Corrections Policy

We correct factual errors, outdated source references, broken citations, unclear calculator methodology, inaccurate food values, missing medical cautions, and wording that could overstate what the evidence supports.

Small grammar or formatting changes may be made silently. Material nutrition, medical-context, source, or calculator changes should be reflected in the page's updated date where practical.

Source and calculation corrections are checked against the same hierarchy used for new content: institutional sources first, then peer-reviewed literature, then trusted medical sites and professional organizations as supporting context.

Corrections involving medical risk, medication-adjacent content, pregnancy, lactation, kidney disease, diabetes, older adults, or appetite-loss guidance should receive reviewer attention before publication.

Readers can flag issues such as a broken source link, a food value that does not match a cited USDA entry, a calculator result that needs explanation, or a sentence that feels medically overconfident.

Useful correction reports include the page URL, the specific sentence or result, and the source that supports the requested change.

Not every update has the same urgency. We prioritize corrections based on potential reader impact. A typo in a low-risk paragraph can wait for a routine cleanup, while an incorrect calculator formula, broken medical caution, outdated medication-adjacent statement, or misleading pregnancy or kidney-health sentence should be reviewed quickly.

High-priority corrections include anything that could change a reader's protein target, calorie target, supplement dose, hydration target, body composition interpretation, or decision to seek medical guidance. Medium-priority corrections include unclear methodology, missing context, outdated source links, thin explanations, or confusing wording that does not create immediate safety risk but still weakens the page.

Calculator corrections are checked in two places: the visible page explanation and the underlying calculation logic. If a formula, conversion, activity multiplier, protein range, calorie assumption, hydration adjustment, creatine dose, or body composition equation is changed, the page should explain the assumption clearly enough that a reader can understand why the output changed.

When possible, calculator corrections are verified with worked examples. A simple hand-calculated example helps catch unit errors, rounding issues, and edge cases that are easy to miss when only testing the interface. For calculators with health implications, we also check whether the disclaimer and limitation language still matches the output.

Food values can differ across raw weight, cooked weight, drained weight, brand labels, restaurant data, and serving sizes. When readers report a mismatch, we first identify whether the page is describing a representative USDA-style value, a branded label value, or a serving estimate. A correction may require adding context rather than replacing one value with another.

Meal-plan corrections are reviewed for practicality as well as numbers. If a meal plan target says 120 grams of protein, the page should make it clear how the daily total is distributed, where swaps are allowed, and why labels may vary. Corrections should improve the reader's ability to plan meals, not create false precision around every gram.

When a correction changes the substance of a page, we aim to make the update visible through the page's reviewed or updated date where practical. This is most important for calculators, medical-context nutrition pages, source methodology pages, and pages that readers may use to make dietary decisions.

A material update can include changing a formula, replacing a source, adding a clinician-warning section, rewriting a recommendation range, correcting a food value, or clarifying a supplement dose. Small copy edits, formatting fixes, and minor grammar improvements may not need a public note because they do not change the meaning of the page.

A protein calculator range change is material because it can alter the number a reader uses for meal planning. A calorie calculator activity-factor change is material because it can change a fat-loss target. A hydration page update is material if it changes advice for heat, exercise, fluid restriction, or electrolyte needs. A creatine page update is material if it changes loading dose, maintenance dose, safety language, or kidney-related cautions.

A food page correction can also be material when the serving state changes. For example, raw chicken breast and cooked chicken breast do not have the same protein per 100 grams because cooking changes water content. Dry pasta and cooked pasta have different values for the same reason. A correction should make the serving state clearer instead of pretending there is one universal number.

After a meaningful correction is made, the surrounding page should be reviewed for consistency. A formula change may also affect FAQs, schema, examples, related guide links, and comparison tables. A food value correction may affect meal-plan totals, protein-density claims, and internal links that quote the same serving size.

This follow-up review prevents a common content problem: correcting one sentence while leaving the old assumption elsewhere on the page. The goal is not only to patch the reported issue, but to make the full page coherent for readers and search engines.

Corrections are not a sign that a nutrition site is weak; they are part of maintaining accurate educational content. Protein targets, food data, calculator formulas, supplement guidance, and medical-context language all need periodic review because sources, labels, and best practices can change.

A clear correction process helps readers understand that the site is maintained rather than abandoned. It also gives reviewers a practical checklist for improving pages: verify the source, reproduce the calculation, update related explanations, and keep safety language aligned with the current recommendation.

For readers, the most important outcome is confidence that mistakes can be found, reviewed, and fixed without hiding the limits of nutrition calculators or educational content.

The most useful correction requests are specific. Instead of saying a page is wrong, include the page URL, the exact heading or sentence, the result you believe is incorrect, and the source or calculation that supports the change. If the issue is a calculator output, include the inputs you used so the result can be reproduced.

For food data issues, include whether the value is raw, cooked, drained, dry, prepared, branded, or restaurant-specific. For medical-context issues, include the source type, such as an official label, guideline, professional society statement, or peer-reviewed paper. We do not need personal medical details to review a general content correction.

We do not provide personal medical advice through corrections. A reader's individual protein target can depend on diagnosis, lab results, medication, pregnancy status, training load, appetite, and clinician instructions.

When a correction request is actually a personal health question, the safest response is to recommend individualized guidance from a qualified healthcare provider.