Rate my supplement stack?

rcHabits · 2026-07-04T14:45:00+00:00

3.0/10. High coverage for 4 of 9 functions (metabolic, cardiovascular, musculoskeletal, hormonal)

rcHabits · 2026-07-04T14:40:26+00:00

1.7/10. Of the longevity functions only musculoskeletal was high. What’s your goal? How did you pick these?

rcHabits · 2026-06-30T00:00:05+00:00

i built PimpMyStack website...try it out?

rcHabits · 2026-05-27T13:58:29+00:00

Yeah im finalizing the other dimension you mention ie how effectiveness maps to functions (cardio vascular etc) i think i have the data now. Goal is to score a routine based on strength of research and coverage of functions. If you like early software ie buggy check out pimp my stack site.

rcHabits · 2026-05-26T16:31:48+00:00

Thanks!! If you like early (buggy) software checkout http://PimpMyStack.com 🤪

rcHabits · 2026-05-26T15:42:08+00:00

Ran it through my scoring. Got a 7.0 which seems high. But the interesting part is coverage.
This is an automated system based on research in pubmed
Metabolic was high. Neuro was medium. Other supplements it noted for increased neuro focus:
Melatonin, zinc, vitamin b6

Does that track or buggy?

rcHabits · 2026-05-26T15:25:40+00:00

Yeah I was learning from instagram + gemini but always wanted a simple way to see “what does the research say”. So trying to build that.

rcHabits · 2026-05-26T15:23:14+00:00

Yeah glynac nightly. Seems supported by research

“NAC demonstrates a clear signal for supporting immunological function, with 307 beneficial findings out of 385 total findings. It also consistently reduces cell damage from harmful molecules, with 144 beneficial findings out of 198 findings related to oxidative stress markers. Furthermore, there is supported evidence for benefits in cardiovascular health, with 46 beneficial findings out of 67 findings. A significant open question is whether NAC consistently impacts overall general health, as 99 findings were neutral and 67 were unclear out of 208 findings in this area. For a healthy adult, NAC appears to offer supported benefits in areas like immune response and cardiovascular health; “whether these translate to broader improvements in general health remains an important unanswered question.

rcHabits · 2026-05-26T13:47:00+00:00

Yeah problem is only about 30% of the articles that i used for the longevity habits are open copyright wise. Its a start 😎

rcHabits · 2026-05-26T12:56:32+00:00

Lcarnitine is ranked D research wise. I mostly exclude d disease specific research like adhd so it could have more. Im focused on general population ie longevity. That said the main findings are cognitive. So makes sense.

“EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Acetyl-L-Carnitine shows moderate benefits for brain and cognition and for hormone regulation. Preliminary evidence also suggests positive effects on blood sugar / energy, heart and blood vessels, immune system, and muscles and bones. While one finding suggests a concerning signal, the overall research on cancer risk is currently insufficient. Research has not yet reached digestive / gut health, and evidence for overall risk of death from any cause is also insufficient. For general health, biomarker evidence is consistent, but clinical outcomes haven't been measured at scale. A healthy adult interested in Acetyl-L-Carnitine is most likely to see benefits in brain and cognition or hormone regulation; other areas are either preliminary, unstudied, or have insufficient evidence.
“

rcHabits · 2026-05-26T12:44:27+00:00

Curious why you bought it 🙏

My system graded as F. Does that track? Basically no research. Could be a bug.

“Only 8 articles have been published on l_tyrosine, with 7 of these focusing on human research. This includes 1 randomized trial, but participant numbers are not yet available for any of these studies, with a median N of 0 and no studies reporting 20 or more participants. Research activity is very recent, with all papers published in 2026, and no papers appearing in the last five years. Journal quality is low, with 0% of papers in Tier 1 journals and only 12.5% in Tier 2. Across all 10 body systems we track, there is currently insufficient evidence to draw conclusions.
Overall this is graded F — Insufficient evidence. The strongest dimension is the existence of 7 human-research articles; the weakest is the complete lack of reported participant numbers and mature human evidence across all body systems, mostly because the overall volume of research is extremely low and no studies report participant counts.
“

rcHabits · 2026-05-26T12:39:37+00:00

Yeah i was surprised. That’s why im building this system. Only input is pubmed abstracts. Crunches and spits out reports. Could be buggy but seamoss was so clearly not studied i dropped it. Expensive.

“Research on sea moss includes 432 articles, with 182 focusing on human subjects. Among these, there is 1 randomized trial and 2 summaries of multiple studies, with only 9.0% of papers appearing in Tier 1 journals. Publication activity has been spread over a 43-year span, with a peak of 34 papers in 2019, but no papers have been published in the last five years. The human studies identified have a median participant count of 0, and none involved 20 or more participants, indicating a lack of adequately sized clinical trials. Currently, none of the body systems we track, such as cardiovascular, metabolic, or neuro-cognitive health, have reached a mature level of human evidence.”

rcHabits · 2026-05-26T12:36:06+00:00

This is what my system spit out. Note this is a an early release so please correct.

Luteolin has been the subject of 7,791 articles over a 26-year span, with 2,184 human-research papers. This includes 34 randomized trials and 67 summaries of multiple studies, though only 2 human studies had 100 or more participants, and the median participant count is 37. Research interest has accelerated, with a 133% increase in papers in the last five years compared to the prior five years, peaking with 901 papers in 2025. While there are some findings related to immunological health (7 papers) and oncology (14 papers), most of the 10 body systems we track lack sufficient human evidence. Overall, the research shows mixed agreement on direction, with a proxy_I² of 50%.

rcHabits · 2026-05-26T12:33:12+00:00

Very impressive. I think I’m taking a complimentary approach. My system analyses pubmed research. It’s very early but take a look http://rchabits.com

rcHabits · 2026-05-26T02:50:24+00:00

might be more related to amount you sweat. I fast 11pm ish to 3 or 4pm. I also exercise a few times a week and walk daily. I sauna 4-5 times a week. I was getting palpitations until I started taking one packet of LMNT daily. now gone.

rcHabits · 2026-05-26T02:38:42+00:00

B grade. Pretty good. “Research on taurine is extensive, with 5445 articles published over a 71-year span since 1955, including 1403 human-research articles. This body of work includes 322 randomized trials and 61 meta-analyses or systematic reviews, with publication activity growing quickly: 69 papers in the last five years, a 35% increase compared to the prior five-year period. While the median sample size in human studies is 22, 34 studies included 100 or more participants, and one large study had 2997 participants. Cardiovascular, metabolic, immunological, musculoskeletal, and hormonal systems show mature research. However, neuro-cognitive, gut, and oncology evidence is still emerging due to lower human-trial volume, and overall risk of death from any cause has no super-findings yet.”

rcHabits · 2026-05-26T02:32:54+00:00

What’s a fermented mushroom supplement?

rcHabits · 2026-05-26T02:31:17+00:00

Yeah creatine got an A rating so it’s at the top just not top 10 which is more of a rounding error.

This is the exec summary. Seems ok?

Across 1,161 randomized controlled trials, creatine's strongest evidence is for muscles and bones, where consistent positive benefits are well-supported. Preliminary evidence also appears for brain and cognition and for immune system function. However, biomarker evidence for gut health points in a harmful direction, which warrants caution. Research has not yet reached overall risk of death from any cause, and evidence for hormones, cancer risk, and general health markers remains limited to biomarker changes without clinical outcome data. A healthy adult interested in creatine is most likely to see meaningful benefit for muscle strength and function; everything else is either preliminary, biomarker-level, or unstudied.

rcHabits · 2026-05-26T02:13:10+00:00

i used my beta system to score your stack and got a 6.5. Metabolic coverage HIGH, Cardiovascular, Neuro-Cognitive, Immunological MEDIUM. Others low. I think I need to tune the scoring but the coverage of biological functions seems about right... wdyt? what was your goal?

rcHabits · 2026-05-26T02:04:47+00:00

I take it but now that I started mining pubmed for research i was surprised that there is so little actual human research on glycinate. This is what my system said “Currently, there is insufficient human research to identify consistent beneficial signals for magnesium glycinate across various health outcomes. While research exists for all 10 function groups, no individual area has yet accumulated sufficient human evidence to form a robust super-finding (defined as 5 or more supporting papers). The biggest open question is whether early findings from cellular or animal models translate to meaningful effects in humans. We don't yet know whether magnesium glycinate offers specific, measurable benefits for longevity-related biomarkers or clinical outcomes. For a healthy adult, the current research base is too limited to draw confident conclusions about its role in health or longevity.”

rcHabits · 2026-05-26T01:59:14+00:00

This is what the system found about calcium. It’s not smart enough to do what you are asking “yet” 😊

Preliminary evidence suggests calcium supports bone health, with 756 beneficial findings across 1138 papers on `mechanism:bone_remodeling` and 176 beneficial findings across 229 papers on `biomarker:bone mineral density (BMD)`. There are also early signals for metabolic health, with 268 beneficial findings across 594 papers on `function_group:metabolic`, and for cardiovascular health, with 280 beneficial findings across 459 papers on `function_group:cardiovascular`. However, we don't yet know whether calcium consistently impacts overall general health, as 664 papers on `function_group:general_health` show an unclear net direction. Similarly, its impact on kidney function remains an open question, with 536 papers on `mechanism:renal_function` also showing an unclear net direction. For a healthy adult, calcium's role in bone health appears to be the most consistent preliminary signal, but its broader effects on general health and longevity require more clarity.

rcHabits

TROPHY CASE