The evidence is convergent. Multiple independent sources reach the same conclusion, the underlying mechanism is well-characterized, and even the field's most cautious voices treat it as worth doing.
if you have a caloric deficit you can eat you can eat freaking whatever you want like you could eat probably pure sugar and pure seed oils in a caloric deficit and see your insulin sensitivity improve long term i don't think that's very sustainable for humans and i do worry or would hypothesize that when you return to a normal caloric diet that your satiety is going to be off obviously your nutrient part your nutrient adequacy is going to be low
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 i think we know that in humans if you have a caloric deficit you can eat you can eat freaking whatever you want like you could eat probably pure sugar and pure seed oils in a caloric deficit and see your insulin sensitivity improve long term
In fact, the big a big nuance is the calories. And this is where I need to be careful because the the degree of studies that have looked at these interventions that you're alluding to and I'll touch on more now in low calorie or hyperc calorie, it's not been fully fleshed out, but I would think it's safe to say if there is a caloric deficit, then it becomes less relevant um which of the the balance of saturated fats to refined carbs.