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.
the theories to the 1950s based on newberg's work and this idea that obese people get fat not because they partition fuel preferentially into fat tissue but because they take in more energy than they expend the dominant the only hypotheses of obesity in the 1950s there's a lipostat hypothesis from a guy named kennedy and a glucose stat hypothesis from sean my ear
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.
so there was no such thing as obesity research pre-1930 if when you read the literature and you go back and look at the literature there's half a dozen physicians around the world who are writing articles about obesity and often with some statement of causality and there's kind of two competing hypotheses one is fat people just eat too much and you know that's true because you have an association between gluttony and obesity right they watched shakespeare we know falstaff was obese he had this zest for living he ate people out of house and home so therefore you assume causality from an association that's classic pathological science and the other is that people who suffer from obesity have some kind of hormonal disregard some kind of dysregulation where they're going to get fat regardless of how much they eat okay