We can't find evidence that holds up here. Proponents are reasoning from mechanism or analogy rather than direct human data, and the most credible skeptics raise objections we can't dismiss.
maybe they're basing it on the RDA and if you look at what the RDA is it is basic survival it is like this is what you need in order to continue to walk around and survive on a daily basis it's not meant for optimal human performance it's not meant for an anti-aging and longevity it's not meant to prevent sarcopenia or age-related muscle loss like it's not meant to do those things it's literally meant to keep you alive
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.
everything that we've made these global health recommendations you know the RDA is being good for everyone has been wrong we're wrong
The more I research this topic, the more I find that the recommended daily allowance of 0.8 grams per kilogram of body weight is simply not sufficient to build and maintain muscle mass as we age.
this RDA not being enough is a very important point because if we look at the actual so let me go back to those isotracer isotope tracer studies those multiple studies okay multiple studies as you know have shown that the minimum