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.
Magnesium malate, M-A-L-A-T-E, is preferentially shadow to the muscle, it appears, as opposed to the brain. So it's going to be more of a muscle repair type thing or restoring magnesium stores in the periphery as opposed to the brain.
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.
I would say malate would be the best, and that has to do with the short-chain fatty acids being good for the gut and a lot of work done by a former colleague of mine and good friend, Mark Shigenaga, showing that the short-chain fatty acid, citrate malate lactate but specifically malate, really, and lactate are the major ones that get into the gut epithelial cells and are an energy source for the mitochondria and the goblet cells, so anyways, whole other topic.