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.
Yeah, now I haven't looked at those papers in a while, but almost for sure, I mean, those were affected. I mean, calories are cut by 30%, so that would mean 30% less proteins and 30% less sugars. So, yes, I will assume that both of them showed effects on the nutrient-signaling pathways and including TOR and IGF-1.
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.