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.
it doesn't really surprise me that if a person were limited to ribe eyes and they couldn't eat a single other thing but ribey despite how calorically dense a ribeye is and it's right at the top of calorically dense foods yeah I can totally see how a person would lose weight
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.
it doesn't really surprise me that if a person were limited to ribe eyes and they couldn't eat a single other thing but ribe eyes despite how calorically dense a ribeye is and it's right at the top of calorically dense foods yeah I can totally see how a person would lose weight