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 look at the incron effect for example you know it would suggest that the fiber that's in a processed bar is not really contributing the way a fiber is in the way you just described it if you're actually eating B cauliflower or beans or things like that
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 would say that Mother Nature's kitchen is probably you know better than you know a fiber bar that's like some indigestible form of glucose or you know some less digestible form of of uh starchy carbohydrate
I would say that Mother Nature's kitchen is probably you know better than you know a fiber bar that's like some indigestible form of glucose or you know some less digestible form of of -- starchy carbohydrate