Peter Attia· MD
because even cahill's studies showed that after 40 days of starvation humans were still getting about 40 percent of cns energy from glucose the remainder from ketones so glucose never went away as a substrate for the brain
Loading…
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.
because even cahill's studies showed that after 40 days of starvation humans were still getting about 40 percent of cns energy from glucose the remainder from ketones so glucose never went away as a substrate for the brain
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.