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.
an alternative method to doing that is something called doubly labeled water where a person drinks water that has two different isotopes one is heavily labeled oxygen the other deuterium and by collecting urine over a period of days following that ingestion you can also estimate energy expenditure but do so in a free living environment
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 water everybody knows is H2O hydrogen 2 oxygen one but it turns out there's a heavy form of hydrogen called detarium and there's another form of oxygen that doesn't have 16 I'm so bad in my chemistry now is it 16 protons or is it neutrons neutrons 16 neutrons so instead they have one with 18 neutrons and so you drink a D2 regular o and then an H to heavy o when you drink this you basically get to exploit a trick which is by collecting your urine you're measuring the hydrogen that's coming out without measuring the carbon that's coming out so you can impute what your vco2 is effectively