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 by forcing an isochloric diet the people are hungry but they're not able to eat because they're not allowed to eat and so if you do a short term study like several weeks to months you can't show a difference in weight gain
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.
if you went longer like a year you probably would show a difference in weight gain because of the difference in energy metabolism