Publish on a schedule without restarting the search every issue.
The tools that summarize papers still leave you the last mile. Titrate keeps the topic, the papers and your position in one place, so the next issue starts from your own accumulated reading.
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 barbell hip thrust produce superior gluteus maximus development — measured either as acute EMG activation or as chronic hypertrophy — compared to the back squat?
- Contreras et al.2015n=13supports
- Delgado et al.2019n=8mixed
- Plotkin et al.2023n=34contradicts
- Krause Neto et al.2025n=12mixed
- Vigotsky et al.2017n=—contradicts
- Kassiano et al.2024n=33supports
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.
Every issue begins from nothing.
You restart the literature search for each piece, and when an editor or a reader asks for the citation you rebuild the trail from memory. Summarizing tools help you read faster; none of them produce anything you can publish.
A real topic stack
Where the literature agrees, and the exact point where it stops.
A stack is not a folder. It is a question, with everything read against it assembled underneath — the design, the sample, and which way each paper cuts. If you write about this for a readership, the second half of that sentence is the piece.
The central question
Does low-load training with blood-flow restriction produce strength and hypertrophy gains comparable to traditional high-load resistance training?
| Paper | Year | Design | N | Bears on the question |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Slysz et al. | 2016 | Systematic review / meta-analysis | 400 (strength) | supports |
| Hughes et al. | 2017 | Systematic review / meta-analysis | 20 studies | supports |
| Lixandrão et al. | 2018 | Systematic review / meta-analysis | — | mixed |
| Centner et al. | 2019 | Systematic review / meta-analysis | — | supports |
| Patterson et al. | 2019 | Position stand | — | mixed |
| Chang et al. | 2024 | Systematic review / meta-analysis | — | contradicts |
| Jing et al. | 2025 | Systematic review / meta-analysis | 11 studies / 220 | supports |
4 supporting · 1 contradicting · 2 mixed
What the stack shows that a paragraph cannot
The question is not whether blood-flow restriction works — it does. The question is whether it substitutes for heavy loading, and there the literature splits by outcome: comparable for muscle size, still short for maximal strength. The most recent head-to-head narrows even that, finding the strength gap closes under individualised pressure and intermittent cuff inflation — so part of the inferiority is a dosing choice rather than a ceiling. A piece that says "BFR works" is not wrong. It is just not the piece.
The four, the one and the two stay where you can see all three groups before you decide what the piece actually says. That is the difference between a piece that reports the consensus and one that reports where the consensus ends.
Every paper listed here is real and independently re-verified on 2 August 2026 against PubMed, PMC, the DOI resolver, Unpaywall and an open citation-graph API. The screen is not. Titrate is pre-launch, and the topic-stack view is designed, not built — this is the specification, shown with real material rather than mocked up. Labelling how a paper bears on the question is a design commitment, not a shipped feature, and it is not what makes Titrate different.
What Titrate does about it
Keep the topic and everything you have read on it, and let a topic search propose what you have not seen — you keep or drop each one. Draft the piece as a position with the sources attached, then ship it under your name. The topic stays; the next issue builds on it instead of restarting.
What a Titrate workspace holdsMixed evidence stays mixed.
Supporting and contradicting work is kept where you can see both. Titrate is being built so a position never quietly resolves a disagreement the literature has not resolved.
How evidence is handledTitrate is being built with Jeff Casebolt, PhD — a biomechanist with five peer-reviewed publications, who has been through peer review himself.
About Jeff and why this existsQuestions
Is that stack included, or do I have to build my own?
You build your own. The stack above is a specimen — assembled from published literature to show the shape of the thing, not shipped as content you subscribe to. Titrate can help you find candidates on a topic; what it will not do is curate a reading list or tell you which papers matter. It proposes, you dispose. If it decided for you, you would be reading someone else's review again, which is the exact position this is meant to get you out of.
Will it write the piece for me?
No. Titrate is a workbench, not a generator. It keeps the material and the trail; the writing and the judgment stay yours.
What about the citation trail for fact-checking?
That is the point of the structure: each claim in a position carries the paper it came from, so a fact-check follows the link instead of asking you to remember.
Titrate is pre-launch.
Join the practitioner waitlistOne email when the first practitioner cohort opens. Nothing else.
