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 the idea that there was something more complicated than that was really what we were discussing in that review, that there was a way to regulate steps in glycolysis that would divert intermediates in glycolysis from making ATP to The carbon atoms of glycolysis would go into lipid synthesis, serine synthesis, glycine synthesis.
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.
That's sort of what happens if you turn off pyruvate kinase. Then you slow down ATP production. That means there's less ATP made. That means glycolysis, a part of glycolysis continue. But instead of going to make more ATP, it goes off to make serine and glycine and ribose and lipids.
Yeah, we propose that you could, even with totally functional mitochondria, you could divert intermediates in glycolysis into anabolic processes by regulating steps in glycolysis.