Paul Saladino· MD
because the downside is pretty negative metabolically and the downside of having excess collagen or glycine is fairly benign there's really not a whole lot of detriment there
Loading…
The evidence is convergent. Multiple independent sources reach the same conclusion, the underlying mechanism is well-characterized, and even the field's most cautious voices treat it as worth doing.
because the downside is pretty negative metabolically and the downside of having excess collagen or glycine is fairly benign there's really not a whole lot of detriment there
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.
What's the downside? There doesn't seem to be really any downside here. So cost money sure. Physiologically, we're not blocking adaptations. We're not shuttling something else out. We're not doing, you know, long-term damage. We're not shutting off a pathway.