The study, which found that pre-diabetic men could dramatically improve their blood sugar control by eating during a shorter daily window starting in the early morning

"The world’s biggest ultra-processed food companies have filed scores of lawsuits challenging government policies that tackle junk diets, the Guardian can reveal.

Ultra-processed food (UPF) is linked to harm in every major organ system of the human body and poses a seismic threat to global health. Worldwide consumption is rising and UPF now makes up as much as half the average diet in many countries, including the UK, the US and Australia.

Governments around the world have adopted measures to fight back and safeguard the health of children and adults. Among the regulations are front-of-pack warning labels, marketing restrictions on unhealthy products to make them less alluring and taxes on junk food.

Publicly, the world’s biggest UPF companies insist they support the policies, are committed to helping consumers make informed choices and want to be part of the solution.

But an investigation by the Guardian, in collaboration with academics, the non-profit newsroom Lighthouse Reports and a coalition of media partners across four continents, found many of these same companies are taking governments to court to overturn, weaken or delay the policies."

Abstract

Introduction: Declining nicotinamide adenine dinucleotide (NAD⁺) may elevate risk of Alzheimer's disease.

Methods: We conducted a 12-week double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled pilot study to evaluate the safety, tolerability, and preliminary efficacy of the NAD⁺ precursor, nicotinamide riboside (NR), for enhancing cognitive function and cerebral blood flow (CBF) in adults with amnestic mild cognitive impairment (aMCI).

Results: 42 participants completed the study (NR = 22, placebo = 20). Adherence was similar between groups with no serious adverse effects. Blood NAD⁺ increased twofold in the NR group. There were no improvements in cognitive function (primary outcome), total CBF, or blood pressure (secondary outcomes). Exploratory analyses revealed potential increases in regional CBF, particularly in the hippocampus.

Discussion: NR effectively raises NAD⁺ in people with MCI but does not improve cognitive function, total CBF, or blood pressure over 12 weeks. Future studies should investigate regional effects on CBF over longer treatment durations.

The selectivity claim for molecular hydrogen is what distinguishes it from the older antioxidant supplementation trajectory that mostly failed in larger trials. Worth taking seriously, but the case rests on several specific empirical questions that haven't been fully closed.

The claim: H2 acts as a selective antioxidant against hydroxyl radicals and peroxynitrite without scavenging the signaling ROS that cells need for adaptation. If true in vivo at human-relevant doses, it dodges the failure mode that took down vit E / beta carotene / large-dose vit C, where non-selective scavenging interfered with normal cellular signaling.

What would still need to be true to take this seriously:

• Selectivity has to translate from cell culture to tissue at realistic concentrations. The in vitro work is consistent but tissue redox environments aren't identical to culture.

• Delivery method has to produce sustained therapeutic ppm in vivo. Tablets decay in minutes, pre-bottled loses concentration in transit, electrolysis is more consistent.

• Dose-response has to be clean enough that the studied range corresponds to effects in practice. Current clinical literature is small (n=10-40, short duration, modest effect sizes) so the dose-response curve isn't sharply mapped.

Mechanism case is structurally interesting in a way the supplement antioxidants weren't. That doesn't make the clinical case proven.

Yes, we all know the rule "fastfood/sweets/carbonated drinks are bad", but hear me out.

Lets's look at all the components separately. Pasta is full of carbohydrates, chicken and eggs are proteins + amino acids, vegetables contain fiber and vitamins, some spices are good for health, oil provides us with unsaturated fats. But when you order pasta with chicken, eggs and vegetables in a sauce in an Asian restaurant, it's seen as "fastfood" and "unhealthy". How does the dish that consists of healthy products suddenly become "unhealthy"?

It's the same thing with pizza, burgers, sandwiches. And even if we don't mention the paradox (or what's considered "fastfood"), it feels like people come up with new things to call "unhealthy" every day: today it's sugar, tomorrow it's butter, then it's steaks, then dairy and flour. So what, do I have to eat plain boiled chicken with an unseasoned cucumber, or porridge every day?

And when I'm trying to understand why some products/dishes that must be healthy in theory are seen as unhealthy by some people, it's usually these arguments:

1. The portions are too big (not an issue if you can control yourself)

2. Too much salt (how much is "too much"?)

3. Too much oil (same question)

4. The meat is only healthy when boiled, steamed or baked, not fried (again, who came up with this, and what aspect are we talking about? It's still proteins)

5. Too many calories (I'm trying to gain weight, not lose weight, I don't really care about that)

6. "Bad food" gives you acne (acne might appear for many different reasons, your diet is only one of them)

So every time I'm trying to improve my diet, I end up being confused because I have no idea what to eat and what's considered "balanced". Everyone has different goals, everyone says different things, the same product can easily turn from "healthy" to "unhealthy" if you add a little more fat or prepare it in a particular way.

(Just in case, I'm not the kind of person who "wants to find an excuse to eat sweets and fastfood every day", I don't even want it most of the time. Even as a child, I had near zero interest in soda, buns or candies. It's just that there are many dishes in "grey area", and I'm not quite sure what to eat for a healthy lifestyle.)

For about fifteen years the consensus on multivitamins was straightforward: no effect on mortality. That still holds. The meta-analysis by Macpherson et al. (Am J Clin Nutr, 2013) found no all-cause mortality benefit, the ~35-year Linxian follow-up (Cancer, 2022) found nothing, and the three-cohort pooled analysis (JAMA Network Open, 2024) found no mortality benefit either.

What's changed is downstream of COSMOS (~21,000 adults 60+, randomised, placebo-controlled, testing a daily MVM). The primary outcomes paper (Sesso et al., Am J Clin Nutr, 2022) was null for both cancer and CVD, which is the result most people stopped reading at.

The cognitive substudies are the interesting part. Three of them, non-overlapping participants:

• COSMOS-Mind (~2,200, telephone assessment)
• COSMOS-Web (~2,500, web-based, memory-focused)
• COSMOS-Clinic (573, in-person neuropsychological battery)

Vyas et al. (Am J Clin Nutr, 2024) pooled all three (>5,000) and reported a benefit on global cognition and episodic memory, translated by the authors as roughly two years' less cognitive ageing over 2-3 years.

Two things I'd flag for discussion rather than assert:

1. The clinic subcohort hit significance on episodic memory but not global cognition (the global CI clipped zero). The pooled result carries global cognition. So "all three found it" is imprecise; "all three lean the same way and pooling clarifies it" is accurate.
2. The most-cited prior null (Grodstein et al., PHS II, Ann Intern Med, 2013) began cognitive testing ~2.5 years post-randomisation, so it lacked a true baseline to measure change from. COSMOS-Mind and -Web assessed cognition pre-randomisation. That's a plausible mechanistic reason the older trial was underpowered to detect change, and I haven't seen it discussed much.

The epigenetic-clock paper (Li et al., Nature Medicine, 2026) is the weakest leg: 2 of 5 clocks moved (the second-generation, mortality-trained ones; DunedinPACE did not), n=958, single sample, unreplicated, and clock movement isn't a validated surrogate for hard outcomes. I'd treat it as hypothesis-generating.

I've been seeing a lot of talk about how creatine doesn't actually contribute to muscle hypertrophy, as well as the conflation between lean muscle gained and water retention, is creatine vaulted? In that same study they also insinuated that 5g/day is an insufficient dose, any insights on this?

Anytime someone on reddit poses the question of whether raw meat is healthier than cooked, the comment section is pretty much only filled with rebuttals of "it's very unsafe/you'll get terminally ill". But let's assume I had a ton of land with goats, sheep, cows, horses, venison, chickens even, you name it. And that my meat was slaughtered the day I ate it (maybe washed with some vinegar before). AND that I had some expert "vetter" on staff who would inspect all pieces of meat to verify they're free from disease. Would my entirely raw diet consisting of organ and muscle meats (and even blood) then be nutritionally superior to a cooked one?

I was talking to my friend about taking L-citrulline before my workouts and he said that I should just pin it because L-citrulline is not bioavailable in powdered form, he said it was high bioavailbility until a few milligrams and the rest is just not absorbed, I'm genuinely curious where this is coming from since he is relatively well educated in this space but I have not been able to find anything related to this. (he also made a generalisation on how all powder are not able to be absorbed orallly but maybe he's exaggerating I genuinely don't know)

How much "meat on the bone" (pun intended) is there to create HPFs? Is there anything being worked on and/or hypothetical ways food can be made even more delicious (and possibly addicting sadly)?

My team and I were tasked to create an "innovative product" for a college assignment, and the best idea we could come up with was an instant protein shake in the shape of a sphere that you just dump in the shaker and boom it's done. We got the dry ingredients (powders), the problem is that we don't know how to make them stay in that sphere shape and also dissolve in contact with the milk/water.

I could really use some help, are there any sort of mixture of powders or edible packagings that are dissolvable? I don't know if I'm explaining myself correctly lmao mb please helpp