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.
There's only been one experiment doing that in rats and it came to a very different conclusion it's kind of like the two primate you know calorie restriction studies but again it's one study against the gazillion studies over here but i'd like to i'd like to really look at are we getting a biased picture
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 experiment i was talking about was one where they had taken a natural genetic mutation that disabled growth hormone in their rats and that didn't live longer like the same natural mutations occurred in mice