The headline is broadly defensible, but the qualifications matter. Effect sizes vary by population, the strongest claims rest on shorter trials, and credible voices push back on how it's typically framed.
I would argue as you know sort of a carnivore based physician that most people you know will find improvement on this type of a diet and they can add back plants if they want most of the time they don't end up adding back plants because they feel better without them
Every Sunday: the week’s new conflicts and verdict changes — and nothing else.
Native comments, Twitter mentions, and Reddit threads about this claim — surfaced together so the conversation isn't fragmented across platforms.
Bookmarking — the dossier-vs-overview split is the right call. Most of the time I want overview; sometimes I want receipts.
Would love a "what would change this verdict" RSS feed. Sign me up if it exists.
and so now we're kind of faced with that's i think where the carnivore diet comes in it's like this it's so much easier to say okay we're just gonna you can get all the animals you want as if your ancestors were quite successful let's just eliminate the plants for some amount of time or for a long time get you better and then reintroduce if you want or not