We apply a rigorous standard of evidence.

We’ve analyzed more than 14 million peer-reviewed scientific papers and evaluated over 29,000 FDA-registered supplements.

When you hold ingredients to clinical-grade scrutiny, just 75 consistently demonstrate clear efficacy.

Those are the only ones we use.

If an ingredient can’t prove it works, it doesn’t earn its place.

Because the right ingredient at the wrong dose is still wrong.

Most supplements are under-dosed, over-dosed, or fixed at levels designed for “the average person.”

We calculate micro-doses based on individual biology and data. No more, no less.

That’s where relevance, absorption, and tolerance actually improve.

Most personalization is static.

You fill out a questionnaire once. Your formula gets set. And it stays that way.

Personally is built around continuous re-calibration.

Your formula is reviewed and rebuilt every 30 days using updated health and wearable data — not assumptions frozen in time.

Real personalization has to move. Static formulas can’t.

Because trial-and-error isn’t evidence, it’s biohacking.

Self-experimentation introduces noise, bias, and risk. Especially at scale.

We rely on repeatable, peer-reviewed science and measurable outcomes, not individual opinion or hunches.

The experimentation has already been done. Our job is to apply what’s been proven, precisely.

Consistency.

When supplements are relevant, precisely dosed, and regularly updated, they stop fighting your biology.

No spikes. No stacking confusion. No wondering whether something’s having an effect.

Just confidence that what you’re taking makes sense, now.

A multivitamin delivers the same ingredients, at the same doses, to everyone, every day, regardless of whether they are needed.

At Personally, our approach is different.

Ingredients are only included when there is a clear, evidence-based reason to do so, informed by your data. As your biology and circumstances change, your formulation may change with them. Some months you may receive fewer ingredients, other months different ones.

This is deliberate and reflects a personalized, evidence-led approach rather than a fixed formula.

Because that would not be safe, effective, or evidence-based.

Most people don’t need most nutrients most of the time. Including ingredients “just in case” increases the risk of unnecessary exposure, interactions, and wasted dose.

Our algorithm is designed to include only what is best for you, at that time.

Your physiology isn’t static.

Sleep patterns, stress exposure, dietary intake, physical activity, illness, medication use and

biochemical markers all fluctuate over time.

Clinical evidence supports adapting nutritional interventions in response to these changes, rather than

applying fixed formulations indefinitely.

Regular review and recalibration allow supplementation to remain appropriate, proportionate and

aligned with current physiological need, which is the basis of a genuinely personalized approach.

Higher doses aren’t inherently better.

Our aim is to provide an optimal dose; one that’s supported by human evidence, appropriate for your individual context, and within established safety margins.

Many products use higher doses for marketing appeal rather than because they lead to better outcomes. At Personally, we focus on effectiveness and safety, not excess.

There are very few nutrients that are genuinely beneficial for everyone, all the time.

Even widely discussed ingredients can be neutral or unnecessary in people with adequate intake,

normal biomarkers, or no relevant symptoms.

When evidence doesn’t support routine supplementation, we leave the ingredient out.

No.

Our products are designed to support health, not to diagnose, treat, or cure disease.

If you have a medical condition, particularly one requiring medication, we design your formulation to

avoid interference and to support overall physiology alongside standard care.

We explicitly screen for medication use.

Where evidence suggests a potential interaction, we either adjust the dose or exclude the ingredient entirely. In some cases, the safest option is to not supplement that pathway at all.

Yes.

Pregnancy, certain medical conditions, recent surgery, and some medications require particular

In these cases, we prioritise safety and may significantly limit or exclude supplementation.

Long-term safety is central to our design.

We avoid chronic high-dose exposure and reassess ingredients regularly. If there is no ongoing reason for an ingredient, it is removed.

We prioritise:

• High-quality human randomized, controlled trials

• Meta-analyses and systematic reviews

• Established clinical reference ranges

• Known safety thresholds

Yes, frequently.

Nutrition science has limits, and pretending otherwise is misleading. Where uncertainty exists, we make it explicit and always default to safety.

This is driven by:

• Absorption characteristics

• Dose size

• Stability

• Taste and tolerability

The format is chosen to maximise benefit and adherence, not convenience.

Because improvement should lead to de-escalation, not escalation.

When markers normalize or symptoms resolve, continuing the same intervention is often unnecessary.

We don’t promise:

• Universal benefit

• Rapid transformation

• Permanent optimization

We design around restraint, not excess.

If an ingredient isn’t justified, it’s excluded even if it’s popular or profitable.

That more ingredients and higher doses lead to better outcomes.

In reality, inappropriate supplementation can be neutral at best and harmful at worst.

The right ingredient, at the right dose, at the right time, in the right context, for each individual.

Every decision is guided by evidence, safety and relevance to the person in front of us, rather than a one-size-fits-all approach.