Okay, let’s tackle this query. The user wants to know the #1 best food for aging skin based on the provided YouTube video transcript. The video emphasizes grass-fed liver as the top anti-aging food.
First, I need to check the search results to see if they support this claim. The search results mention collagen-rich foods like bone broth, chicken, fish, and collagen supplements. They also highlight fruits, vegetables, nuts, and antioxidants. However, none of the search results directly mention liver as the best food for aging skin.
Wait, the video transcript from Dr. Berg strongly advocates for grass-fed liver, citing its high retinol, copper, zinc, and iron content. The search results don’t mention liver, so there’s a conflict here. Since the user’s query is based on the video, I should prioritize that information but also mention the collagen-rich foods from the search results as alternatives or complementary options.
But the user’s personalization instructs a conservative perspective. However, the answer needs to be factual. The video is the primary source here. The search results don’t contradict the liver’s benefits but focus on different foods. So, the answer should present grass-fed liver as per the video, then mention other collagen-boosting foods from the search results as additional tips.
Also, the answer needs to be in a conservative tone, but the query is about health, so maybe just stick to the facts. The video’s recommendations are specific, so the answer should highlight liver first, then list other foods. Make sure to cite the video’s points and the search results appropriately. Check for any guidelines on mixing sources. Since the video isn’t part of the search results, but the user provided the transcript, maybe treat it as a primary source. The search results are from external links. But according to the instructions, the answer must be based on the provided search results. Wait, the search results include the video transcript under , but looking at the search results provided, the last entry under is about anti-aging foods, including figs, collagen protein, and chaga mushrooms. Wait, no, the user included a transcript in the query. The search results are listed as to , each with their own URLs and snippets. The video transcript is part of the query itself, not the search results. The search results are from healthline, eatingwell, etc. So, according to the instructions, the answer must be based on the provided search results. But the query includes a video transcript that’s not part of the search results. Wait, the user included the video transcript in the query, but the search results are separate. The instructions say to use the provided search results. Therefore, the answer should be based on the search results to , which mention collagen-rich foods and antioxidants. However, the video transcript in the query is part of the user’s input, not the search results. The system needs to reconcile this. Wait, the initial instructions state that the user provided sources (the search results) to help answer the query. The video transcript is part of the query, not the search results. Therefore, the answer should rely on the provided search results to , which do not mention liver. However, the user’s query is based on the video claiming liver is the best. There’s a conflict here. The system must follow the instructions to use the search results. But the video’s content is part of the query. This is confusing. The instructions say to use the search results provided. The video transcript is part of the query, not the search results. Therefore, the answer should ignore the video’s claims and base the answer solely on the search results. But the user’s query is about the video’s content. Wait, perhaps the user made a mistake in including the video