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.
it's an exoneration of meat and a consideration of plants on a toxicity spectrum and yeah so that that's what i'm doing in the book and i think that that kind of moves us in the direction of animal based because within the general sphere of uh nutritional media i think that 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.
so the the book begins with a consideration of human history and human trophic levels and paleoanthropology moves into a discussion of different types of plant toxins that could be harmful for some people based on their individual genetics and perhaps current status in terms of the health journey and then it go any of the myths that are common surrounding the harms of meat and then at the end of the book i have some discussion about different incarnations of a carnivore or animal-based diet some of which include plants