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.
yes so basically um there's more co2 produced than is accounted for in the constant of the equation the 1.11 is probably too low in number yeah so you overproduce co2 compared to what the prediction would be based on that equation and so basically what that means is that in a low carb setting you're probably getting an artificial increase in energy expenditure
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.