primary-source hierarchy
For product facts, the strongest sources are the current product label, official brand pages, retailer listings that reproduce the label, product packaging, regulatory notices and direct company statements. For health and ingredient context, we prefer public health agencies, peer-reviewed literature, systematic reviews, regulatory materials and qualified professional sources.
Forum posts, social media discussions and older archive pages can be useful for history and reader context, but they are not treated as current proof unless independently verified.
Multiple-source confirmation
Important claims are checked against more than one source whenever possible. A formula change may be compared against a product label, brand page and retailer listing. A safety question may require a regulatory source, a testing report and a label review. A claim about consumer confusion may be supported by recurring reader questions and archived discussions.
When sources disagree, the article explains the uncertainty rather than smoothing it over. Readers should know when a brand page, a retailer page and an older PDF are not saying the same thing.
Health and supplement claims
Claims touching weight management, blood sugar, immunity, digestion, detox, energy, pregnancy, medication interactions or disease-related concerns receive extra scrutiny. We avoid language that suggests diagnosis, treatment, cure or guaranteed prevention.
Where evidence is preliminary, indirect, product-specific or ingredient-specific rather than formula-specific, the article must make that distinction. “May support” and “is proven to treat” are not interchangeable.
Archived and removed pages
Archived URLs and removed pages are part of the historical record. They help establish how the site and the category developed, especially around Shakeology ingredients, recipes, alternatives and claims. Before using archived material in a current article, we check whether the relevant product fact is still true.
When an archive source is used only for history, the article makes that role clear through wording and placement.
Reader corrections
Readers can send corrections to verify@shakenutrition.com. A useful correction includes the article URL, the sentence in question, the proposed correction and a source that supports it. We review corrections for factual relevance, source quality and whether the change materially affects reader understanding.
If a correction changes the meaning of an article, we update the page and note the material change. If the correction concerns a preference, brand opinion or unverified anecdote, we may keep it as reader feedback rather than changing the article.
Dates and review status
Articles display publication and review or update dates when they are article-format pages. Guides and reviews are revisited when new evidence, formula changes, price changes or reader corrections justify an update. Older pages remain useful only when they continue to reflect current facts or are clearly framed as historical context.