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.
Have you had the appropriate macronutrients? Did you get enough protein from animal food? Did you get enough good fat from animal foods? Did you get enough carbohydrates that weren't full of anti-nutrients from, you know, plant foods?
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.
Yeah, because we have nutrients, avoidance of anti-nutrients, nutrients being micronutrients, nutrients being macronutrients, carbohydrates, signals of abundance.