Publish the sober version of the claim.
The loudest version of a nutrition claim already has an audience. Write the cited version under your own name, so there is something to send when someone asks what is actually known.
Titrate is pre-launch. What is described here is what it is being built to do, with Jeff Casebolt, PhD.
The central question
Does the timing of protein intake relative to a resistance-training bout (a narrow post-workout "anabolic window") produce meaningfully greater muscle hypertrophy or strength gains than simply meeting total daily protein intake, regardless of timing?
- Cribb et al.2006n=23supports
- Schoenfeld et al.2013n=hypertrophy…mixed
- Aragon et al.2013n=—contradicts
- Areta et al.2013n=24supports
- Schoenfeld et al.2018n=—contradicts
- Kerksick et al.2017n=—mixed
A workbench, not a chatbot.
Nothing here writes a confident paragraph for you to trust. There is no chat window. You keep the judgment; the tool keeps the trail back to the papers. It cannot hallucinate a citation because it does not generate citations at all — a claim points at a paper already sitting in your own library, or it points at nothing.
How it comes together
01
Keep the papers you already read — or start from the topic and keep only what you judge worth keeping. Either way they land as PDFs or citation-only records in a library that is yours.
02
Group them into the topic this piece of work belongs to.
03
Write the position, with each claim carrying its citation.
04
Ship it — a piece you can publish under your own name, where every claim points at the paper it came from.
Why this matters here
A client arrives certain about a protocol they heard on a podcast. Refuting it properly means the primary literature, and you need it before the session ends — not next week. Meanwhile your own positions live in DMs and get rewritten every time.
Titrate is pre-launch.
Join the practitioner waitlistOne email when the first practitioner cohort opens. Nothing else.
