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.
their energy intake declines by hundreds of calories a day right away automatically and so it's yeah that's the only thing i can think of is that essentially the food has less implicit value to reward regions of the brain because of how our motivation is determined for certain types of food properties the food is intrinsically less motivating and so we eat less of it
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.
i think that's the most satisfying explanation we have right now is that it is simply more appealing to eat food more motivating to eat food that has both carbohydrate and fat i'm not saying i have strong evidence that that's the explanation but that's kind of the only thing i can think of that explains it