Peter Attia· MD
i actually think that the that the group eating 70 percent of the high sugar diet had had a higher incidence of diabetes than the control in bethesda
Loading…
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.
i actually think that the that the group eating 70 percent of the high sugar diet had had a higher incidence of diabetes than the control in bethesda
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.
because if you looked at uh what they call uh glucoregulatory problems in the controls they were massive and there were zero of those in the restricted animals and i'm glad you brought that up because it reminds me the control animals in bethesda i.e the fully fed animals in bethesda had less diabetes than the calorie-restricted animals in wisconsin