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.
And while we're talking about nuances of diet let's also be clear that there's pretty good evidence that while carbohydrates may fan the flames in metabolic dysfunction, it's an oversimplification to say they cause insulin resistance directly.
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.
Though in the setting of pathological insulin resistance carbohydrates may fan the flames, evidence that they caused the underlying metabolic dysfunction is lacking.
the broad strokes painting here carbohydrates do not cause insulin resistance but in the setting of insulin resistance they can fan the flames
carbohydrates may fan the flames in the setting of insulin resistance metabolic dysfunction but they did not start the blaze