Navigating the so-called “health” industry has always been confusing. What is true? What actually helps? And what is simply the latest trend or fix someone is trying to sell us?

At Selene River Press, we have always been firm in our commitment to holistic nutrition education and the people whose work has shaped our understanding. That includes pioneers such as Dr. Royal Lee and Dr. Weston A. Price, Mark Anderson’s decades of learning and teaching, and Stephanie Anderson’s practical experience bringing those principles into everyday life (like shopping guides and supplement education). It also includes the practitioners and educators we have come to trust, including Dr. Lowell Keppel, Monica Corrado, Joseph Antell, Dr. Michael Gaeta, and so many others.

Preserving that knowledge also means paying attention to how health information is created and shared. And that brings me to a challenge we are all still learning to navigate: artificial intelligence.

AI is here. It is everywhere. There is no avoiding it, and in many ways, that’s ok! Used thoughtfully, it can be a wonderful tool.

But, as we know all too well, people are not always thoughtful in how they use powerful new tools and tech. AI can, and often is, greatly misused. Sometimes for nefarious reasons, sometimes to sell their new idea, product, or trend, and even sometimes without realizing what they are doing.

Oftentimes, the results of AI are harmless or well-intentioned, but that’s not the case when our health is at stake. AI can make an explanation sound polished, reasonable, and authoritative even when the information is incorrect. The National Institute of Standards and Technology first identified false information as a recognized risk of generative AI back in their 2024 presentation, and it’s advanced astronomically since then.

So, I want to share a few things that make me pause when I read a health article (or any article, for that matter), along with what I do before accepting its advice.

First, a little honesty about “spotting AI”

I would love to give you a checklist that could tell you, with certainty, whether a person or a computer wrote something. I cannot.

Writing patterns alone cannot reliably tell us whether an article was entirely generated by AI, lightly edited with it, or written by a person who happens to use a similar style. Even OpenAI withdrew its own text classifier in 2023 because of its low accuracy.

The writing habits that make me take a second look

A recent health article caught my attention for an unexpected reason. I wasn’t finding obvious problems with the advice, but I kept pausing over how it was written. There were dashes everywhere, repeated phrases, and paragraphs that all seemed to follow the same template. By the end, I suspected AI had done much of the writing. That doesn’t automatically make the information wrong, but it gave me a reason to look more closely.

Before we get into these writing patterns, remember that these are my observations, not a foolproof detection method. Human writers use these techniques, too, but they still should give you reason to pause and take a deeper look.

1. Dashes everywhere

This is one of the first things I notice: long dashes appearing over and over, sometimes where a comma, period, or parentheses would read more naturally.

For example:

“Start with breakfast—a simple meal—with ingredients you enjoy—and build from there.”

A dash can be useful and grammatically correct, but only when it is necessary and not used often.

I pay attention to that repetition, especially when it appears alongside the other patterns below. Dashes alone tell us very little about whether AI was involved. Plenty of human writers love them. But keep an eye on the quantity, and if they’re used in place of other obvious sentence structures.

2. The same contrast keeps getting repackaged

Watch for sentences that repeatedly follow this formula:

“It’s not about perfection. It’s about consistency.”

“You don’t need another plan. You need a new perspective.”

These constructions can make a point memorable. But when they appear throughout an article, every idea starts sounding like a slogan.

I begin asking whether those sentences explain something or simply make the advice sound more profound.

3. Every section follows the same outline

A heading, two introductory sentences, three bullet points, and a closing takeaway. Then the exact pattern starts again.

An organized article is helpful. What catches my attention is extreme sameness, particularly when a complicated subject receives the same brief treatment as a simple one.

Does the writer spend time explaining the parts that need explanation? Or does everything get squeezed into an identical little section?

4. General cautions keep interrupting the discussion

Phrases such as “always prioritize safety,” “remember that everyone is different,” or “make informed choices” can be appropriate.

But I notice when they are repeated without explaining what readers should actually consider. What safety concern? Which individual differences? What information would help someone decide?

Specific cautions can be essential in health writing. Repetitive reminders with little explanation make me question if AI is using a common tactic of adding disclaimers.

5. The article suddenly changes who it is talking to

Perhaps an article starts by helping readers plan meals, then unexpectedly gives instructions to a marketer about presenting the information or promoting a product.

Or a sentence sounds like an editing note:

“Keep this section approachable and avoid technical language.”

That kind of shift makes me pause. It could be leftover drafting instructions or an ordinary editing mistake. Either way, it suggests the finished article needed another review.

It also doesn’t sound very human. Is that really how someone would speak or write?

6. There is plenty of advice but very little individual perspective

“Find balance.” “Support your wellness.” “Make healthier choices.”

Those phrases leave me wanting more. What does the writer mean? What practical detail, explanation, or relevant experience can they offer?

When an entire article stays broad enough that almost anyone could put their name on it, I wonder what the author contributed.

Personal stories aren’t proof of human authorship either, since AI can generate those, but they often tell me at the very least that a person is behind the prompting.

What I do when I notice these patterns

When several of these patterns appear together, I take a closer look at the author, the references, and the advice itself. I check whether the sources support what the article says and whether someone with relevant expertise has reviewed the information. I look at their website or blog to see how other posts are written and whether they cover a range of authors and topics.

I also try to be fair. An awkwardly written article can contain accurate information, and a beautifully personal one can contain false claims.

These clues can prompt us to investigate. They cannot tell us how much of an article AI wrote or whether its health advice is trustworthy. That takes a closer look at the substance, whatever the writing style.

That’s where your human judgment and research come in!

And yes, I use AI myself

Let me be very clear: I am not against AI. I use it every day in my work and personal life.

I believe it has a place in blog writing, marketing materials, and health education. It can help organize ideas, improve grammar, develop an outline, and make a difficult explanation easier to follow.

The trouble starts when someone publishes the output without checking it, presents invented experience as their own, or uses convincing language to sell something they cannot substantiate. Sometimes that is deliberate. Sometimes a person simply trusts the answer too quickly.

For me, responsible use means a person stays involved, checks the sources, contributes their knowledge, adds appropriate source links, and takes responsibility for the final piece. Health recommendations also need review by someone qualified to assess them.

An AI-written article can be useful and accurate. An entirely human-written article can be misleading. The writing process is one part of the picture.

I believe our intuition has a role. That little feeling that something sounds off should always be taken seriously. Also, familiar language and agreement with our beliefs can make us too comfortable, so I want to check those reactions, too.

We can keep learning about AI and benefit from what it offers. We can also ask more of the information we allow to influence our health.

If an article gives you pause, follow that feeling with a few questions and a closer look at the evidence. Your health deserves that attention.

Transparency note: I used AI to help organize and draft this article from my own observations, examples, and perspective. As the author, I’m responsible for reviewing its claims and sources and ensuring the final version reflects what I intend to share. This is an example of exactly what I am illustrating in this post: using AI as a tool and not as the author.

Images from iStock/Deagreez (main), Dragon Claws (post).