3 ms·
this article is garbage, likely just written by AI without any proofreading. so many things in the article are wrong after reading the study a bit. for example,
by upheaval7276 21d ago
this article is garbage, likely just written by AI without any proofreading. so many things in the article are wrong after reading the study a bit. for example, study says 73 people, article says 64. Article says only part of the participants were in a caloric deficit. Study says "All participants followed a diet plan aligned with the American Heart Association's macronutrient recommendations (55% carbohydrate, 15% protein, 30% fat) to induce a modest energy deficit of approximately 300–500 kcal/day.". etc, etc
skip the article, read the study at https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/15502783.2026.2716273#abstract https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/15502783.2026.2...
- nonsensical_ 21d agoYou will consume slop on HN and you will be happy.
- wnissen 21d agoYou may be right about the article but 64 is the correct number: 64 completed week 12 and were included in the repeated-measures analysis.
- disgruntledphd2 21d agoPresumably they used intent to treat though, so 73 pp data were analysed.