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 bethesda study was a little bit less controlled for age of onset and i should i don't remember the details exactly there were also some genetic differences in there so there's a combination of factors that make it a little bit difficult to conclude that it all is about the diet
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.
and i think you know their conclusion which certainly is plausible is that a lot of it comes down to the difference in diets and if you look at the actual body weights of the animals and how much food they ate not just the composition but actually how much they ate you know you could make an argument that the bethesda monkeys were somewhat slightly calorically restricted