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.
but i think it's more of a compliment to colostrum that the ncaa says wow this is actually powerful enough that it could improve recovery give athletes a competitive advantage or a strength advantage or a muscle building or a pear advantage we should ban it
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.
colostrum is actually banned by the ncaa it is an igf-1 containing substance
informed Sports will not certify colostrum because colostrum is actually banned in the NCAA because of the potentially beneficial effects of igf-1