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.
if you can get nutrients but you can't absorb them what's the point and this is a whole thing that I could do a whole talk about and I think it's wildly misleading when we look at chronometer and other tools that help us look at what nutrients are in our foods between plant foods and animal foods about bioavailability but I would argue that the most bioavailable forms of nutrients is a really key thing because it's not what's in your food it's what you get into your body
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.
it's not what's in your food it's what you get into your body right