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 much so, that in the study with the children, consuming non-caloric beverages in this way, first with food, and then on their own, led to increases in insulin that made them pre-diabetic, and they actually had to halt the study.
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.
the increases in insulin that they saw in a subset of the kids were so dramatic this is the way she described it in a talk so I feel comfortable saying this maybe she's changed her tune but in this online talk and academic talk the increases in insulin were so dramatic that they were concerned about the kids becoming pre-diabetic so they halted the study