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 trouble is that that wasn't a very palatable diet and to make it more palatable to do the carbohydrates they were adding sucrose and by the end of it well i think by the time they figured out the diet it was a they were 28 20 and a half percent sucrose diet in wisconsin
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.
versus as you said 28 29 sucrose there um bob kaplan did an analysis for me we write about you know we've written about this i think in a in a weekly newsletter or something but the the wisconsin monkeys were effectively eating the equivalent if they were humans they were effectively eating three big macs two large fries and two jumbo cokes a day that was the equivalent of their diet um and then you were so you were basically getting a control animal that's eating like three big macs two monster fries and two jumbo cokes a day and then the controls were getting or sorry the cr group was getting 70 percent of that in bethesda it was basically like a whole foods pescetarian diet right with three percent sugar in it