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.
in fact you know maybe this is something we want to touch on a lot of the epidemiological studies on optimal nutrition are from 20 30 40 years ago right the average human environment is very different today than it was when those studies were done and how does that potentially change the interaction between nutrition and health outcomes i think it's a really interesting but challenging question to to address to anybody's satisfaction honestly
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.