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.
see, the docs are all used to randomized, double blind clinical trials, which makes a lot of sense because if you test a drug in people nobody has it to start with, and you're treating the whole population. But applying it mindlessly, nutrition is stupid because if 90% of the population has enough of vitamin X and 10% are really deficient, you wanna test it on that 10%. Otherwise, you'll never see anything because you're diluting it with the 90% who has enough.
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 think this really illustrates why it's so important for nutritional randomized control trials to account and to measure or at least at the very least look at a dietary intake in magnesium and figure out you know who at the start of this trial is deficient in this nutrient that we are investigating let's start with that population because essentially you're you're what you're looking at is giving some your trying to to avoid deficiency right and that and that's the real important thing here to avoid deficiency