Skip to content
Temple Protocol

Reading list

What we draw from.

Our editorial reading list: journals, books, and institutions. Separate from the planned rated protocol library. Open to dispute and addition.

Categories3Standing entries15Copy revisedCadenceRoughly six-monthly

Why a public reading list.

Most editorial brands keep their reading list private. We do not. The works that inform an editorial position should be inspectable by the people who are asked to trust that position.

What follows is not a recommendation system. It is a disclosure. These are the standing references that material editorial decisions are checked against. New articles are required to cite from this base; new entries here are required to clear the same source-tier policy published at /evidence.

This list is editorial, not clinical. Inclusion here is not a recommendation that any individual reader should act on the cited works without consulting a qualified physician familiar with their history.

Standing journals

Journals we consult when a claim needs vetting. Source tiers describe the study design, not the journal name.

  1. The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

    The first stop for any meta-analysis question.

  2. The New England Journal of Medicine

    Cardiovascular, oncology, infectious disease — the standing reference.

  3. JAMA — Journal of the American Medical Association

    Internal medicine, geriatrics, public health.

  4. The Lancet & Lancet Healthy Longevity

    Global health, longevity-specific work.

  5. BMJ — The British Medical Journal

    Open-access reviews; honest about uncertainty.

  6. Annals of Internal Medicine

    Clinical guidelines, primary care evidence synthesis.

Reference works

Books we return to. Not endorsements of every claim — works whose disposition toward evidence and aging matches the editorial.

  1. Being Mortal — Atul Gawande

    On what medicine can and cannot do at the end of life. Required reading for anyone serious about healthspan.

  2. How We Die — Sherwin Nuland

    Honest, unsensational. The opposite of the longevity sales pitch.

  3. The Emperor of All Maladies — Siddhartha Mukherjee

    On the cost of biomedical optimism. A useful corrective.

  4. Power, Sex, Suicide — Nick Lane

    Mitochondrial biology written for adults. Mechanism without overclaim.

  5. Bad Pharma — Ben Goldacre

    On publication bias and the gap between what is studied and what is published. Read before you trust an industry-funded RCT.

Standing institutions

Bodies whose review processes we treat as serious. Citation here is not endorsement of every position — it is acknowledgment of methodology.

  1. U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF)

    Independent grading of preventive interventions.

  2. Office of Dietary Supplements (NIH)

    Public-facing, source-graded fact sheets on supplements.

  3. European Medicines Agency (EMA)

    EU regulatory positions; useful when FDA is silent.

  4. Examine.com

    Independent supplement evidence reviews. We disagree with some interpretations; the methodology is honest about confidence.

Currently being added.

Entries under active review. They appear here, not in the standing list, until the editorial standard is satisfied. We list what is in progress so the absences in the published library are visible.

  • —A short list of the longevity researchers we follow (under review for vetting).
  • —Annotated reading list for adults beginning to weigh peptide therapies.
  • —Sleep and cardiovascular evidence syntheses (planned, not yet published).
  • —A standing position on the most-cited supplement claims of the last decade.

Suggest an addition.

If you believe a standing source should be added — or if a current entry should be removed because the methodology has not held up — write to us. We read these messages and revise the library on a six-month cycle.

→ Suggest a source