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.
in an animal they always want to have some extra fat on board because they're living in the wild and they don't know if they're going to be uh food there's going to be a food shortage suddenly or not so they want to try to maintain a little bit extra fat and so if you take animals and you put them on 70% of their normal caloric intake their fat stores are very minimal they have less oxidative stress to their mitochondria and they're going to live longer
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 if you take animals and you put them on 70% of their normal caloric intake their fat stores are very minimal they have less oxidative stress to their mitochondria and they're going to live longer