Claims checked

180 verdicts
1.8 g/kgprotein a day, about twice the recommended amount (comparison groups 0.9 g), for up to two years in 28 trials of adults without kidney disease; in the 18 that measured filtration before and after, the change was not significantly differentNOUnsupported

How Much Protein Is Too Much? At About Twice the Recommended Amount, for Up to Two Years, Trials Found No Consistent Sign of Damage to Healthy Kidneys

Bars to scale of protein in grams per kilogram a day: the recommended 0.8, the comparison groups' 0.9 and the high-protein groups' 1.8 in 28 kidney trials of up to two years, and 4.4 in an eight-week trial; beside them the figure 1.8 g/kg

There is no official upper limit for protein. In 28 trials, adults without kidney disease ate 1.8 against 0.9 g per kilogram a day, about twice the recommended amount, for up to two years; in the 18 that measured filtration before and after, the change was not significantly different, and no consistent sign of damage appeared. Decades are untested in trials, the long studies of ordinary eaters point both ways, and damaged kidneys are a different question.

1.8 mg/dLlower triglycerides per pound lost (4.0 per kg) a year into 30 diet-and-exercise trials; LDL fell about 0.6 mg/dL per pound (1.28 per kg)MOSTLYSupported

Does Losing Weight Lower Cholesterol? Mostly the Triglycerides. LDL Fell About 0.6 mg/dL per Pound Lost, and Not on Every Diet.

Chart of what moved for each pound lost a year into 30 diet-and-exercise trials: triglycerides about 1.8 mg/dL lower, LDL about 0.6 lower and HDL about 0.2 higher, each with its range; beside it the figures 1.8 vs 0.6

Losing weight lowers cholesterol, mostly the triglycerides: about 1.8 mg/dL per pound in a year of diet-and-exercise trials. LDL fell about 0.6 mg/dL per pound and rose on a low-carb diet in one trial; in the largest trial it was linked only weakly, if at all, to the pounds lost. HDL was up about 0.2 mg/dL per pound at six months and a year.

4%fewer fractures on calcium in the four least-biased trials, 44,505 people living at home; the range ran from 9% fewer to 1% moreNOUnsupported

Should You Take Calcium Supplements? The Trial That Cut Hip Fractures Was in French Care Homes. At Home, the Best Trials Found No Clear Drop.

Chart of fracture ratios on calcium against a dummy pill in people living at home: the Women's Health Initiative's hips 0.88 (0.72 to 1.08), the four least-biased trials 0.96 (0.91 to 1.01), and all 17 trials at home 0.88 (0.80 to 0.98); the least-biased result sits nearest no difference. Beside it the figure 4%

Calcium supplements raise bone density by 1 to 2%, once. In the largest, least biased trials of adults living at home, fractures were not clearly fewer; the trial that cut hip fractures was done in French care homes. The heart-attack worry is contested, the kidney-stone risk is measured, and calcium from food goes with fewer stones, not more.

1,086people in the three biggest bone-density trials we found (710, 202 and 174), each setting a plate against no plate or a dummy for 12 to 24 months: none found a significant gain at the hip or spine (our sum)MAYBEPreliminary

Vibration Plate Benefits: The Three Biggest Bone Trials We Found, 1,086 People, Showed No Clear Gain. Stronger Legs Are Another Matter.

Bars to scale: the three biggest bone-density trials of vibration plates we found, 710, 202 and 174 people over 12 to 24 months, each setting a plate against no plate or a dummy; none found a significant gain in bone density. Beside them the figure 1,086, our sum

Standing on a vibration plate makes older legs stronger than doing nothing, but not clearly stronger than ordinary exercise. For bone, the evidence conflicts: the three biggest trials we found, 1,086 people, showed no clear gain at the hip or spine. In 20 trials a plate on its own took off no significant weight or fat, and ‘10 minutes equals an hour’ fails when measured.

About 1%higher bone density at the spine and hip in most of the Cochrane review's pooled results that cleared chance, for women past menopause who did weight training or impact exercise, against no exercise; our reading, with about 3% at the spine in one group of four trials; part of it bone the comparison groups lostMOSTLYSupported

Exercise for Osteoporosis: Lifting and Jumping Left Women About 1% Ahead on Bone Density, by Our Reading. Fewer Fractures Is Less Certain

Bars: in most of the pooled trial results that cleared chance, women who lifted or jumped ended up about 1 percent ahead on bone density, by our reading, and 3.22 percent at the spine in one group of four trials; one person's spine scan needs about 5.3 percent at the worst precision allowed

Across dozens of trials, women past menopause who lifted weights or did impact exercise ended up ahead on bone density, partly by losing less: about 1% in most of the pooled results that cleared chance, and about 3% at the spine with programmes mixing several kinds of exercise, which came out 1.07% behind at the total hip (our reading). That is well below what one scan can confirm in one person at the worst precision allowed, fewer fractures is less certain, and whether walking alone does less is unsettled.

70 of 230adults, mostly recreational athletes, that 220 minus age missed by more than 10 beats a minute in one US lab (our count from its published data); Tanaka's formula, rounded to a whole beat as 220 minus age always is, missed 60YESEstablished

How to Calculate Max Heart Rate: 220 Minus Age Missed 70 of 230 Adults by Over 10 Beats in One Lab (Our Count)

A grid of 230 dots, one for each adult, mostly recreational athletes, tested in one US lab; 70 are filled, 40 in one tone where 220 minus age read more than 10 beats too high and 30 in another where it read more than 10 too low; beside it the figure 70 of 230, our count from the lab's published data

220 minus age is close to the average of a mixed group of healthy adults and off by more than 10 beats a minute for many of them: by our count of one lab's published data on 230 adults, mostly recreational athletes, it missed 70, and Tanaka's formula, counted the same way, missed 60. Age explains less than half of why one person's maximum differs from another's. The only way to know yours is to measure it, and some people should not try that alone.

0.95odds of knee arthritis on X-ray, runners against people who never ran, after age, sex, weight, past injury and other activities, in 2,637 US adults; 1 means no difference (range 0.78 to 1.16)NOUnsupported

Is Running Bad for Your Knees? For Recreational Runners, No. That It Protects Them Is Less Certain.

Two odds ratios with their ranges against a line at 1, no difference: a US X-ray study adjusted for age, sex, weight, past injury and other activities, 0.95 (0.78 to 1.16), and a 2017 pooling of eight studies of recreational runners, 0.83 (0.70 to 0.99); beside it the figure 0.95

In studies of thousands of people, recreational runners did not have more knee arthritis than people who did not run; in a US study that X-rayed the knees of 2,637 adults, the difference shrank to one chance could explain once age, weight and past injury were allowed for. Former elite athletes are a less clear story, and the claim that running protects the knee rests on weaker evidence than the headlines suggest.

2.11 mg/dLaverage rise in HDL cholesterol with exercise training across 148 randomised trials, most of the exercise groups aerobic; about 3.5% of the starting levelMOSTLYSupported

How to Raise HDL: Exercise Lifts It About 2 mg/dL. Two Pills Approved Partly to Raise It Lost Approval After Heart Trials Found No Clear Benefit.

Three bars of the HDL rise in mg/dL: exercise 2.1 across 148 trials; niacin 6, with no clear heart benefit; anacetrapib 43, with about 9% fewer coronary events credited to lower non-HDL cholesterol; beside it the figure 2.11 mg/dL

Exercise raised HDL cholesterol by about 2 mg/dL across 148 randomised trials, aerobic exercise most reliably, and losing weight, quitting smoking and eating fat in place of carbohydrate raise it too. Drugs raised it far more; in seven of eight large heart trials of drugs aimed at HDL since 2007 that bought no clear benefit, and the eighth's small benefit is credited to the LDL-type cholesterol it lowered. Low HDL is a warning sign. Raising the number is not the same as fixing what it warns about.

3.0 lbmore weight, or less lost, on ultra-processed than on less-processed diets, pooled by a 2026 review across five small trials (1.37 kg), at low certainty; one week to six months, 9 to 50 people eachMOSTLYSupported

Are Ultra-Processed Foods Bad for You? In Short Feeding Trials, People Gained More or Lost Less. Why Is Still Open.

Horizontal bars of the weight gap between ultra-processed and less-processed diets in four feeding trials, in pounds: NIH 2019 4.0, Tokyo 2024 2.4, Copenhagen 2025 3.1, England 2025 2.1; beside it the figure 3.0 lb, a 2026 review's pooled estimate

In every feeding trial we read that let weight move and reported it, people put on more, or lost less, on ultra-processed diets than on less-processed ones; a 2026 review pooled five small trials at about 3 lb. In three of the five, those diets were also denser in calories, and when an NIH trial took the density and the foods easiest to overeat out, most of the overeating went. The links to disease and death come from cohorts.

52%of vegan men in a British study had B12 levels in the deficient range (below 118 pmol/L); 7% of vegetarians and one of 226 meat-eaters didYESEstablished

Do You Need a B12 Supplement? If You Eat No Animal Foods, Yes. Energy at Normal Levels: Not Shown.

Three bars for the share of men in a British study with B12 below the deficiency line: vegans 52%, vegetarians 7%, meat-eaters one man of 226; beside it the figure 52%

If you eat no animal foods, you need vitamin B12 from a supplement or a fortified food: in a British study, 52% of vegan men had levels in the deficient range. Over 50, US advice is to get most of it the same way. For energy in people whose levels are normal, small placebo-controlled trials of B12 on its own found no clear benefit.