How Habits approaches health information

Content covered by this policy

This policy applies to health-related content controlled by Habits, including where relevant:

• health education in the Habits Resources section;
• medicine-related educational articles;
• nutrition, hydration, movement, Sleep, Mood and progress education;
• health-related FAQ answers;
• health-related in-app articles and tips;
• educational charts or infographics;
• health claims used in Habits marketing;
• substantial AI-assisted editorial content before it is published by Habits.

It also guides how we separate:

Product information
What Habits can actually do.

General health education
Information about health, behaviour or medicines intended to help readers understand a topic.

Medical advice
Individual diagnosis, treatment, prescribing or decisions about a person's care.

Habits publishes product information and may publish general education.

Habits does not publish personalised medical advice as website editorial content.

---

Product claims come from the product. Health claims come from evidence.

When we describe a Habits feature, our source of truth is the current product.

For example, whether Habits:

• tracks Water;
• includes a Doctor Report;
• connects to Apple Health;
• offers a workout programme;
• supports an AI feature;

When we publish a health statement, we look for appropriate external evidence.

We do not treat one kind of evidence as proof of the other.

A research paper about Protein does not prove that using Habits produces a particular health outcome.

A feature in Habits does not prove a medical fact.

We prefer sources closest to the underlying evidence.

The source we use depends on the question.

For medicine-specific and safety information, we generally prefer current authoritative sources for the relevant country or market.

For broader health education, we prefer current guidelines, systematic reviews and peer-reviewed evidence where appropriate.

Our working source hierarchy is:

1. Regulators, official medicine information and public-health authorities

Examples may include:

• Medsafe medicine Data Sheets and Consumer Medicine Information for New Zealand medicine information;
• New Zealand health authorities;
• other relevant national medicines regulators for content intended for those markets.

2. Current evidence-based clinical or professional guidelines

Where the guideline is:

• relevant to the question;
• current;
• produced through a transparent evidence process.

3. Systematic reviews and high-quality evidence syntheses

Used where a question requires broader interpretation of a body of research.

4. Peer-reviewed primary research

Used when needed to explain newer or more specific evidence, with the limits of the study made clear.

5. Reputable secondary health information

Useful for plain-language context when it accurately reflects stronger underlying evidence.

We may link to useful consumer health resources, but we do not treat a secondary summary as stronger than the evidence it summarises.

Sources we do not treat as proof of a health claim

On their own, these are not sufficient substantiation for a medical or therapeutic claim:

• testimonials;
• individual success stories;
• social-media posts;
• Reddit discussions;
• influencer content;
• competitor marketing;
• AI-generated answers;
• unsourced statistics.

Medicine information needs local context.

Medicine names, approved uses, instructions, warnings and availability can differ between countries.

For New Zealand medicine-specific content, Habits should check current New Zealand sources such as Medsafe Data Sheets and Consumer Medicine Information where relevant.

We do not assume that guidance written for another country automatically applies in New Zealand.

When medicine instructions matter to a reader's own treatment, they should follow the information supplied with their medicine and appropriate professional guidance.

A newer date should mean a real review happened.

We distinguish between:

• the original publication date;
• the latest substantive review/update date.

We do not change the review date simply to make an article look newer in search results.

If a material medical or factual change is made, the page should be reviewed and its date updated.

Review frequency depends on risk and how quickly the topic can change.

We do not assume every health topic needs the same update schedule.

Content should be reviewed sooner when:

• medicine safety information changes;
• a regulator changes approved information;
• important new evidence changes the accepted understanding;
• a guideline changes;
• a material error is reported;
• Habits functionality changes in a way that makes a product claim stale.

Lower-risk evergreen content may follow a longer review cycle.

Uncertainty should not disappear in the edit.

Health research is not always definitive.

Where evidence is limited, conflicting or changing, Habits content should say so rather than presenting one interpretation as settled fact.

We aim to distinguish:

• what is well established;
• what is an association;
• what is a plausible explanation;
• what remains uncertain.

We do not present correlation as proof of causation.

Numbers need context.

When health content uses a statistic, percentage or study result, we aim to explain enough context for the number to be meaningful.

Depending on the claim, that may include:

• population studied;
• timeframe;
• comparison group;
• whether the result is relative or absolute;
• important limitations.

We do not use a precise-looking number simply because it makes a headline more persuasive.

Medicine content has a strict boundary.

Habits may explain general medicine information, but website editorial content does not replace the instructions supplied with a medicine or advice from a qualified healthcare professional.

We do not use general educational articles to give an individual:

• a dose;
• a dose change;
• a titration plan;
• missed-dose instructions;
• medication-switching instructions;
• an assessment that a symptom is safe;
• emergency triage.

Medicine-specific content should identify the relevant market and use current authoritative medicine information.

We avoid turning health education into body shame.

Habits content should not imply that a person's worth, discipline or health can be reduced to a body size or a number on the scale.

We avoid:

• shame-based before/after framing;
• “good body / bad body” language;
• guaranteed weight-loss claims;
• presenting a calorie target as appropriate for everyone;
• claiming Habits can tell fat loss from muscle loss when it cannot;
• targeting younger audiences with appearance-driven weight-loss messaging.

Where food, Protein, Weight or body composition is discussed, claims should reflect the evidence and the limits of the Habits product.

We distinguish movement support from proven body-composition outcomes.

Habits includes Exercise and structured workout features.

Health content may discuss movement, resistance exercise or Protein where supported by evidence.

We do not turn that into a guarantee that Habits:

• prevents muscle loss;
• preserves lean mass;
• builds muscle;
• prevents frailty;
• improves treatment outcomes.

If an article discusses exercise safety, rehabilitation, injury or a medical condition, the review standard should match the risk of the topic.

---

A wellbeing article is not a diagnosis.

Habits Mood and Sleep features are tracking tools.

Health content about Mood, mental health or Sleep should not imply that Habits can:

• diagnose depression or anxiety;
• diagnose insomnia or another Sleep disorder;
• detect a mental-health emergency;
• replace mental-health treatment;
• determine why a person slept poorly.

Higher-risk mental-health content requires appropriate subject-matter review.

We write for the reader first.

Habits health content should exist because it helps the intended reader understand or do something useful — not simply because a keyword has search volume.

We aim to add original value through:

• clear product context;
• practical organisation of evidence;
• relevant local context;
• transparent boundaries;
• useful questions readers can take to a healthcare professional.

We do not aim to mass-produce thin health pages that simply repeat what other websites already say.

A product CTA does not change the evidence.

Some Habits educational pages may link to relevant product features.

A commercial link does not lower the evidence standard for the health information around it.

We aim to keep clear distinctions between:

• educational explanation;
• Habits product functionality;
• promotional claims.

A health claim used to sell the product must be substantiated as an advertising claim, not simply cited as an interesting research finding.

Comparisons should be factual and dated.

If Habits compares itself with another product:

• compare current verifiable features;
• use primary competitor sources where possible;
• record the date checked;
• distinguish product claims from competitor marketing claims;
• avoid implying a competitor is medically unsafe without strong evidence.

We do not treat a competitor's own superiority claim as independent evidence.