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.
the RDA /rd eyes depending what country you're in for vitamin C are not based purely on the prevention of scurvy that the RTI says here's how much vitamin C we needed to feed a small population mind of people to have a certain antioxidant status in those people
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.
because of some of just the uncertainty with nutrients like vitamin C where yes you're getting the amount to avoid you know acute issues like scurvy but is it enough for the long term
RDA for vitamin C is based on not getting scurvy, not on optimal enzyme activity (or antioxidant function) throughout life.