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.
he makes an interesting shout out here that I believe McKee bender has claimed which is that certain peoples have discarded low-fat animals they would hunt and kill an animal and find that it was not fatty enough so it was simply discarded so there is some evolutionary basis for capping protein here
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.
the idea that humans can't eat more than 35 for some of their calories from protein really and so we need to make up that 65 percent either as carbohydrates or fat and the fat when you're having the fat that's what humans want
does that mean though that we need to consume as much of meat today as they did and is that optimal for us and you know my answer to that is no that we're much better off moderating our protein intake for a variety of reasons