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.
It's I think it's really important for people to understand that this argument around the RDA is adequate and that's what you need to eat and anybody who is suggesting you eat more than that is wrong. We we have to actually flip the question and say okay who is best served by eating at the RDA versus say 2x the RDA at 1.6 six gram, which for me would put me at, I don't know, 150 to 160 gram of protein per day instead of 60.
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.