Peter Attia· MD
so you overproduce co to compared to what the prediction would be based on that equation and so basically what that means is that in a low carb setting you're probably getting an artificial increase in energy expenditure
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.
so you overproduce co to compared to what the prediction would be based on that equation and so basically what that means is that in a low carb setting you're probably getting an artificial increase in energy expenditure
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.
there was a reese or more recent um meta-analysis he did that got a lot of buzz because basically his his assertion was that well if you look at the short term data yes there doesn't appear to be much difference but if you look at after 17 days there appears to be you know a large difference in the energy expenditure anywhere from like 150 to 300 calories per day favoring low carb was that with doubly labeled water again that's it so that's so the issue was and i went through this with a fine-tooth comb and again the meta-analysis itself was very well done the statistics were very good but when there was metabolic chamber data available or doubly labeled water they use doubly labeled water