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.
when you think about this when you're eating whenever you're storing fat you are actually it seems to involve some mitochondrial oxidative stress and so if you eat less food you're going to have less oxidative stress to the mitochondria and you'll have less fat stores but what will happen is you'll you'll live longer
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 an animal they always want to have some extra fat on board because they're living in the wild they they don't know if they're going to be food there's going to be a food shortage suddenly or not so they want to try to maintain a little bit extra fat and so if you take animals and you put them on 70 percent of their normal caloric intake their fat stores are very minimal they have less oxidative stress to their mitochondria and they're going to live longer the mitochondria are going to stay healthier
when you think about this when you're eating whenever you're storing fat you are actually it seems to involve some mitochondrial oxidative stress and so if you eat um less food you're going to have less oxidative stress to the mitochondria and you'll have less fat stores but what will happen is you you'll live longer