The Skinny Confidential

There is no research showing methylated vitamins work better for healthy people, and for multivitamins in general the demonstrated benefit is already small. Targeted supplementation for a measured deficiency delivers more than a pricier multi for everyone. → Do multivitamins help with healthy ageing?

Strictly speaking true: there are essential fats and amino acids, but no essential carbohydrate; your liver makes glucose itself. Mind you: 'not essential' says nothing about what healthy eating is; there the whole dietary pattern counts. → Is a low-carbohydrate or ketogenic diet good for longevity?

Supplementing vitamin D makes sense when you are deficient, and deficiencies are common, especially in winter. But 'almost everyone' is too broad, and the evidence for the fixed K2 combination is thin. Measure first, then supplement. → How do I know whether I have enough vitamin D, and should I be supplementing?

It sounds logical, but is not quite right: some collagen peptides reach your blood as active fragments, and randomised studies show modest but real effects on skin and joints. So this dismissal does not hold up. → Do collagen supplements work against skin ageing?

Large observational studies consistently find fewer cardiovascular diseases among moderate coffee drinkers, and that pattern is broad and robust. However, causality has not been proven for all outcomes, and the claim omits two important conditions: the favourable association applies to filtered coffee consumed in moderate amounts, and for pregnant women the opposite holds. The direction is correct, then, but the claim is too sweeping to be accepted without qualification.

The inhibition of angiogenesis by EGCG has been studied in cell and animal models and fits into the broader picture that green tea can slow down cancer cells, but convincing evidence for this specific mechanism in humans is lacking. The blood pressure effect does not feature in the research on green tea that was examined. The claim combines two effects and presents them as established facts, whereas the evidence in humans for both has not yet been convincingly demonstrated.

Diet, including antioxidants, has a measurable effect on limiting DNA damage, and a plant-based eating pattern with sufficient micronutrients demonstrably helps with this. However, the claim takes a specific step that the research does not: that vitamin C from kiwis reduces the chance of DNA copying errors during cell division. What studies show is that certain nutrients reduce DNA damage, not that they specifically counteract copying errors during cell division. Moreover, the evidence for protection comes mainly from human studies that are not yet numerous enough to make firm claims about a single food.

There is no scientific evidence for the idea that mouth tape strengthens or reshapes your jawline through tongue posture. It relies on the controversial "mewing" theory; in adults, the jawline demonstrably does not change as a result.

Mechanically this makes sense: with the mouth closed you breathe through your nose, and small studies do see some effect in cases of mild snoring. However, the research is still in its early stages, and with a blocked nose or sleep apnea, taping the mouth can actually be dangerous.

Nasal breathing has real advantages: the nose filters, humidifies and produces nitric oxide, which can support oxygen absorption. However, claiming a significantly higher oxygen absorption is stronger than the research supports; the measured differences are small and vary across studies.

The research actually shows the opposite: with GLP-1 medications, roughly a quarter of total weight loss consists of lean mass, meaning muscle and other non-fatty tissue. The claim reverses this by asserting that the loss consists largely of intramuscular fat and liver fat rather than muscle mass itself. That distinction is not supported by the available research. Whether GLP-1 use specifically reduces intramuscular fat or liver fat, and in what proportion that contributes to total tissue loss, cannot be established on the basis of the available data.

Resveratrol and other polyphenols do show protective effects in cell and animal studies, such as inhibiting oxidative damage and inflammation, which aligns with the idea of cellular repair. However, the concept of a 'hormetic effect' goes beyond what the available evidence supports in humans: the compound is poorly absorbed by the body, clinical trials in humans are scarce and have partly yielded negative results, and the effects on gut bacteria are promising but have not yet translated into concrete long-term health benefits. The claim therefore points in the right direction, but presents as established fact what has so far been demonstrated primarily in the laboratory.

There is no evidence whatsoever for hair loss; that is determined by genetics and hormones, and pornography use plays no role in it. For testosterone, the picture is more or less the opposite of what is claimed: short-term fluctuations say little, and no lasting effect has been demonstrated. That some people feel less desire for sex with a partner is a real phenomenon, but that is a matter of behaviour and habituation, not a hormonal problem.

That keeping your phone out of the bedroom helps is plausible, and there is research suggesting that less screen time before sleep leads to falling asleep more easily. But fifty percent better sleep is a figure without a source: sleep quality is not measured in percentages, and no study comes anywhere close to such a conclusion.

There are small studies on electromagnetic mats for pain and sleep, but they are small, rarely blinded, and often funded by the manufacturer. Moreover, the sense of relaxation people report after lying still on a mat for twenty minutes is difficult to separate from the effect of simply lying still.

The first part is correct. Fibre adds bulk and softness to stools and demonstrably helps against constipation. The second part is not an established concept: your intestines do not need to be cleansed and do not do so through fibre. What fibre does do is feed your gut bacteria, which in turn produce substances that benefit your intestinal lining.

The general point is correct: UV radiation is by far the most important cause of visible skin ageing, more so than age itself. The percentage is a widely cited estimate from photoageing research rather than a measured value; 80 percent also appears in the literature. What matters is the direction, not the exact figure: sun protection does more for your skin than any cream.

There is no universal absorption rate for supplements, and therefore no figure of 16 percent either. How much you absorb varies enormously depending on the substance and its form: magnesium oxide is absorbed at only a few percent, magnesium citrate considerably more, and vitamin C from a tablet is absorbed almost completely. A single low number applied to all supplements at once is a sales argument for more expensive forms.

That microneedling stimulates collagen production is plausible and has been measured. The figure itself is wrong. The most widely cited study reported up to 400 percent after four treatments in a handful of people, and percentages like these say little because they depend on where and how you measure. A precise figure like 600 percent belongs in a sales pitch, not in a research finding.

There is evidence, but less than the confidence of the claim suggests. In small studies involving men with hereditary hair loss, microneedling on top of minoxidil produced more hair growth than minoxidil alone. However, the studies involved few participants, ran for short periods, and almost always used microneedling in combination with a treatment that already works on its own. As a standalone treatment, it has not been proven.