Share.

    11 Comments

    1. Scoobydoomed on

      *”Skin biopsies were also collected before and after grape consumption from both UV-exposed and unexposed skin.*

      *Although more than one hundred skin samples were collected, many failed RNA sequencing quality checks.*

      *Complete usable data came from only four women, all with the same skin type and all originally classified as non-responders because their redness threshold had not improved.”*

      Lol what? Their whole study is based off of samples from 4 women…

    2. “The first clue came from measurements of malondialdehyde, a marker linked with oxidative stress and cell membrane damage after UV exposure.

      Across the larger participant group, malondialdehyde levels dropped significantly after grape consumption.

      Even the four apparent non-responders showed reduced oxidative damage.”

    3. Yeah. Saw the sourceand it has conflict of interest

      Funded by California Grape Commission.

      I dont understand why this sub even allows such articles

    4. First time hearing a scientist use the term “superfood,” since there is no such thing.

    5. No, they don’t say that at all. Scientists NEVER say that. ‘Superfood’ is not a scientific term. Journalists say shit like that.

    6. YonYonYonYonYon on

      “Superfood” is not a real thing and you should be suspicious of anyone using that term.

    7. MisanthropicAtheist on

      Scientists definitely aren’t saying that sinc3 “superfood” is a mai I guess marketing term.