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.
but I would expand the definition and also refine the definition so the expanded definition is what I was just saying that I think generally a carnivore diet could almost be a carnivore each diet which is focusing on animal foods for the majority of our nutrients
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 you make a great point in terms of limiting plant toxicity and being aware at least of of the potential um anti-nutrients that are present in food and i think that that's kind of a spectrum and and you can go from like the most damaging lectins eliminating those — to down all the way down to you know an aip diet that is really eliminating a lot of those anti-nutrients and then you know of course all the way to full carnivore where you're not eating any plants whatsoever