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.
if you compare an an uran strain athlete and a diabetic they both have huge intermicellar lipids and the differences is the atlete uses it uses it depletes it builds it up again but the diabetic doesn't and if we actually exercise the diabetics they will not really using that inam myell lipid
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.
just because you have triglyceride in the muscle on a biopsy right if you biopsy the muscle of an athlete and and of the diabetic you're you're going to see high amounts much higher amounts of fat than you would see in a non- elite athlete non-diabetic
the difference is in the person with type 2 diabetes it's static it's stagnant it sits there and it is one of the positive drivers of insulin resistance uh yet in the athlete it's just a it's a carbon flow it's just it's moving it's it's not you know it's the difference between a stagnant pond and a flowing river