How we write and check our guides

Plenty of testosterone content online is selling something. In a study the University of Sydney reported in February 2026, researchers analysed 46 Instagram and TikTok posts with big audiences, all pushing testosterone testing or treatment. Not one pointed to scientific evidence. About two in three (67%) linked straight to somewhere to buy, and nearly three in four (72%) came from someone who stood to make money, whether from tests, supplements or clinic appointments.^{1, 2} That's one study of 46 posts, not the whole internet. Teak sells coaching too, so this page sets out how we write and check our guides. Judge them for yourself.

Who writes Teak's guides?

The Teak editorial team writes and checks every one of our guides. Teak's coaches and writers work behind the scenes, so every page carries the "Teak editorial team" byline rather than individual names or photos. That's deliberate: we never put a name, photo or credential on a page to borrow authority. Teak is a coaching service, not a clinic, and we don't present anyone here as a doctor or other registered health practitioner.

Does a doctor review these pages?

No. No doctor or other clinician reviews Teak's pages, and you won't see a "medically reviewed" badge here. If that ever changes, we'll name the reviewer, say what they're registered as so you can check it, and list the pages they reviewed. Until then, each page is checked against its sources. Anything that looks medical belongs with your GP, as our safety page explains.

Which sources do we trust first?

Australian and New Zealand health authorities come first, and we only look further when they don't answer the question. healthdirect's editorial guidelines take a similar line: clinical practice guidelines at the top, government statements next, local sources ahead of overseas ones of equal quality, and non-commercial sources ahead of commercial ones.³

Order	Source type	Examples
1	AU and NZ clinical guidance and health information	healthdirect, Better Health Channel, Healthify, bpac nz, RACGP, Endocrine Society of Australia
2	AU and NZ government and regulators	TGA and Medicare (Australia); Medsafe and Health NZ (New Zealand)
3	AU and NZ men's health, pathology and prescribing references	Healthy Male, Pathology Tests Explained, Australian Prescriber, AU and NZ lab test and fee pages
4	Peer-reviewed research	Systematic reviews and trials, cited with a DOI or PubMed link

We don't use supplement sellers, blogs, influencers or other testosterone businesses as sources. Our research page lists the main studies behind our guides.

How do we describe research?

A finding is reported as a finding: what was studied, in whom, how big the effect was, and where it falls short. Randomised trials, and reviews that pool them, rank above observational studies. Random allocation should spread the things researchers can't measure evenly across the groups, while observational designs leave more room for bias, which can push a result too high or too low.⁴ A study that shows a link is described as a link, not a cause.

A few rules follow from that:

• No target numbers and no promised changes. Australian and New Zealand consumer law both require reasonable grounds for a claim like that, and a study average is not a forecast for one man.^{5, 6}
• nmol/L first, with the lab's own range. The reference range for total testosterone differs from one laboratory to the next, so we show ranges as lab ranges, not as goals.⁷ The unit converter handles ng/dL.
• Each country named correctly. Medicare and the TGA for Australia; funded labs, Medsafe and Health NZ for New Zealand.
• No medicine promoted or named as a product. In Australia, the Therapeutic Goods Act 1989 prohibits advertising prescription medicines to the public, apart from a few narrow exceptions.⁸ In New Zealand, medicine advertising is controlled by the Medicines Act 1981 and the Medicines Regulations 1984, which set what an advertisement must include and ban testimonials.⁹ We describe testosterone therapy only as a doctor's decision.
• No testimonials, client stories, before-and-after photos, outcome statistics or ratings.

How often are pages reviewed?

Each guide gets a full review every 6 to 12 months, and sooner when guidance, lab rules or prices change. The "Last reviewed" date moves only after a real review against the sources, never just to make a page look fresh. Pages that show prices also say when the prices were last checked.

For context, healthdirect's standard review cycle is two years, and its clinical governance and content teams audit samples of what it publishes.¹⁰ Our shorter cycle doesn't mean our checks go deeper. Teak has no clinical governance team.

Does Teak use AI?

Yes, in two ways. AI tools help with research and first drafts. Before a page goes live, every health claim is checked against the source it cites, and anything we can't source is cut. Some images on the site, including the pictures of men, are also made with AI. They carry a note saying they're illustrations, not clients, and we never present one as a client or a coach. healthdirect is open about something similar: it uses generative AI for some illustrations and graphics, and people review every one.¹¹

How does Teak make money?

Teak sells coaching: the Baseline, 4 weeks and the 12-week programme. We don't sell testosterone, supplements or blood tests, and we take no commission from labs or prescribers. When a guide suggests a test to ask your GP about, nobody pays us if you get it. Tests are ordered and paid for separately through a GP or private lab. If we ever earn money from anything a guide mentions, that guide will say so plainly.

What if you spot an error?

Email hello@jointeak.com with the page, the sentence and, if you have one, a source. We check it against the evidence, fix what's wrong and update the "Last reviewed" date. Anything that could affect someone's safety is fixed first. If a correction changes what a page tells you, we say so on that page.