Simple meals, science-backed nutrition
PowerMealHub exists because eating well shouldn’t require a nutrition degree, a meal-prep Sunday that eats your whole weekend, or a pantry full of ingredients you can’t pronounce.
We publish clear, practical guides on meals, nutrition, and healthy eating — what to cook, what actually matters nutritionally, and what you can safely ignore. Every article starts with a simple question a real person might type into a search bar, and ends with an answer you can act on the same day.
How we work
We check our facts. Our articles are grounded in published research, and we link our sources so you can read them yourself. When the evidence is thin or mixed, we say so instead of pretending certainty.
We keep it practical. You’ll find serving ideas, swaps, and honest pros and cons — not 2,000 words of filler before the answer.
We don’t hype. No miracle foods, no fear-mongering about everyday ingredients, no “one weird trick.” Food is not magic and it is not poison; it’s food.
Who runs this site
PowerMealHub is written and edited by Dalibor Spasovski.
I am not a doctor, a dietitian or a nutritionist, and I will not present myself as one. What I do is go to the primary sources and report them accurately. Nutrient figures come from USDA FoodData Central rather than from packaging or other websites. Studies are described for what they are: a human trial, an animal study, or laboratory work. Where the evidence is thin, the article says so instead of covering the gap with confident language.
This is not a medical practice, and nothing published here replaces advice from a doctor or a registered dietitian.
How that works in practice
A claim repeated across the internet says that sunlight is up to 6.5 times more effective than phototherapy for newborn jaundice. Followed back to its source, it comes from a 2001 experiment that exposed bilirubin solutions in glass containers to sunlight. No infant was involved. Our article now says that plainly, because a parent who acted on the original version could be putting a baby at risk.
The same checking removed a supplement recommendation that a Cochrane review had already found no evidence for, and corrected a mineral figure that contradicted USDA data outright.
When we find that something we published is wrong, we change it and say what changed. I am the person responsible for everything on this site. If you find an error, tell me through the contact page.
Our editorial standards
- Sources: we rely on peer-reviewed research (PubMed), official nutrient data (USDA FoodData Central) and government health agencies such as the NIH and CDC.
- Evidence quality: we say clearly when a finding comes from animal or lab studies, small trials, or research funded by industry.
- Nutrient numbers come from USDA data, not from product labels or other blogs.
- Corrections: if you find an error, tell us through our contact page and we will review and fix it.
- Updates: we revise articles when new evidence changes the picture.
Corrections and clarifications
Not every change is a correction, and calling everything one would make the word useless.
A correction changes a fact, a number, a dose, a study finding or a safety statement — something that could have led a reader to a wrong decision. A clarification means the fact was right, but the wording let a reader take more from it than the evidence supports; a figure presented as a fixed threshold when the underlying measurement varies is a clarification. Both are recorded here, with the date and what changed. Typos, broken links and rewording that does not change meaning are fixed silently. New evidence added to an article that was accurate when published is an update, not a correction.
Two things we will not do: quietly delete a claim and leave no trace, because a reader who acted on the old version deserves to know it changed; and put a medical reviewer’s name on an article unless a qualified person has actually read it.
29 September 2026 — clarification — Apricot Seeds
The article stated that an adult reaches the acute reference dose for cyanide at roughly 0.4 g of bitter apricot kernel. The arithmetic was correct, but it rested on a single measured average and read as though it were a fixed property of bitter kernels. Measured amygdalin in retail bitter kernels spans more than fourfold between products, so 0.4 g is now presented as the middle of a range, and a new section sets out the measured difference between bitter and sweet kernels. No number was removed.
What we cover
Everyday nutrition and balanced eating, meal ideas and diet plans, ingredients and how to use them, weight management without gimmicks, and simple home remedies — always with the caveat that they complement, never replace, medical care.
A note on health advice
We write for general information. Nothing here is medical advice, and nothing we publish should override what your doctor or dietitian tells you. If you have a health condition or take medication, check with a professional before changing your diet.
Questions, corrections, or topic requests? We genuinely want them — get in touch through our contact page.