Editorial Standards

Our goal is to publish clear, practical information that complements the calculator.

Sourcing

We review widely used public health guidance and standard references to ensure our explanations are broadly consistent with common practice.

Review and updates

We revisit core pages periodically and respond to reader feedback by clarifying language or adding context.

Corrections

When we learn something is unclear or incorrect, we update the page and add a brief note.

Sources we consult

We reference widely used public health guidance and standard texts to ensure explanations align with common practice. We avoid single, sensational studies without context.

Conflicts of interest

We disclose material relationships that could influence content and avoid promotional bias in articles and tools.

Corrections policy

When we discover an error, we correct it promptly. For substantive changes, we add a short note with the date. Readers can request corrections via our Contact page.

Language & clarity

We use plain language and concrete examples, prioritize ranges over absolutes, and aim for accessible reading level without diluting accuracy.

How We Create Content

Review & Update Cycle

Corrections

Report errors via our Contact page. We log substantive corrections and adjust examples when assumptions change.

Editorial Masthead

We welcome expert reviewers for future editions. Reach out on the Contact page.

Sourcing Policy

Conflicts of Interest

We do not accept compensation to alter calculator logic or copy. Any sponsorships or affiliate relationships will be labeled clearly.

Reading Level & Accessibility

We aim for clear, plain-English explanations (~8th–10th grade reading level) and scannable lists to aid comprehension.

Scenario Selection

Examples reflect common cases (desk days, hot/humid training, altitude, pregnancy/breastfeeding). Edge cases are noted as educational, not prescriptive.

Citations & Attributions

When we reference external material, we summarize in our own words and provide context rather than lifting text verbatim.

Roles & Responsibilities

How to Reach the Team

Use the Contact page with the subject “Editorial Feedback” for content suggestions or corrections.

Advisory Network

We periodically invite external reviewers with relevant expertise to comment on clarity and accuracy. Participation does not imply endorsement.

How we keep the information trustworthy

Editorial standards aren’t about sounding official—they’re about being consistent and careful. Hydration advice should be understandable, accurate, and honest about uncertainty. This page outlines the approach we use when writing and updating content.

Our writing rules

We prioritize plain language, define terms when needed (electrolytes, dehydration, sweat loss), and separate “general guidance” from “medical situations that require individualized care.” If we can’t support a claim responsibly, we don’t include it.

Corrections and improvements

If something needs correction, we update it. If a page is too short or unclear, we expand it. The standard is simple: readers should leave with fewer questions than they arrived with.

Hydration content standard: simple, safe, and specific

Hydration advice should be clear and cautious. We separate everyday guidance from situations that need medical input and focus on practical routines you can actually follow.

What we emphasize

Scenario-based tips, timing, and common mistakes (like late-night catch-up drinking) that readers can fix immediately.

What we avoid

Overpromises and “miracle” hydration claims. Hydration improves most through steady habits, not hacks.