Hi, everyone. :)

Soy is one of the foods which produce acrylamide when heated to high temperatures. There is apparently a lot of heat involved in the processing of TVP / soya chunks. I don't know much about food science so I wanted to know if acrylamide is formed in this process. Common sense says it should, but I've found that things are always more complicated than they seem when it comes to nutrition.

Most recently i have been trying to understand how quality control works for nutrition supplements and I keep on getting myself into confused on the information I get and i know supplements are regulated differently from pharmaceutical drugs in a lot of countries, but what I still don’t understand is how often products are independently tested before reaching consumers. I’m not asking for brand recommendations or health advice, more trying to understand the system itself, for example; when companies say things like “third party tested,” does that usually mean every batch gets tested or just occasional samples? And are those tests normally checking only ingredient identity, or also contaminants like lead, cadmium, residual solvents, etc?

I started looking into this after seeing several discussions about protein powders and vitamin blends having ingredient discrepancies compared to their labels. Some studies I found showed pretty large variation between claimed and measured amounts.

What also confused me is how many seemingly different brands appear connected to the same manufacturing sources. I noticed identical packaging and spec sheets across multiple supplement sellers, and eventually found some matching wholesale listings on Alibaba. That doesn’t automatically mean low quality obviously, but it made me wonder how standardized the sourcing process really is.

At the same time, I’ve also seen smaller manufacturers publish surprisingly detailed COAs and testing data compared to bigger companies.

So from a scientific and regulatory perspective, how reliable are current testing standards in practice? Especially for products that are marketed internationally instead of within one country only.

Thanks to anyone willing to explain this in a more evidence-based way.

The more I look into astaxanthin supplements, the more confusing the whole market starts to feel honestly. Every brand seems to claim they have the best formula, best absorption, or highest quality ingredients, and after a while everything just starts sounding the same.
I keep seeing different dosages, oil-based softgels, algae-derived versions, branded ingredient sources like AstaReal and AlgaeAsta, plus all the synthetic vs natural discussions.
At this point I’m mostly trying to figure out what’s actually worth paying for and what’s mostly just marketing hype.

So, I was randomly reading labels and never paid attention to saturated fat but today I went on research about it and the results were confusing....

The thing that i understood is that 16-20 g is fine if the calorie intake is 2000, and it really feels like i am either crossing it or being around it everyday...

So I want to know what it really is about? I am in my 20s and want to know if i should start paying attention to it seriously...

I am already cutting sugars and avoid it mostly so if saturated fat is of the same concern I'll make sure to even think about it and adjust my food habits.

Mostly full fat. Is that bad in the long run ?

Im almost 16(F), my weight is 39kg and my height is 4’8.

Ive had this for years, whenever I eat pastas, something with rice and such stuff, I immediately get full. It kind of makes me want to puke, its like a full disgusting feeling for some reason. Although, I cant stop eating rice or whatsoever because im from a filipino household so rice is very necessary. After like 3 spoons, im immediately full..
Even simple bread, I immediately get full.

(Carbs and gluten I think)

Do I need to get checked up??

I work with the Alliance, an online collective action group. We've partnered with researchers at Stanford University to run what we hope will be the world's largest study on shifting toward a plant-based diet. We're looking for 1,000+ participants.

Sign up here by June 1: plantbasedstudy.org. The study will last 2 weeks. During the study, you'll try to reduce your animal product consumption as much as is feasible for you. You do not need to 100% eliminate animal product consumption.

From a research perspective, we want to understand what makes plant-based eating easy or hard for everyday people, especially people who previously did not have a strong prior intention to change their diets.

By participating, you would be enabling a potentially significant paper in what is currently a very small field. As far as we know, there are very few large-scale behavioral studies that address the experience of adopting a plant-based diet. With the results, we plan to develop and broadly publish recommendations that could encourage many people to adopt healthier and more environmentally-friendly diets.

Thanks, and please let me know if you have any questions.

Been working on this for a few months. The problem: health, science, and financial misinformation has almost entirely moved to long-form YouTube. Tools like Snopes and NewsGuard cover articles — nobody covers video. If you're trying to figure out whether a Huberman episode, a nutrition documentary, or a financial commentary video is actually credible, there's no good way to do that right now.

Weirwood extracts the main claims from a YouTube video, finds supporting or contradicting sources from AP News, Reuters, PubMed, CDC, and similar, and gives you a credibility score with a breakdown by claim. You can see exactly which parts of a video are well-sourced and which aren't.

Example report from a PBS autism video: https://www.w3irwood.com/report/5335a0df-1f42-4895-a44f-1f31866b768b

Free to try at w3irwood.com — sign in with Google and paste any YouTube URL.

Would love feedback on:

• Do the scores feel accurate for videos you know well?
• Is the claim breakdown actually useful or just noise?
• Would you pay for this and if so for what use case?

Honest reactions only — this is early and I want to know what's broken.

The hydrogen water research base is much narrower than the marketing around it implies, but the parts that hold up are more interesting than I expected once you strip out the noise. The "3,000 studies" figure that gets cited in product copy is mostly inflated by counting animal models, in vitro work, and small Japanese case series, but reducing it to actual human RCTs leaves a coherent and somewhat surprising picture.

The strongest cluster of research is on oxidative stress and inflammation markers. The Ohsawa 2007 paper in Nature Medicine kicked off modern interest, showing molecular hydrogen acts as a selective antioxidant. It only neutralizes cytotoxic ROS (hydroxyl radical, peroxynitrite) without touching the signaling ROS your body actually needs. That selectivity is what makes it different from broad-spectrum antioxidants like high-dose vitamin C, which can suppress beneficial ROS along with the harmful ones. Follow-up work has been most consistent on exercise-induced oxidative stress (LeBaron 2019 review summarizes the human exercise studies) and metabolic syndrome markers (Nakao 2010 on lipid profiles). Effect sizes are modest but real.

Where the research thins out fast is on the broader claims. "Anti-aging," "energy," "weight loss," "brain function" are all extrapolations from mechanism that don't have strong human RCT data behind them. There's animal data on neuroprotection that's promising but hasn't replicated in humans at meaningful scale. Anything claiming hydrogen water cures or prevents specific diseases is overclaiming on the current evidence. The studies are mostly small (n=10 to 30), often short duration, and many are funded by hydrogen water companies, which doesn't invalidate them but does mean conflict of interest is widespread in this field. The Drink HRW group has actually been responsible for some of the better-quality clinical work, worth reading critically.

The other thing worth knowing is dose. Most of the studies that show effects use 0.5 to 1.6 ppm dissolved hydrogen, which is at or above what most consumer products actually produce. Tablets have 3 acids in them that can do more harm than good and also degrade fast once they hit water. Portable bottles vary widely between brands and use cycles. Countertop ionizers can hit consistent therapeutic ppm if dialed in correctly. For anyone actually trying to run a personal protocol, ppm matters more than method, and sustained 1 ppm or higher is the threshold where the literature suggests effects start showing up. Curious if anyone here has run an actual protocol with dissolved-H2 testing reagent to verify what they're drinking.

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/obr.70153

ABSTRACT

Introduction

The meat industry's role in funding and influencing scientific research raises concerns about its impact on evidence used to inform public health policy. Although industry influence on other food and beverage sectors is well-documented, its effects on studies of meat consumption remain understudied.

Objective

This study aimed to investigate the influence of meat industry involvement on study conclusions of research examining the health impacts of meat consumption.

Methods

A meta-research review of relevant studies published between 2014 and 2023 was conducted using PubMed and Scopus. Studies investigating the nutritional health impacts of meat consumption were included. Study characteristics, author affiliations, declared funding sources, declared conflicts of interest, and study conclusions were extracted. Association tests were used to assess the relationship between industry ties and study conclusions.

Results

Of 500 included studies, 78 (15.6%) reported industry involvement. Studies with industry ties were 16 times more likely to report favorable conclusions regarding meat consumption (odds ratio [OR] = 16.4, 95% CI: 7.5–35.8), and there was a significant association (p < 0.001) between industry involvement and study conclusion.

Conclusion

Meat industry involvement significantly increases the likelihood of favorable study conclusions in nutrition research. These findings underscore the need for caution when interpreting research funded or associated with the meat industry and emphasize the importance of minimizing conflicts of interest in nutrition research.

Trial Registration

Prospero: ID CRD42024526116

Creatine is often marketed toward gym bros, but its other benefits are underrated, especially its positive effects on cognitive function and sleep.

This recent 2026 study shows that creatine, even at a lower dose of 0.2 g/kg, helps to reduce the decline in cognitive performance caused by sleep deprivation. The study found that creatine mitigated deterioration in logical and numerical tasks, language-related processing speed, and Psychomotor Vigilance Test (PVT) performance. While the effect was less pronounced than with a higher dose (0.35 g/kg) used in a previous study, there was still an improvement of up to 12%. Notably, females benefited more than males in tasks involving logic, PVT, and processing speed in language and logic. These findings suggest that both the cellular stress from sleep deprivation and sufficient creatine availability are crucial for the observed cognitive benefits.

Are Raw Eggs Safe? And are they more nutritious?

I am in Canada and get the Kirkland Costco Eggs 60 Pack.

I eat 6 Eggs a day and eat lots of other meat so the lower bioavailability of protien when raw is not concerning to me. Are eating raw eggs in Canada safe? And does it have any nutrition/health benefits over boiling/cooking them? If I do not care about taste what is the most nutritious/healthiest chicken egg to eat in terms of method and duration?