Answer the podcast claim with the primary literature.
Clients arrive quoting someone with a microphone. Titrate keeps your reading organized as positions you can send, so the calm cited answer is already written.
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.
The claims move faster than the reading does.
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.
A real topic stack
When the debate is really two debates wearing one name.
A stack is not a folder. It is a question, with everything you have read that bears on it assembled underneath — carrying the design, the sample and which way each paper cuts.
The central question
Does the timing of protein intake around a training session produce meaningfully greater hypertrophy or strength than simply meeting total daily protein intake?
| Paper | Year | Design | N | Bears on the question |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cribb & Hayes | 2006 | RCT | 23 | supports |
| Aragon & Schoenfeld | 2013 | Narrative review | — | contradicts |
| Schoenfeld, Aragon & Krieger | 2013 | Meta-analysis (23 studies) | 525 / 478 | mixed |
| Areta et al. | 2013 | Randomised crossover | 24 | supports |
| Kerksick et al. (ISSN) | 2017 | Position stand | — | mixed |
| Schoenfeld & Aragon | 2018 | Clinical commentary | — | contradicts |
2 supporting · 2 contradicting · 2 mixed
What the stack shows that a paragraph cannot
The 2013 meta-analysis found a small timing effect and then concluded it was virtually entirely explained by the timing groups eating more total protein — a confound, not a window. But a tightly controlled crossover trial in the same year found that how you spread protein across the day does change the muscle-protein-synthesis response. Those are two different claims. A client who read one headline is asking you about the first; the open question is the second.
Nothing here picks a side for you. What the stack does is stop the two questions collapsing into one answer — so when a client arrives quoting a podcast, you can tell them which of the two it was about.
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 trials and reviews for the claims you field most — the ones already on your drive, and the ones a topic search turns up that you decide are worth keeping. Write your position on each, with citations attached. When the same claim walks in again you are sending a considered answer, not improvising one.
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.
Does this cover supplement and nutrition research specifically?
Titrate is source-agnostic. It does not ship a curated nutrition database and it will not tell you which supplement literature is worth your time — it organizes the papers you decide matter, whether you uploaded them or kept them from a topic search.
What stops this from being another confident-sounding AI answer?
Nothing here generates a conclusion for you. You write the position; the tool keeps the citation trail attached to it.
I pay for a research review specifically because there is no AI in it. Why would I use software?
That is a reasonable position and it is close to the one this is built on. Nothing in Titrate reads a paper for you, summarises it for you, or writes your position. There is no chat window and no generated paragraph anywhere in it — the judgment is human, it is just yours instead of an editorial team's. What the software does is the clerical half: hold the papers, keep a question attached to them, and keep every claim's citation on the record itself rather than in a second app you have to remember to update.
Titrate is pre-launch.
Join the practitioner waitlistOne email when the first practitioner cohort opens. Nothing else.
