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.
though the mainstream might consider it restrictive because there are no vegetables i'm not convinced there are any nutrient deficiencies here and from my perspective it's even a net positive because you're eliminating so many of the anti-nutrients you're going to interfere with overall nutrient absorption
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.
and by eliminating the vegetables I'm getting rid of and avoiding the defense chemicals things like oxalates which can accumulate in the joints ftic acid like in the bread which can prevent the absorption of minerals