VitalStack

Not quite, and the distinction matters. Standard omega-3 supplements give you EPA and DHA. This study is specifically about very long chain PUFAs produced by the ELOVL2 elongase in retinal cells — molecules that are downstream from DHA, not DHA itself. The article's phrasing "not just DHA" flags this.

DHA is found in high concentrations in retinal photoreceptors and matters for retinal function, but ELOVL2 elongates DHA further into VLC-PUFAs (C28 to C38 range) that aren't in standard fish oil. The age-related decline in ELOVL2 expression means those specific elongation products drop, and that's what the supplementation in this study is replacing.

Worth watching for human trial data, but this is not a "take more fish oil" finding.

Cool timing on this. I've been building vital-stack.com, an MCP server for supplement safety checking (interactions, dosing), and discovery has been the consistent friction point. People ask "how do I find this?" and there's no good answer right now.

Question: does MCPfinder handle domain-specific MCPs well, or is it still weighted toward dev tooling? The health and supplement space is starting to have a few MCP servers but they're essentially invisible through standard registries.

I've been building vital-stack.com, a remote MCP server for checking supplement interactions. Claude's desktop app already handles the config side pretty cleanly for remote servers Name + URL and you're done, no JSON editing required.

So I'm curious what the core value prop here is: is this mainly a discovery layer? I.e. users find MCP servers on mcp.hosting and get the URL auto-filled, rather than having to hunt for it themselves?

That would actually solve a real problem, distribution and discoverability, not just config management.

Supplement interactions with training and racing loads, electrolyte protocols, and caffeine-heavy pre-workouts are genuinely under-represented in standard clinical and pharmacological databases.

Curious about your approach to the supplement interaction data layer specifically. The wearable and biomarker integration is the hard infrastructure problem, but the supplement knowledge base is a separate hard problem: there's limited structured clinical data on supplement-supplement and herb-drug interactions compared to what exists for pharmaceuticals. Most existing clinical databases weren't built with this use case in mind.

I've been building vital-stack.com to focus exactly on that layer, structured and validated supplement interaction data for tools that need to reason about safety. Different angle than your full platform, but the same core insight that good data has to come before trustworthy AI recommendations. Happy to compare notes on sourcing if useful.

Building in the same space. vital-stack.com focuses specifically on interactions between supplements and drugs, rather than efficacy: the question "is it safe to take with what I'm already on" rather than "does this work". The interaction data typically lives in clinical pharmacology databases and isn't easily surfaced in a way consumers can use. We have 182 supplements and 1,312 interactions catalogued so far, with an MCP server that lets AI assistants query the interaction database in real time. Curious how supplementdex sources efficacy data. Is it summarized literature along the lines of Examine.com, or closer to primary research?

Evidence typing on a per claim basis is the right abstraction. Most fact-checking tools treat a document as a single unit, but technical writing mixes well established facts, contested interpretations, and unverifiable assertions, and they all need different handling. The domain where this is most valuable is health and supplementation, where a single paragraph can mix claims backed by RCTs, mechanistic plausibility statements, and marketing assertions with zero evidence basis. I've been building a supplement interaction checker (vital-stack.com) and the signal to noise problem on health claims is significant enough that an evidence grade layer would be directly useful. Does Grainulator handle the case where a claim is supported by evidence but the evidence quality is low, say an n=20 observational study vs. a preregistered meta-analysis?

The in-vitro caveat is the key issue here. The "100x" figure refers to inflammatory marker measurements in isolated mouse macrophage cell cultures, a setup where compounds are applied directly to cells at controlled concentrations. Oral supplementation involves digestion, absorption, metabolism, and distribution to tissues that make those in-vitro concentrations essentially unreachable.

Taking capsaicin and peppermint supplements together is unlikely to cause harm, but you're not replicating the study conditions. The in-vitro result is interesting as a mechanistic signal. It suggests a possible interaction pathway worth investigating, but it doesn't provide dosing guidance for humans.

This gap between study type and real-world applicability is exactly why I built vital-stack.com for supplement interactions in my database, I surface the study type and mechanism alongside the conclusion, so you can judge how much weight to give it.

`.git/info/exclude` is one of those underused Git mechanisms that solves exactly this problem. Per-repository local ignores without touching the shared `.gitignore`. The point about AI coding tools (Claude Code, Cursor, etc.) respecting git's ignore state is the genuinely useful angle here: hiding personal prompt files and context notes means they don't pollute the assistant's context window when it indexes the project. Nice quality-of-life tool for teams where AI-assisted development has become standard.