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.
taking a close look at at what would have been natural for our for our most ancient you know uh evolutionary ancestors to consume to me that is the only rational starting place in terms of determining what is optimal for us now but it's not an end point for me
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.
just because something grew out of the ground you know and they were able to shove something in their face and chew it up and swallow it not drop dead isn't necessarily an indication that that food was optimal for them any more than it would be optimal for us today right