Paul Saladino· MD
and they said intake of carbohydrate was lower where they had the better life expectancy
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.
and they said intake of carbohydrate was lower where they had the better life expectancy
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 that basically what they found was that nutrient intakes were compared based on 24-hour dietary records between a sample from an Okinawa Prefecture where life expectancies at Birth were 65 and birth and 65 were the longest in Japan and a sample from the Akita Prefecture Prefecture where the life expectancies were much shorter and they say that intakes of calcium iron vitamins A B 1 B 2 C and the proportion of energy from protein and fat were significantly higher in the former where they had the better life expectancy than in the latter