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.
by changing here we changed not the calories just the composition of the two diet 10% carbohydrate versus 45% or 50% carbohydrate in the other diet and that's all what we did and I think we concentrated only on the energy expenditure but we even didn't ask very much they had visual analog scale if they were more hungry or all these kind of things but we kind of ignored the food intake that we were clamping and this is not real life
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.