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.
the limitation of this is a couple things one the patient's got to be weight stable right this this starts to fall flat when they're losing or gaining tremendous amounts of weight and two you have to prove a pretty darn good idea what they're eating so each of these methods ingenious and completely distinct both have huge limitations
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.
in general because of the the issues that you just mentioned I think most investigators in this field prefer or at least in terms of its nominal accuracy the room calorimeter over the doubly labeled water but the EE labeled water does have the virtue as you pointed out of being applicable over much longer periods of time
measure energy by the chamber indirect calorimetry and by dlw energy expansion