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 eat muscle meat and organs and fat you'll basically get everything like every single thing and you'll get adequate riboflavin but if you just see the muscle meat you're not gonna get enough rival flavin you're not gonna get enough copper but when you add the liver and the organs and some fat and egg yolks and some source of calcium like it all falls out it's like well isn't that convenient you mean eating an animal nose-to-tail can give me everything oh that's cool
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 that a lot of people could also benefit from more biotin which is one of the kind of overarching ideas and that's the whole reason that i got interested in in nose to tail eating and these hunter-gatherer cultures and eating organs or eggs egg yolks or anything in the first place like are there nutrients like biotin or riboflavin or ancient or taurine or coq10 that we could really improve our overall nutrient status by sort of eating in a way that is apparently evolutionarily consistent