Direct evidence is thin. The claim is plausible and aligns with adjacent findings, but there isn't yet a body of high-quality work that would let us call it well-supported on its own terms.
The short answer is not enough um as I hearkened to earlier what we in terms of the granularity of nutrition detail huge opportunity um so we haven't in terms of metabolomics um caffeine is a signal um but that when given caffeine and of itself it does not mimic some of the effects that we observe so that's not it's not one thing like many things that we talk about with nutrition
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.