The headline is broadly defensible, but the qualifications matter. Effect sizes vary by population, the strongest claims rest on shorter trials, and credible voices push back on how it's typically framed.
So that's kind of what we can see through expired gases. We can see the amount of CO2 that you produce and the amount of oxygen that you utilize. So under resting conditions, and that's what's called the respiratory coefficient or the respiratory exchange ratio.
Every Sunday: the week’s new conflicts and verdict changes — and nothing else.
Native comments, Twitter mentions, and Reddit threads about this claim — surfaced together so the conversation isn't fragmented across platforms.
Bookmarking — the dossier-vs-overview split is the right call. Most of the time I want overview; sometimes I want receipts.
Would love a "what would change this verdict" RSS feed. Sign me up if it exists.
So what does it mean when someone who is laying down to do this test under no physiologic distress has an RQ of 0.95? What does that mean? Obviously, based on what you said, it means they are almost exclusively relying on glucose and not oxidizing any fatty acid. But what is that telling you at a molecular level about the illness or the function of that person's mitochondria? It's a red flag for mitochondrial dysfunction right there, because that's not normal. ... This is a morning fasted resting test. It's a red flag that is already telling you that there's something going probably at the maracanda level.
So under normal conditions, you don't produce much CO2. So the ratio, it's always below one. Could be 0.7, something like that, for example. That means that it's CO2 divided by oxygen. So that's where you don't produce a lot of CO2. You use more oxygen, and therefore the ratio is 0.7. ... That means that a person is very, virtually all dependent on fat oxidation at that moment.