Evidence library

Research library

105 papers across 13 topics, each read, summarised and graded by how much weight it carries on its own. Published literature only: no personal data. Built 2026-08-24.

This is a reading of published research, not medical advice. Nothing here accounts for an individual history, medication or condition. The tier grades the strength of a source, not the truth of a claim: a T3 paper can be right, and a T1 paper can be superseded.

The protocol → — the T1/T2 layer assembled into one applicable day, with the evidence linked line by line. Also as plain words / en clair (EN/FR).

What the evidence supports doing

Built 24 August 2026 from the 105 papers in ../index.csv, across eleven topics.

Read this first. This is a synthesis of published general-population research. It is not medical advice and it is not linked to anyone's personal record, which is the separation research/README.md exists to protect. Nothing here accounts for an individual's history, medications or conditions. Where an action interacts with a diagnosis or a drug, that is a conversation with a clinician, not a file.

Actions are ordered by the tier of the evidence behind them, not by how appealing they are.


Tier 1: established, act on these

1. Train, and load matters more than modality

Evidence: ../topics/exercise-and-mitochondria.md, Mølmen 2025 (T1), Abrego-Guandique 2025 (T2).

The only T1 intervention in this library that measurably changes mitochondria in humans. Training load (volume x intensity) predicts the size of the change.

Three things that change how to act on it:

What is not established: the optimal prescription. Bishop 2025 asks exactly that and concludes the evidence cannot yet specify one.

2. Get light early, avoid it late

Evidence: ../topics/light-and-circadian.md, Gooley 2011 (T1), Dautovich 2019 (T1), Chang 2015 (T1), Schöllhorn 2023 (T1).

Timing dominates amount. Bright morning light shifts sleep earlier and improves it; bright evening light shifts it later and worsens it. The shape is more light early, less late, not less light.

The threshold is far lower than people assume. Ordinary room light under 200 lux in the hours before bed delayed melatonin onset in 99% of 116 people and cut melatonin duration by ~90 minutes. It is the room, not only the phone. Even 5-10 lux with eyes closed produces a circadian response, which makes bedroom darkness a real variable.

If you act on one number, it is melanopic EDI, not lux and not colour temperature (Schöllhorn 2023). Displays can be spectrally tuned without changing how they look.

Honest tradeoff: evening blue light improves alertness and cognition acutely (Cajochen 2011) while damaging circadian timing. You are trading tonight's sharpness against tomorrow's. And because the effect is imperceptible - subjects rated the screens identical - subjective comfort is not a usable guide.

3. If glycaemic control is the goal, the diet pattern matters less than you think

Evidence: ../topics/ketogenic-diet-by-indication.md, Mongkolsucharitkul 2025 (T1, 27 RCTs, n=2,870), Yuan 2024 (T2 network meta-analysis), Choy 2023 (T2), Ichikawa 2024 (T2).

Carbohydrate reduction works in type 2 diabetes: HbA1c -0.29%, largest at 3 months, attenuating after. Past 12 months the glycaemic and weight advantage is gone; the lipid benefit persists (HDL up, triglycerides down, I2 = 0%).

Ranked against other diets, Mediterranean beats low-carbohydrate for glycaemic control (SUCRA 88.15% vs 55.7%). Low-carbohydrate leads on body composition, and even there the authors call the differences "mostly small and often trivial".

Going all the way to ketosis adds nothing measurable for glycaemia or weight over control diets (Choy 2023). And across 27 trials and 2,870 people, no arm sustained carbohydrate below 10% of energy. Nearly nobody maintains actual keto.


Tier 2: supported, reasonable to act on

4. Blue-blocking glasses, for one specific outcome

Hester 2021 (T2): 16 RCTs, 453 patients. The supported outcome is falling asleep faster. Not sleep quality, not duration, not mood. Set the expectation there.

5. A ketogenic diet is safe alongside cancer treatment, and helps symptoms

Zhang 2025 (T2, preregistered): reduced fatigue, insomnia, insulin, glucose, fat mass; improved lipids, TSH, emotional and social function. Two independent RCTs agree it is safe and feasible with chemotherapy and radiotherapy.

This is a real benefit on outcomes patients care about. It is not a treatment for the cancer - see the next section.


Do not act on these


The pattern underneath all of it

The same result keeps arriving from five unrelated literatures:

WhereWhat was expectedWhat was found
Seyfried 2003, mouse tumoursketosis starves tumoursunrestricted keto did nothing; caloric restriction cut growth ~80% in either diet
ERGO2 2020, gliomaketosis extends survivalketosis achieved, no survival benefit; low glucose predicted better outcomes
Nutrients 2026, gliomaGKI tracks efficacyGKI rarely reached; lower glucose associated with better outcomes
T2D network analysis (PMID 37513574, not filed)the diet does the workHbA1c reduction related only to weight change
PCOS meta-analysesketosis corrects hormoneseffects inseparable from weight loss in overweight populations

Across five independent literatures the operative variable looks like energy intake and glucose, not ketone elevation.

That does not make ketogenic eating pointless. For some people it is the most practical way to reduce intake and lower glucose, and it has a consistent lipid effect that restriction alone does not explain. But the mechanism usually claimed is not the mechanism the data supports, and this matters: if the benefit runs through energy and glucose, then exercise, sleep and total intake are levers on the same pathway, and they are levers with better evidence and fewer costs.

Epilepsy is the exception and should not be folded in. There the mechanism is neurological, the diet is standard care, and the evidence is separate and strong.

What this library still cannot tell you

How papers are graded

T1 Established20 papers

Large or definitive human evidence, corroborated beyond one paper.

T2 Supported49 papers

Sound human study or synthesis, single source, awaiting replication.

T3 Preliminary21 papers

Small n, subgroup, cross-sectional or method-first. Hypothesis.

T4 Framework15 papers

No new data. Reviews, perspectives, theory. Never cite as evidence.

All papers

Topic syntheses

Each topic read as a whole: what converges, what contradicts, what is missing.

Aging and supplementation - topic synthesis10 papers

Built 24 August 2026 from the Patrick podcast session; extended the same day with six creatine papers from the Candow session and one mechanism paper (phosphatidylcholine). Now 10 papers. Deliberately narrow: randomised evidence tying a supplement to an aging-related measure, plus - flagged as such - the rare mechanism paper that defines a future supplement target.

General literature only, not linked to the personal record.

0. Creatine: the one supplement with an established effect

The Candow session closed the gap this file named on creation. The creatine evidence separates cleanly by claim:

  • Muscle, established (T1). Creatine plus resistance training adds about +1.14 kg lean mass over training alone in the pooled RCTs (Desai 2024) - modest, real, and the best-replicated supplement effect in this library. The direction matters: it amplifies training and does nothing without it.
  • Safety, established (T1). Across 685 randomised trials, adverse events are no more prevalent than placebo - kidneys, cramps and hydration myths included (Kreider 2025; author overlap with the field's advocates is noted in the file).
  • Myth directly tested. A 12-week RCT found no change in DHT or hair parameters (Lak 2025) - the hair-loss fear rests on one unreplicated 2009 DHT blip.
  • Bone, honest null. The 2-year RCT in postmenopausal women found no bone-density effect; only geometry preservation (Chilibeck 2023). The marketed bone claim outruns this.
  • Brain, acute only. A single large dose restores cognition and brain phosphate energetics under sleep deprivation (Gordji-Nejad 2024, n=15). Chronic cognitive enhancement in rested adults is not established.
  • Mood, preliminary. One adjunct-to-SSRI trial in women (Lyoo 2012, T3), unreplicated at scale for a decade.

1. Two randomised trials moved epigenetic clocks

  • Omega-3, 1 g/day (DO-HEALTH ancillary, n=777, age 70+): epigenetic clocks slowed by 2.9-3.8 months over 3 years - about a month of clock per year of supplementation (Bischoff-Ferrari 2025).
  • A daily multivitamin (COSMOS ancillary, n=958, age 60+): slowed PCGrimAge and PCPhenoAge versus placebo (Li 2026).

Two independent trials, two cheap low-risk supplements, the same class of surrogate endpoint. That is genuinely more than the supplement field usually has. What it is not: evidence of a health outcome. Epigenetic clocks are predictors under active validation, and the marker-vs-target question the library keeps meeting (GDF15, grip strength) applies in full force - moving a clock is not yet known to move what the clock predicts.

2. The flagship mitophagy supplement missed its primary

Urolithin A's best human trial (Singh 2022, n=88, 4 months): muscle strength up ~12%, some mitochondrial biomarkers improved, and the primary endpoint - walk distance / peak VO2 versus placebo - was not met. Sponsor-run. The mechanistic story (mitophagy) is the appealing part; the clinical proof is not there. Mouse-lifespan and VO2max figures circulating in podcasts could not be traced to any publication during verification.

3. A new mechanism target: phosphatidylcholine

Poliezhaieva 2026 (Nat Commun, Leibniz Institute on Aging, T3): declining phosphatidylcholine synthesis disrupts the mitochondrial network with age; boosting PC through diet restored late-life mitochondrial integrity in worms and metabolic resilience in human cell culture, with human omics data echoing the mechanism. A genuinely new, dietarily malleable driver of natural mitochondrial aging - and, as of filing, zero human intervention evidence. The circulating media version ("slow or even reverse biological decline") overruns the paper; the authors themselves caution against supplement conclusions. The pattern to remember before extrapolating is in this very topic: urolithin A's beautiful mechanism and missed primary endpoint.

Gaps in this topic as filed

  • No clock-to-outcome validation: nothing filed tests whether slowing an epigenetic clock changes any health outcome, which is the question this entire topic depends on.
  • Vitamin D and protein, the two most-consumed aging-relevant supplements, have no filed synthesis.
  • No creatine trial in older adults on function (falls, independence) - the muscle and safety layers are established, the outcome layer is not.
  • The parent trials' primary outcomes (fractures, cognition, cancer) are not filed - only the epigenetic ancillaries.
Cancer as a metabolic disease - topic synthesis16 papers

Built 24 August 2026, now covering the 16 papers filed under this topic: 10 from Thomas Seyfried's bibliography, one independent randomised trial that tests his central clinical claim, and five later independent additions. Author dossier and full 230-record bibliography: ../authors/seyfried-thomas.md.

General literature only, not linked to the personal record.

1. The claim

Cancer originates from damage to mitochondrial respiration, not from nuclear mutations. The mutations that define the mainstream somatic mutation theory are downstream consequences. Because tumour cells are then dependent on fermenting glucose and glutamine, restricting both while supplying non-fermentable ketone bodies should manage the disease (Seyfried 2010, 2021).

This is a falsifiable claim about causal order, which is what makes it worth filing rather than dismissing.

2. What is actually shown

Tumour mitochondria are biochemically abnormal. Kiebish 2008 found major cardiolipin content or composition defects in all five mouse brain tumours examined, associated with reduced electron transport chain activity. Cardiolipin is confined to the inner mitochondrial membrane and required for respiratory function, so this is a specific, measured lesion rather than a general assertion. It is the strongest empirical contribution in the topic. It is also mouse, single lab, correlational, and does not establish that the lesion comes first.

Caloric restriction slows tumour growth in mice. Seyfried 2003, about 80% reduction in CT-2A astrocytoma.

3. The result that reframes the whole topic

Seyfried 2003 ran four arms, and the one usually omitted from summaries is the unrestricted ketogenic diet.

ArmTumour growth
Standard diet, unrestrictedrapid
Ketogenic diet, unrestrictedrapid
Standard diet, 40% restricted~80% reduced
Ketogenic diet, 40% restricted~80% reduced

His own conclusion: growth "is dependent more on the amount than on the origin of dietary calories".

Ketosis without restriction did nothing. Restriction worked in either diet. The popular claim that ketogenic eating starves tumours is not supported by the founding experiment of the programme that promotes it.

4. The human evidence, in full

  • 7 case reports, uncontrolled, one of them a dog.
  • One randomised trial, published twice. 80 breast cancer patients, single centre, 12 weeks, adjunctive to chemotherapy, registration IRCT20171105037259N2.
  • Primary outcomes (quality of life, physical activity): null at 12 weeks.
  • Secondary report a year later: lower insulin and TNF-alpha, tumour size reduction and downstaging in locally advanced disease, no benefit in metastatic disease.

A trial with null registered primary outcomes and a separately published positive secondary paper warrants caution on the pattern alone.

5. The independent test was negative

ERGO2 (Voss 2020), a German randomised trial in recurrent malignant glioma, not connected to Seyfried:

EndpointKetogenic + fastingControl
PFS at 6 months (primary)20%16%
PFS, local PFS, overall survivalno differenceno difference

The intervention was delivered successfully: 17 of 20 completers reached ketosis, glucose fell significantly, no severe adverse events, modest 2.1 kg weight loss. It worked as a diet and failed as a therapy.

One thread survives. Within the diet arm, patients whose day-6 glucose was below the median (83.5 mg/dL) had significantly longer PFS and OS. That points at glucose, not at ketosis - converging with Seyfried's own 2003 finding.

Caveats owed to the trial: n=50, heavily pretreated recurrent patients, a short 9-day schedule, and a companion analysis showing the control group ate less than planned, which narrowed the contrast.

5b. The premise itself is contradicted

The therapeutic rationale requires that tumour cells cannot use ketones. Two filed papers say otherwise.

Sauer and Dauchy, Cancer Res 1983 measured arteriovenous differences across tumours in living fasted rats. Both ketone bodies were utilized, at rates directly proportional to supply. The proportionality is the damaging part: raising blood ketones raised tumour ketone consumption. Caveat: hepatomas and a sarcoma, not brain tumours, where the selectivity claim is specifically made.

Israël, Berg and Tenenbaum, J Clin Med 2023 name the enzymes: ketolysis via SCOT and ACAT1 is a major source of mitochondrial acetyl-CoA in tumour cells. Their proposed therapy is to inhibit those enzymes, the exact opposite of supplying ketones. T4, no new data, and see the file for a note on authorship.

This does not make ketogenic diets useless in cancer. It relocates any benefit away from substrate deprivation toward insulin, IGF-1 and inflammation, which is where the measured effects actually appear: lower insulin and TNF-alpha and higher IL-10 in the Khodabakhshi trial. That is also the mechanism most consistent with Seyfried's own 2003 finding that restriction rather than ketosis did the work.

5c. Two 2026 reviews, opposite conclusions, same literature

Neurol Sci 2026 (Firdous)Nutrients 2026 (Persiani)
Comparatorhistorical controlsrandomised controls
Survivalmedian OS 29.4 vs 14.6 months, 66.7% 3-yearno significant OS/PFS difference
Verdictpotential to prolong survivalsurvival benefit unproven
TierT3T2

Same year, same disease, same underlying studies. The entire difference is the comparator.

Historical-control comparison inflates here for a specific reason: the cohorts are defined by adherence. Patients who sustain strict ketosis for months are younger, better performance status, better resourced, and more likely to have favourable tumour biology. You measure who can do the diet as much as what the diet does. When ERGO2 removed that by randomising, the difference was 20% vs 16%.

This pair is the most useful thing in the topic, more than either conclusion alone.

A third detail from the Persiani review: the GKI was rarely reported and its target values seldom reached outside fasting periods. The metric proposed in Meidenbauer 2015 as the way to monitor therapy is largely absent from the trials that would validate it.

6. What the topic looks like by tier

TierCountWhich
T10nothing in this topic is established
T26ERGO2 (negative), Persiani 2026 (negative on RCTs), Zhang 2025 (positive on symptoms), Sauer 1983 (ketone use), Seyfried 2003 mouse, Kiebish 2008 cardiolipin
T34the two reports of the one RCT, Poff 2015 mouse, Firdous 2026 (historical controls)
T46Seyfried 2010, 2015 GKI, 2017 press-pulse, 2019 standard-of-care, 2021 MMT vs SMT, Israël 2023 keto-paradox

Still no T1, and the framework papers still equal the strongest evidence tier in number. In mitochondria-psychobiology.md the framework at least sat on top of T1 human measurement. Here it does not.

What did change with the 2025-2026 additions: the topic now contains positive evidence (Zhang 2025 on symptoms and body composition) and direct counter-evidence to the mechanism (Sauer 1983, Israël 2023). It is no longer a one-sided file.

7. Reading the asymmetry fairly

Two things are true at once and both should be kept.

The critique of the incumbent has force. Glioblastoma survival has barely moved in decades, and Seyfried 2019 is right that dexamethasone raises blood glucose. A valid criticism of standard care is not, however, evidence for the alternative.

The proposal has not been tested as specified. Press-pulse (2017) is a multi-component protocol that has never been trialled as written. The simultaneous glucose-and-glutamine restriction of the 2021 paper has never been randomised in humans. The Glucose Ketone Index (2015) was validated retrospectively against data the authors selected, with no prospective threshold and no independent evaluation, and ERGO2 suggests the glucose half carries whatever signal exists.

The venue pattern is also informative: the theory papers appear in Nutrition & Metabolism, Metabolites and Neurochemical Research, not in cancer biology journals where a claim about the origin of cancer would face the relevant referees.

8. Practical bottom line

Three separate claims, three different answers. Merging them is the main way this literature gets misread, in both directions.

Supported. A ketogenic diet is safe and feasible alongside chemotherapy and radiotherapy: two independent randomised trials agree. And it measurably helps patients: the preregistered Front Nutr 2025 meta-analysis found reduced fatigue, insomnia, insulin, glucose, fat mass and visceral fat, with improved lipids, TSH, emotional and social function. That is a real benefit on outcomes patients care about.

Not supported. That metabolic therapy treats, manages or reverses cancer. No randomised trial has shown a survival benefit, and the trial designed to test it found none.

"It helps patients" and "it treats the cancer" are different claims. The first has meta-analytic support. The second does not. An earlier version of this file collapsed them and read as though ketogenic diets do nothing in cancer, which is not what the literature says. See ketogenic-diet-by-indication.md for the same separation applied across epilepsy, PCOS and cancer.

One caution to carry: unintentional weight loss and cachexia independently predict mortality in cancer, so reduced fat mass is not unambiguously good here.

This matters because the framework is widely used to justify declining or delaying standard oncology. Nothing in the 230-paper bibliography supports that, and the founding mouse experiment argues against the mechanism usually cited for it.

Historical note: the 1951 CIA document

Occasionally circulated as evidence for a suppressed cancer cure. Worth recording accurately, because what it contains is more interesting than the claim made from it.

"Biochemical Resemblance Between Endoparasites and Malignant Tumors", CIA-RDP80-00809A000600380033-3, distributed 26 February 1951, CONFIDENTIAL, 2 pages, released 14 September 2011. Retrievable from the CIA FOIA reading room (cia.gov blocks direct fetches; the Wayback Machine holds a copy).

It is a translation summary of a Soviet review article by V. V. Alpatov, Priroda Vol XXXIX No 10, pp 22-27, Leningrad, October 1950. Stamped on its face: "THIS IS UNEVALUATED INFORMATION."

Alpatov's argument: intestinal parasitic worms and malignant tumours share pronounced anaerobic metabolism and glycogen accumulation, and both belong to what he calls the "amphibiotic euryoxybiotical-aerofermentor type" - fermenting under aerobic conditions while remaining adapted to anaerobic ones. He adds that some compounds active against Bilharzia were also active against tumours, and that tumour tissue and parasites share an inverted response to optical enantiomers of atebrin.

That central observation is the Warburg effect, described in 1950 from a parasitology direction. A genuine and non-obvious convergence with this topic, arrived at independently.

What it is not: CIA research, a discovery, a suppressed finding, or a cure claim. It is a two-page open-source translation, explicitly unevaluated, publicly available since 2011. The viral framing ("CIA files confirm anti-parasitic drugs cure cancer, buried by Big Pharma") is false and has been fact-checked as such.

Where the thread is genuinely live: repurposing antiparasitics as anticancer agents is a real research area. PubMed currently holds ~270 papers on mebendazole and cancer and ~85 on fenbendazole, but only ~5 and ~9 clinical-trial papers for mebendazole and ivermectin respectively, with no established efficacy. Structurally the same shape as the rest of this topic: substantial preclinical volume, loud online claims, thin human evidence.

Filed as a reference, not as evidence. It is not in index.csv.

Gaps in this topic as filed

  • No newly-diagnosed-glioblastoma trial. ERGO2 tested recurrent, heavily pretreated disease, the hardest setting. The fair test has not been run.
  • No trial of press-pulse or of combined glucose-glutamine targeting as actually specified.
  • No mainstream cancer-biology rebuttal filed. ERGO2 and the two ketone-use papers supply empirical counterweight, but not a theoretical one; the somatic mutation theory is still represented here only through Seyfried's characterisation of it.
  • Nothing on glutamine targeting from outside this group, though it is an active mainstream area and is the part of the theory most likely to survive.
  • No case-report appraisal. Seven exist in the bibliography and none are written up, because uncontrolled single cases cannot establish efficacy. If they are ever filed it should be as a group, with that stated.
Endocrine disruptors - topic synthesis1 papers

Built 24 August 2026 from the single paper filed under this topic, seeded by the Patrick podcast session (the "stop touching receipts" segment). Opened as a placeholder topic: the field is large, the filed evidence is one cohort.

General literature only, not linked to the personal record.

1. What the one filed paper actually shows

Symeonides 2024 (Barwon Infant Study, n=1,074 mother-child pairs): higher prenatal BPA exposure was associated with autism spectrum disorder specifically in boys with low aromatase-pathway activity - a genetically defined subgroup - with mechanistic support for brain aromatase disruption.

The precision is the point. The finding lives in a conditioned subgroup of one cohort. Podcast and media renditions ("BPA causes autism", "6x the risk") drop the subgroup, which is the difference between a credible preliminary finding and a scare headline. During verification, the companion claim from the source episode ("autistic children are 30x less likely to excrete BPA") was found to be contradicted by the underlying excretion paper.

2. What no filed paper supports

Receipt-handling avoidance, plastic-container rules, detox protocols: no filed evidence. Thermal-paper BPA exposure is real as a chemistry fact, but nothing filed connects handling receipts to any health outcome. These may be reasonable precautions on a cost basis (they cost nothing); they are not evidence-based prescriptions, and the protocol page therefore carries none.

Gaps in this topic as filed

  • Everything. Phthalates, PFAS, replacement bisphenols (BPS/BPF), exposure reduction trials, the regulatory toxicology literature - none filed. This topic exists so the one vetted datapoint has a home and the field's next papers have somewhere to land.
Exercise and mitochondria - topic synthesis6 papers

Built 24 August 2026; extended the same day with three papers from the Galpin and Patrick podcast sessions (grip strength, energy compensation, intensity exchange). This topic exists because it holds the only T1 intervention evidence in the library: something you can do that measurably changes mitochondria in humans, with a dose relationship.

Closes the gap flagged in mitochondria-psychobiology.md, which noted that no exercise paper had been filed despite one existing in Picard's bibliography.

1. The finding

Exercise training increases skeletal muscle mitochondrial content in humans, and training load (volume x intensity) predicts the size of the change (Mølmen 2025, systematic review with meta-regression). VO2max moves with it.

The molecular mechanism corroborates it: PGC-1alpha, the master regulator of mitochondrial biogenesis, rises after endurance exercise with a large pooled effect (Hedge's g = 1.17; Abrego-Guandique 2025).

This is a different class of claim from everything else filed under mitochondria. mitochondria-psychobiology.md is observational and theoretical. This is an intervention with a measured structural outcome.

2. The three findings that matter practically

Gains are largest in the least fit. Mølmen 2025: "the magnitude of change in mitochondrial content, capillarization, and VO2max is largely determined by the initial fitness level, with greater changes observed in individuals with lower initial fitness."

This inverts the usual assumption. The worse your starting point, the more you get back per unit of work. It is the single most encouraging sentence in the library.

Adaptation is preserved across age, sex and disease. Mølmen 2025 again: "the ability to adapt to exercise training is maintained throughout life, irrespective of sex and presence of disease." That removes the three most common reasons people assume training will not help them.

Modality does not decide it. Interval and continuous training produced statistically indistinguishable effects on PGC-1alpha (g = 1.29 vs 1.01, p > 0.05). Sprint interval training gave faster initial gains; high-intensity training showed slower but steady improvement over more weeks. Since load predicts outcome and modality does not, the choice can be made on preference and adherence, which is what actually determines accumulated load.

2b. Three practical additions from the 2026 sessions

  • Strength predicts survival. Each 5 kg lower grip strength carries HR 1.16 for all-cause mortality across 139,691 people in 17 countries, and grip out-predicts systolic blood pressure (Leong 2015, T1). The marker trap applies: grip proxies whole-body capacity; training the grip itself optimises the gauge, the same logic as GDF15.
  • Exercise calories are not additive. Only ~72% of activity energy adds to total daily expenditure on average; ~28% is compensated away, more at higher adiposity (Careau 2021, T2). This is why training underperforms for weight loss while remaining fully effective for the adaptations in section 1, which do not depend on net calorie arithmetic.
  • Intensity buys back time. In UK Biobank accelerometry (n=73,485), one vigorous minute associates with outcomes like ~4 moderate minutes for mortality, ~8 for cardiovascular disease (Biswas 2025, T2). Observational, but a useful exchange rate under the load principle: load = volume x intensity, and either factor can carry it.

3. What is not settled

Bishop, Lee and Picard (Annu Rev Physiol 2025) take the "exercise as mitochondrial medicine" phrase literally and ask what the prescription should be: type, dose, frequency, duration. Their honest conclusion is that prescription variables matter and the evidence is not yet sufficient to specify an optimum.

So: that exercise works is T1. How much of what kind is open, and the best available quantitative handle is Mølmen's "load predicts change".

Filed as T4, and worth noting it is the most useful T4 paper in the library because it asks a dose question rather than defending a position.

4. Where this connects

  • Mitochondria. Everything in mitochondria-psychobiology.md describes mitochondrial variation and its correlates. This topic is the only place with a lever. Picard's own energy resistance framing names physical activity as a primary way to reduce energy resistance; this topic is the evidence under that claim, and it stands on its own without the framework.
  • Diabetes. See ketogenic-diet-by-indication.md section 3a. Lifestyle syntheses in T2D consistently find diet and physical activity together drive glycaemic and weight outcomes.
  • Circadian. Untested overlap. Nothing filed connects exercise timing to the light-entrainment literature in light-and-circadian.md.

Gaps in this topic as filed

  • No resistance training paper. Everything filed is endurance or interval. Resistance training has its own mitochondrial literature and is absent.
  • No clinical outcome from a training intervention. Mitochondrial content and PGC-1alpha are structural and molecular. Leong 2015 now links the capacity marker to mortality observationally, but nothing filed shows a training-induced change moving a disease or mortality outcome.
  • No dose optimum, as Bishop 2025 states. "Load matters" is the current ceiling.
  • No detraining or minimum-effective-dose data. How fast gains are lost, and the least that maintains them, are unaddressed.
  • Nothing on exercise in cancer, despite it being one of the better-evidenced supportive interventions in oncology, and despite cancer-metabolic-theory.md being heavily weighted toward diet.
Glucose regulation: hacks and development - topic synthesis5 papers

Built 24 August 2026 from the 5 papers filed under this topic, seeded by the Inchauspe podcast session ("Glucose Goddess"). The session itself carried a structural commercial conflict (books, method, a supplement); what survives verification is filed here at its true size.

General literature only, not linked to the personal record.

1. Early-life glucose environment: the real developmental finding

  • The natural experiment. People whose first ~1000 days fell under UK sugar rationing had ~35% lower adult type 2 diabetes and ~20% lower hypertension; about a third of the protection traces to the in-utero window, most to infancy (Gracner 2024, Science). Policy set the exposure, which is causal leverage nutrition research almost never gets.
  • The gradient. Maternal glycemia associates continuously with perinatal outcomes across the entire sub-diabetic range - no threshold (HAPO 2008, 25,505 pregnancies). Risk is a smooth slope, not a cliff behind a "spike".
  • The association. Maternal diabetes: RR 1.28 for any offspring neurodevelopmental disorder across >56 million pairs, with the authors stating causality is not established (Ye 2025). Podcast framings ("rewriting your baby's DNA") exceed the papers' own.

2. The glucose hacks, at their true size

  • Food order (vegetables and protein before carbohydrate): a ~29-37% acute glucose reduction - measured in 11 metformin-treated diabetics over one meal (Shukla 2015). That is the entire experimental base of a global method. In healthy people the effect exists smaller in small studies; no outcome trial exists anywhere.
  • Vinegar: real acute attenuation of postprandial glucose and insulin across 11 small trials, many in metabolically impaired populations (Shishehbor 2017).

Both hacks share an unstated premise: that blunting healthy-range post-meal excursions improves health. No filed evidence tests that premise. In diagnosed dysglycemia the logic is sound; in healthy people it is a hypothesis wearing a certainty costume. Note the convergence with the library's diet pattern (../synthesis/what-the-evidence-supports.md): where glucose control matters, the operative variables keep being weight, intake and fitness, not tricks at the meal margin.

Gaps in this topic as filed

  • No trial of any glucose hack on an outcome - everything acute, everything surrogate.
  • No CGM-in-healthy-people evidence: whether healthy-range glucose variability matters at all is unfiled and largely unknown.
  • No glycemic-index/load synthesis, the older literature the hack wave quietly replaced.
  • Nothing on continuous glucose monitor accuracy or behavioural effects, despite CGMs being the method's enabling gadget.
Ketogenic diet: what it does, by indication9 papers

Built 24 August 2026. The premise of this file is that "does keto work" is not one question. The evidence differs by an order of magnitude between indications, and collapsing them is how both the promoters and the sceptics go wrong.

Papers filed here plus the cancer entries in cancer-metabolic-theory.md.

The short version

IndicationTier of the claimWhat is supported
Drug-resistant epilepsy (children)T1Large randomised effect. Standard care.
PCOST1 by convergenceWeight, insulin resistance, androgens. Four independent meta-analyses agree.
Type 2 diabetes: short termT1HbA1c -0.29%, largest at 3 months.
Type 2 diabetes: beyond 12 monthsT2, nullGlycaemic and weight advantage gone. Lipid benefit persists.
Cancer: symptoms, body compositionT2Fatigue, insomnia, insulin, fat mass, emotional and social function.
Cancer: survivalT3, contestedNothing shown in randomised trials.

Note the tier here is on the claim, aggregated across papers. Individual papers are tiered separately in ../index.csv, which is why a T1 claim can rest on two T2 meta-analyses that agree.

1. Epilepsy: this is the real one

JAMA Pediatr 2023 network meta-analysis, versus care as usual, for 50% or greater seizure reduction:

  • Modified Atkins diet OR 11.3 (5.1-25.1)
  • Ketogenic diet OR 8.6 (3.7-20.0)

For 90% or greater reduction, KD OR 6.5 (2.3-18.0).

This is a large effect from randomised trials, and it has been standard care in drug-resistant childhood epilepsy for a century. Any account of ketogenic diets that omits it is incomplete.

Two caveats that belong with it, not as footnotes:

  • Discontinuation from adverse events was far higher: KD OR 8.6, MAD OR 6.5. Cochrane records specific adverse events reaching 17.5% to 20% of participants in the adult sub-studies (constipation, diarrhoea, change in seizure pattern), not a review-wide rate. The diet that performed best is the less strict one, and the authors say MAD is probably the sounder option. Tolerability is part of efficacy.
  • Cochrane grades the same underlying trials "low to very low certainty", because they are small and carry risk of bias, and says plainly that "the true effects of the diets could be substantially different to that reported". Adult evidence remains uncertain.

An odds ratio of 8.6 and a certainty rating of "low" describing the same trials is not a contradiction. Effect size and certainty are separate axes. This pair is the clearest illustration of that in the library.

2. PCOS: the only place four independent teams agree

Four separate meta-analyses, 2025-2026, different journals, different statistical approaches, same direction:

SynthesisPMID
Br J Nutr 2026 (filed)41249157
Gynecol Obstet Invest 2025 (filed)39978319
Reprod Biol Endocrinol 2025 (not filed)40394635
Clin Nutr 2026 (not filed)41483483

Consistent effects: weight down ~9.6 kg, BMI down ~3.5, fat mass down ~7.4 kg, waist down ~7.8 cm, glucose down, insulin and HOMA-IR down, total and free testosterone down, SHBG up, LH down, LH/FSH ratio down.

Convergence across independent teams is the strongest pattern available in this library, and PCOS is currently the only topic where it occurs.

Two unresolved points, both flagged by the reviews themselves. Heterogeneity is high (I2 up to 90% for insulin resistance). And every population is overweight or obese, so nothing here separates ketosis from caloric deficit and weight loss. Estrogens, progesterone, DHEAS and pregnancy outcomes were too scarce to pool, so the reproductive endpoints that matter most to patients remain open.

3a. Type 2 diabetes: real, modest, and it fades

The largest synthesis (Mongkolsucharitkul 2025: 27 RCTs, n = 2,870) finds low-carbohydrate diets do work, and specifies the shape:

  • HbA1c -0.29%, largest effect at 3 months
  • Fasting glucose -7.12 mg/dL
  • Weight loss greatest at 3 months, attenuating after
  • Dose-response at 3 months: lower actual carbohydrate intake, larger reductions

Then the long-term picture (Ichikawa 2024, RCTs beyond 12 months, 6 trials):

  • HbA1c: no significant difference (SMD -0.11, P = 0.32)
  • No difference in weight, blood pressure or LDL
  • HDL up, triglycerides down - the lipid effects persist

And the ketogenic diet specifically (Choy 2023, 11 RCTs): no glycaemic or weight advantage over control diets, with HDL up and triglycerides down at I2 = 0%, the most consistent finding in the whole diabetes set.

Against other diets (Yuan 2024 network meta-analysis), low-carbohydrate is not the best option for glycaemic control:

Glycaemic control (SUCRA)Anthropometrics (SUCRA)
Mediterranean 88.15%Low-carbohydrate 74.6%
Moderate-carbohydrate 83.3%Moderate-carbohydrate 68.7%
Low-carbohydrate 55.7%Vegetarian 57%

with the authors noting the anthropometric differences were "mostly small and often trivial".

The adherence sentence

The most useful line in the diabetes literature, from Mongkolsucharitkul 2025:

"No arm sustained carbohydrate intake < 10% of total energy; therefore, findings generalize to low-to-moderate carbohydrate rather than very-low-carbohydrate."

Across 27 randomised trials and 2,870 people, not one arm actually maintained ketogenic-level restriction. Much of what is published as ketogenic is not, measured by intake. Any claim about what "keto does" for diabetes is in practice a claim about moderate carbohydrate reduction.

Honest summary for diabetes

Carbohydrate reduction gives a real but modest, front-loaded glycaemic benefit that fades, a durable lipid benefit (HDL up, triglycerides down), and no advantage over a Mediterranean pattern for glucose. Going all the way to ketosis adds nothing measurable for glycaemia or weight, and almost nobody sustains it.

3. Cancer: two claims that must not be merged

Supported. Front Nutr 2025 meta-analysis (preregistered): ketogenic versus non-ketogenic diets significantly reduced fat mass, visceral fat, insulin, glucose, fatigue and insomnia, and improved lipids, TSH, emotional and social function. Two independent RCTs also agree the diet is safe and feasible alongside chemotherapy and radiotherapy.

Not supported. Survival. No randomised trial has shown a benefit. Details and the full argument are in cancer-metabolic-theory.md, including the two 2026 systematic reviews that reach opposite conclusions purely because one uses randomised comparators and the other uses historical controls.

"It helps patients" and "it treats the cancer" are different claims. The first has evidence. The second does not.

One caution to carry: in cancer, unintentional weight loss and cachexia independently predict mortality, so fat mass reduction is not unambiguously good in this population.

4. The thread that runs through all of it

The same signal keeps reappearing from unrelated directions:

  • Seyfried's own four-arm mouse experiment (2003): caloric restriction, not ketosis, produced the effect. An unrestricted ketogenic diet did nothing.
  • Type 2 diabetes: the ketogenic arm shows no glycaemic advantage over control (Choy 2023), while moderate carbohydrate reduction does work short term. Going further into ketosis adds nothing measurable.
  • A network meta-analysis in T2D (Nutrients 2023, PMID 37513574, not filed in the library) found HbA1c and fasting glucose reductions were "only significantly related to the mean weight change of the subjects".
  • ERGO2 (2020): ketosis was achieved in 17 of 20 and there was no survival benefit, but low day-6 glucose predicted longer PFS and OS within the diet arm.
  • Nutrients 2026: RCTs null on survival, but lower glucose associated with better outcomes; the GKI was rarely reported and its targets seldom reached.
  • PCOS reviews: effects inseparable from weight loss in overweight populations.

Across four independent literatures the operative variable looks like glucose and energy intake, not ketone elevation. Ketosis may be the most practical way to lower glucose and intake for some people, which is a real and useful thing, but that is a different mechanism from the one usually claimed.

This does not touch epilepsy, where the mechanism is neurological rather than metabolic-substrate and the evidence is separate.

Gaps in this topic as filed

  • No head-to-head against calorie-matched non-ketogenic diets, which is the only design that could separate ketosis from restriction. Its absence is why section 4 stays a hypothesis.
  • No long-term data anywhere. Every synthesis here is weeks to months.
  • No adult epilepsy evidence, which Cochrane explicitly flags as uncertain.
  • No diabetes remission data. The filed syntheses cover HbA1c and weight, not remission, which is the outcome patients actually want and where trials exist.
  • No harms synthesis. Adverse events appear inside each review; nothing here assembles lipid changes, adherence burden, or risks in specific populations.
Light, circadian rhythm and sleep - topic synthesis8 papers

Built 24 August 2026 from the first 10 papers filed in the library. General literature only. Nothing here is linked to the personal record yet; that linkage is the separate "factors" step described in research/README.md.

Papers behind this note: see ../index.csv, topics light-and-circadian, light-countermeasures, light-flicker-and-arousal.

1. The mechanism is settled

A distinct photopigment, separate from rods and cones, mediates circadian photoreception. Its action spectrum peaks at 446-477 nm (Brainard 2001, 72 subjects, 627 exposures, opsin template fit R2 = 0.91). This is now understood as melanopsin in intrinsically photosensitive retinal ganglion cells. Everything else in this folder rests on that finding.

2. The threshold is far lower than people assume

The single most consequential number here: ordinary room light under 200 lux, in the 8 h before bed, delayed melatonin onset in 99.0% of 116 people and shortened melatonin duration by about 90 minutes (Gooley 2011). Light during sleep hours suppressed melatonin by over 50% in 85% of trials.

Tahkamo 2019 pushes it lower still: 5-10 lux at night with the eyes closed still produces a circadian response.

So the exposure that matters is not the phone alone. It is the room.

3. "Blue light" is the wrong variable; melanopic irradiance is the right one

Schollhorn 2023 (72 subjects) is the paper that resolves this. By controlling melanopic irradiance independently of luminance and colour, it shows the melanopic quantity, not brightness and not perceived colour, governs sleep latency, melatonin suppression and melatonin phase, dose-dependently. And the tuning can be done without changing how the display looks.

Two corrections follow from Tahkamo 2019: the peak suppression wavelength is actually shorter than the usual 460 nm claim (424 nm, violet), and 631 nm red light and intermittent exposure also reset the clock. The blue framing is a useful approximation, not the mechanism.

Practical consequence: the metric to look for on hardware and lamps is melanopic EDI, not colour temperature, not lux, not a "night mode" label.

4. Timing dominates amount

Dautovich 2019 (45 studies): bright light above 1000 lux is associated with better sleep, and the direction of effect flips with timing. Brighter morning light shifts the sleep period earlier and improves self-reported sleep. Brighter evening light shifts it later and worsens it.

The shape of any recommendation is therefore more light early, less late, not "less light".

5. Screens: the effect is real, and it is invisible to the user

  • Chang 2015 (inpatient crossover, PNAS): a light-emitting eReader versus a printed book produced longer sleep latency, less evening sleepiness, suppressed melatonin, a delayed circadian phase, and reduced next-morning alertness. This is the only paper in the set that carries the chain all the way to next-day function.
  • Cajochen 2011: an LED-backlit screen suppressed melatonin and acutely improved sustained attention, working memory and declarative memory. Subjects rated the two screens as equal in quality and comfort, and if anything judged the non-LED screen brighter.

The tradeoff in Cajochen is the honest complication and should not be dropped: evening blue light buys alertness now and costs circadian timing later. Schollhorn 2023 confirms it in reverse, with the low-melanopic setting reducing evening alertness.

Since the effect is not perceptible, subjective comfort is not a usable guide. This has to be handled by measurement or by fixed rules, not by how it feels.

6. The one countermeasure with trial evidence

Blue-blocking (amber) glasses, Hester 2021: 29 publications, 16 RCTs, 453 patients total. Substantial evidence for reduced sleep onset latency in sleep disorders, jet lag and shift work. Preliminary but striking signal in acute mania (1 RCT + 1 case study). Depression evidence conflicting.

Set the expectation correctly: the supported outcome is falling asleep faster, not better sleep quality, not longer sleep, not mood.

7. Flicker is a separate axis

Kuller 1998 is the outlier in this set and is filed under a different topic on purpose. It concerns temporal modulation, not spectrum, acts on arousal and EEG alpha rather than on melatonin, and affected only the subgroup with high critical flicker fusion frequency. Its modern relevance is PWM dimming in LED lamps and device backlights, which reintroduced the deep modulation that electronic ballasts had eliminated. That relevance is an inference; no paper in this folder tests PWM directly.

8. How much to trust all of this

Tahkamo 2019 is the sober assessment: of 128 studies, only 15 met a minimum bar of n >= 20 plus a full light specification. 39 of 128 had 10 or fewer subjects. Almost all subjects were in their twenties or thirties; children and older adults are barely studied. Several papers here are male-only (Cajochen n=13, Schollhorn n=72).

Two further limits worth carrying forward:

  • Recovery is fast. Melatonin returns within about 15 min of the light stopping (Tahkamo 2019). The suppression is acute, not cumulative damage.
  • Almost every endpoint is a biomarker. Melatonin and circadian phase, not disease. Chang 2015 (next-morning alertness) and Hester 2021 (sleep latency) are the exceptions. Claims about blood pressure, glucose or long-term health are inferences the authors flag, not results they measured.

Candidate factors (draft, not yet applied)

Seed list for the future factor step. Each still needs a threshold, a way to measure it, and a decision on whether it is worth acting on.

Candidate factorAnchored inWhat would need measuring
Evening ambient room illuminance in the 3-4 h before bedGooley 2011 (<200 lux is already enough)lux at eye level, evening
Bedroom darkness during sleepGooley 2011, Tahkamo 2019 (5-10 lux, eyes closed)lux at the pillow, lights out
Melanopic EDI of displays and evening lampsSchollhorn 2023melanopic EDI, rarely published by vendors
Morning daylight exposureDautovich 2019lux and timing of first bright exposure
Screen use in the last hour before sleepChang 2015duration, device, distance
Blue-blocking glasses as a trial interventionHester 2021sleep onset latency before/after
Flicker/PWM of habitual light sources and screensKuller 1998 (indirect)modulation depth and frequency

Note that several of these interact: the Cajochen/Schollhorn alertness tradeoff means an evening intervention has a cost, and Dautovich means a morning intervention is the one with an upside on both axes.

Gaps in this topic as filed

  • No paper on daytime bright-light therapy as an intervention in its own right.
  • No paper on melatonin supplementation, which is the obvious adjacent question.
  • No paper on shift work or chronotype as such.
  • No field/real-world study; everything here is laboratory or review.
  • No paper on PWM/LED flicker specifically; Kuller 1998 predates the hardware.
  • No paper connecting light to mitochondrial function, despite that being the stated intent for this batch. See research/README.md.
Microbiome and nutrition - topic synthesis6 papers

Built 24 August 2026 from the 6 papers filed under this topic, seeded by the Spector podcast session. The commercial context matters here and is recorded per paper: two of the six are ZOE-affiliated (the guest's company, in which the podcast host disclosed being an investor).

General literature only, not linked to the personal record.

1. The one causal anchor: processing itself drives overeating

The inpatient crossover of Hall 2019 is the strongest result in this topic: with calories, energy density, macronutrients, sugar, sodium and fibre matched, the ultra-processed arm ate 508 kcal/day more and gained 0.9 kg in two weeks. One study, n=20 - but randomised, inpatient, and the only design that isolates processing from its usual confounders. Everything else in the UPF literature is epidemiology hanging off this data point.

It also connects directly to the protocol's energy principle: if processing drives passive overconsumption, then food form is an energy-intake lever on the same pathway as portion control.

2. Fermented foods: promising secondaries, null primary

Wastyk 2021 (n=36, 17 weeks): the fermented-food arm gained microbiota diversity and 19 of 93 inflammatory proteins fell; the fibre arm did not change; the primary cytokine outcome was null in both arms. This is the entire evidential basis of the fermented-foods wave, and it is a T3: secondary findings in 36 people. Interesting, coherent, unproven.

3. The ZOE pair: movement proven, benefit not

  • Asnicar 2026 (>34,000 participants): a validated species-level ranking of gut microbes associated with health markers - explicitly associational, by the authors' own statement.
  • Creedon 2026 (BIOME RCT, n=399): the sponsor's plant blend moved more species than either control and improved self-reported GI symptoms - but the health-ranked direction of change did not differ between groups, judged by the sponsor's own ranking instrument.

Read together honestly: a real randomised trial showed the product changes the microbiome more than comparators, and could not show the change is directionally healthier. The circularity (the outcome instrument and the product share a sponsor) is structural, not an accusation.

4. Gut-first Parkinson's is the solid brain-gut result

Konings 2023 (24,624 PD cases): gastroparesis, dysphagia, IBS and constipation precede Parkinson's specifically - not Alzheimer's, not stroke - with prospective confirmation, and with animal mechanism behind it (vagal alpha-synuclein spread, Kim 2019, not filed). T1 by specificity and corroboration. What it does not support: percentage claims like "90% had gut problems", or any preventive intervention - it is an association with elevated relative risk.

5. The oral-hygiene correction

Zhu 2025 (8 studies, 261,772 participants): toothbrushing is associated with slower cognitive decline and lower dementia risk; flossing, mouthwash, toothpicks and denture cleaning are not. Filed as the standing correction to the viral flossing-dementia claim. Floss for your gums; the dementia argument belongs to the toothbrush, observationally.

Gaps in this topic as filed

  • No probiotic or fibre synthesis - the two most common interventions have meta-analytic literatures not yet filed.
  • No microbiome-to-hard-outcome trial anywhere: everything runs through biomarkers, symptoms or associations.
  • No replication of Hall 2019, the load-bearing study of the topic.
  • The gut-brain claims beyond Parkinson's (depression, anxiety, dementia) remain unfiled and were the least-supported part of the source episode (17 of 36 checked claims had no findable study).
Mitochondria, stress and energetics - topic synthesis15 papers

Built 24 August 2026 from the 15 papers filed under this topic: 14 from Martin Picard's group written up in ../papers/, plus one external test (Guo 2026). Full 190-record bibliography and author disambiguation: ../authors/picard-martin.md.

General literature only, not linked to the personal record.

1. The central claim

Mitochondria are not batteries. They are signal transducers: they sense endogenous and environmental inputs, integrate them across a physical network, and emit signals that regulate physiology systemically (Picard and Shirihai, Cell Metab 2022). Everything else follows from this, because a battery cannot transduce a psychosocial state and a processor can.

2. The inversion that makes the framework interesting

The intuitive model of mitochondrial disease is ATP shortage. Sturm 2023 (690 patients, 17 cohorts) shows the opposite: OxPhos defects raise resting energy expenditure, and disrupting OxPhos in cells roughly doubles energy expenditure. Critically, this happens with near-normal coupling efficiency, which excludes uncoupling and makes it a real finding rather than an artefact.

The excess spending is what tracks with accelerated telomere erosion and epigenetic aging per cell division. The problem is not too little energy produced, it is too much energy spent. This is the strongest evidence in the folder.

3. Where the energy goes, and what the brain does about it

Shaulson 2024 resolves a genuine paradox: aging cells spend more energy while whole-body expenditure stays flat or falls. The brain-body energy conservation model proposes the brain reads peripheral hypermetabolism through cytokine signals and responds by suppressing low-priority processes.

The reframing is the substance: fatigue, physical inactivity, blunted senses, immune changes and endocrine "deficits" become budgeting decisions rather than failures. Note this is a model built from separate literatures, not demonstrated end to end.

4. GDF15 is the messenger, and it is the most testable part

GDF15 recurs everywhere: secreted under OxPhos stress (Sturm 2023), central to the energy resistance framing (Picard 2025), and now resolved into a specific transcriptional arm of the integrated stress response with a usable index (Smith 2026, validated across 44 human tissues, correlates with age).

This is the part of the framework most likely to survive, because it is a measurable molecule with a defined pathway rather than a concept. Note the group published a same-year caution, "Potential Risks of Blocking GDF15-Based Brain Energy Sensing" (J Am Geriatr Soc 2026, not filed in the library; listed in the author bibliography): if GDF15 is how the brain learns that energy is short, blocking it removes the signal rather than the problem.

The largest external test: strong marker, no causal support

Guo 2026 (UK Biobank, median 14 years follow-up, filed T2) is the biggest independent test of GDF15 to date, and it splits cleanly in two.

As a marker it performs remarkably. One baseline measurement predicted, per log2 unit: all-cause dementia HR 1.98, stroke 1.92, Alzheimer's 1.84, epilepsy 1.71, overall brain disorders 1.54, sleep disorders 1.40, depression 1.38, Parkinson's 1.37, anxiety 1.26. All P < 0.001, over a decade in advance.

As a cause it fails. Mendelian randomization did not support a direct causal effect. Lipid and inflammation markers partially mediate instead: HDL-C accounts for ~7.5% of the depression association and ~11.5% of sleep disorders, with neutrophil count larger across several outcomes.

That is exactly the distinction the framework needs and rarely gets. GDF15 looks like a readout of systemic strain, not the lever that produces it. It supports using GDF15 to detect something and argues against trying to lower it, which is the empirical form of the group's own published caution.

Read the null carefully: one-sample MR in a single volunteer cohort is not proof that no causal effect exists. "Not supported" is the correct reading, not "excluded".

5. Psychological state and mitochondria: what is actually shown

FindingStrength
Acute psychological stress raises cell-free mtDNA 2-3x, with no change in nuclear DNA; glucocorticoid signalling alone sufficient in cells (Trumpff 2019)Moderate. Small n, replicated within-subject across two sessions.
Well-being tracks higher brain OxPhos protein, negative mood lower; together 18-25% of complex I variance; psychosocial exposure measured years before death (Trumpff 2024)Moderate-high, but observational. Direction of causation genuinely open.
A functional leukocyte index (MHI) tracked positive mood on the preceding days, and was lower in high-stress caregivers (Picard 2018, n=91)Moderate. Suggestive timing, not an experiment.

The Trumpff 2024 cell-type result is the methodologically important one: associations were positive in glia and opposite in neurons, so they cancelled out and were invisible in bulk tissue. A null result in bulk brain tissue is therefore not a null result.

6. Hair greying - handle with care

Rosenberg 2021 solidly demonstrates two things: human hair greying is quantifiably reversible, and grey hairs upregulate mitochondrial and energy-metabolism proteins. Single-hair profiling as a physical timeline of recent life history is a genuinely novel method.

The stress association is case-series scale: a small number of hairs from a small number of people, stress self-reported and time-matched retrospectively. It is universally reported as "stress turns hair grey and reducing stress reverses it". The paper does not show that. Keep the method and the hypothesis separate.

7. How much to trust the framework as a whole

Six of the fifteen filed papers are theory, not evidence: Picard 2018 (framework), Picard 2021 (social mitochondria), Picard 2022 (signal transduction), Sercel 2024, Shaulson 2024, Picard 2025 (energy resistance). They are marked theory (not evidence) in ../index.csv.

This is not a criticism, it is how to read the bibliography. The frameworks are why the work is widely discussed; the measurements are what can be relied on.

Three specific cautions:

  • The energy resistance principle is not operationalised. A single quantity proposed to span diabetes, cancer metabolism, Alzheimer's and aging, with no way yet to measure it in a person. GDF15 is the nearest proxy.
  • Its practical advice (sleep, physical activity) is already well supported by evidence that owes nothing to this framework. Do not treat the framework as the justification for advice that stands on its own.
  • The author audits himself, in public. The 2018 systematic review states that all 23 controlled studies were male lab animals and that no experimental human evidence existed for the framework published beside it. That is the honest baseline, and much of the human work it demanded has since been done, largely by this group.

8. What is human, and what is not

PapersHuman?
Sturm 2023, Trumpff 2019, Trumpff 2024, Picard 2018 MHI, Rosenberg 2021, Mosharov 2025, Smith 2026Yes
Mosharov 2025 brain mapYes, but one donor hemisphere
Picard 2018 systematic review's evidence baseNo - all male lab animals

Gaps in this topic as filed

  • No intervention trial. Nothing here tests whether changing anything changes a mitochondrial outcome in a person. The entire folder is descriptive.
  • No exercise paper filed, despite "Exercise as Mitochondrial Medicine" (Annu Rev Physiol 2025) existing in the bibliography. That is the obvious next addition and the one with practical content.
  • No sleep paper filed, though the energy resistance principle names sleep as a primary lever. This is the natural bridge to light-and-circadian.md, and that bridge is currently asserted by neither folder.
  • Limited external corroboration. Guo 2026 is the first filed paper in this topic from outside the group, and it is on GDF15 only. The brain map, the cell-free mtDNA work and the hypermetabolism findings still rest entirely on their originators.
  • Nothing on mitochondrial genetics as such, which is the part that would connect to genetics/mito.FASTA and data/mtdna.json in the personal record.
  • No photobiomodulation / near-infrared work, the actual light-mitochondria literature, which is distinct from both this topic and the melanopsin pathway in light-and-circadian.md. A caution stands for whoever fills this gap: much of the low-level-laser trial base is manufacturer-run. One candidate was evaluated on 24 August 2026 and rejected: Jackson 2013 (PMID 23508376, green 532 nm laser for cellulite) reports spectacular results but was co-authored by the device manufacturer's president with conflicts declared as none, shows biologically implausible secondary outcomes (weight loss from 90 minutes of green light), and has no independent replication in over a decade; the 2024 systematic review of the field (PMID 38695965) rates the evidence quality subpar. It is also cosmetic-device work, not the red/near-infrared cytochrome-c-oxidase literature this gap actually refers to.
Sleep - topic synthesis11 papers

Built 24 August 2026 from the Galpin and Patrick podcast sessions; extended the same day with six papers from the St-Onge session (Huberman Lab). Now 11 papers. This opened the gap that light-and-circadian.md and the synthesis flagged as the library's largest: until these sessions, not one sleep paper was filed.

General literature only, not linked to the personal record.

1. The topic's T1: sleep loss raises intake, not expenditure

Across 17 controlled studies, partial sleep deprivation increased energy intake by a pooled +385 kcal/day with no change in energy expenditure (Al Khatib 2017). The sleep-weight link runs through appetite, not metabolic slowdown. The primary trials agree in detail: 5 inpatient nights of 4 h vs 9 h produced ~300 kcal/day more measured intake (St-Onge 2011).

2. The causal chain to fat is closed at both ends

  • Severe restriction: 14 days of ~4 h sleep raised CT-measured visceral fat 11%, persisting into recovery sleep (Covassin 2022, randomised crossover, n=12).
  • Mild restriction - the dose people actually live at (~1.5 h less): impaired insulin sensitivity within 6 weeks, independent of adiposity (Zuraikat 2024, women-only randomised crossover).

Together with Al Khatib, this is the most complete causal story in the library outside exercise: less sleep -> more intake -> more visceral fat, with a metabolic cost measurable at everyday doses.

3. The reverse arrow: diet feeds back on sleep

More fiber predicts more slow-wave sleep, more saturated fat less, visible on polysomnography after a single day (St-Onge 2016, n=26, T3). Meal timing associates with weight-loss success (late main-meal eaters lost less; Garaulet 2013, observational, T3). Both preliminary - the bidirectional loop is established in one direction and sketched in the other.

4. The scale of the undiagnosed problem

An estimated 936 million adults 30-69 have obstructive sleep apnea (Benjafield 2019); 82% of men and 93% of women with moderate-to-severe disease were undiagnosed (Young 1997). Both discountable in detail, jointly unignorable.

5. Corrections and cautions worth keeping

  • Sleep duration has not collapsed: no significant change in objectively recorded adult sleep over 50+ years (Youngstedt 2016).
  • Melatonin supplements are unreliable products: -83% to +478% of label, serotonin contamination in 8/31 (Erland 2017).
  • Duration is one of six dimensions - the AHA multidimensional framework (St-Onge 2025, T4) covers timing, regularity, satisfaction, efficiency and daytime function; nearly everything filed so far measures duration only.

Gaps in this topic as filed

  • Still no sleep-improvement intervention trial - CBT-I, sleep extension, timing interventions. Restriction harm is now proven at two doses; benefit from extending or improving sleep remains unfiled. The library's oldest gap is narrowed, not closed.
  • No treatment evidence for apnea (CPAP outcomes), despite two epidemiology papers establishing the problem's size.
  • Five of six AHA dimensions unmeasured in anything filed - regularity, timing, satisfaction, efficiency, daytime function.
  • The wearable-accuracy literature (a Galpin theme) is unfiled.
Thyroid hormone replacement: T4 monotherapy vs T4+T3 combination - topic synthesis16 papers

Built 24 August 2026 from the 16 papers filed under this topic. The batch was prompted by social-media claims of visible transformation on T4+T3 therapy; the library's job here is to hold those claims against the trial record.

General literature only, not linked to the personal record.

1. The group-level answer is settled, and it is a null

Three independent syntheses across two decades reach the same conclusion: LT4+LT3 combination therapy (and desiccated thyroid extract) shows no consistent superiority over LT4 monotherapy on quality of life, symptoms, mood, cognition, weight or lipids in blinded randomised trials (Grozinsky-Glasberg 2006, 11 RCTs, n=1,216; Millan-Alanis 2021, 18 studies; Nassar 2024, 16 RCTs). The newest double-blind RCT, in totally thyroidectomised patients where any T3 effect should be maximal, is also null (LEVOLIO 2024, n=141).

Replication across independent teams and eras is what makes this the topic's T1 claim.

2. The complaint underneath the claims is also real

A measurable minority of LT4-treated patients with normal TSH feels worse than matched controls: GHQ caseness 34.4% vs 25.6% in a 1,148-person community study (Saravanan 2002), corroborated objectively in NHANES, where LT4 users had lower T3:T4 ratios and differed on 12 of 52 objective measures despite normal TSH (Peterson 2016).

Both halves must be carried together: the dissatisfaction is validated; the proposed remedy is not. The mechanistic premise (monotherapy is not biochemically identical to native euthyroidism) is true and still does not translate into outcome differences when tested blind.

3. Preference: the one signal that keeps returning

In blinded crossover trials many patients prefer T3-containing therapy. How many is unresolved at the level of the syntheses themselves:

  • Akirov 2019 (7 RCTs, n=348): pooled preference 46.2% (40.2-52.4), judged not distinguishable from chance.
  • de Lima Beltrao 2025 (11 RCTs, n=1,135): 52% vs 24% prefer combination or DTE over LT4 (RR 2.20, 1.38-3.52).

Different inclusion and methods produce opposite headlines from overlapping trial bases. The disagreement, not either number, is the current finding. Preference is also the outcome most vulnerable to partial unblinding (weight and heart-rate cues on DTE; Hoang 2013, Shakir 2021).

4. The subgroup hypotheses, in tier order

  • The most symptomatic minority. In the three-arm blinded crossover (Shakir 2021, n=75), the whole group showed no differences, but the most symptomatic third preferred and improved on T3-containing therapy. Post-hoc, ~25 per tertile: hypothesis, not finding - and exactly the enrichment the 2021 consensus says the decisive trial must apply prospectively.
  • DIO2 Thr92Ala genotype. One positive post-hoc subgroup in WATTS (Panicker 2009: 2.3 GHQ points, P=0.03, no serum correlate) against a 12,625-person population null (Wouters 2017). Seventeen years without a prospective genotype-stratified confirmation. T3-preliminary, and the basis of every "test your DIO2 gene" pitch.
  • Long-term outcomes. A 1.26-million-patient retrospective cohort associates T3-containing therapy with lower dementia and mortality risk (Beltrao 2026). Channeling bias unaddressed; earns a trial, not a prescription.

5. Safety is no longer the objection

Regulated-dose liothyronine is not associated with excess mortality or adverse events in the largest safety synthesis (Bahl 2025: RCT n=2,128, cohort n=630,254). DTE nudges heart rate up (Hoang 2013, Shakir 2021, Riis 2024 - the latter not filed). The question is therefore efficacy, where the blinded evidence is null, not danger.

6. The referee's position

The joint ATA/BTA/ETA consensus (Jonklaas 2021, filed T4) does not endorse combination therapy as superior. It specifies the trial that would settle the question: enrol patients dissatisfied despite adequate LT4, twice-daily or slow-release LT3, patient-reported primary outcomes, genotype substudies. As of the papers filed here, that trial has not been run.

7. What the transformation claims would need

No trial in this topic measured appearance, and nothing near a visible transformation appears in any blinded outcome. The largest objective physical difference on record is about 1.4 kg of weight on DTE (Hoang 2013). The only dataset resembling testimonial claims is a self-selected online survey (Peterson 2018, n=12,146, satisfaction DTE > LT4+LT3 > LT4), which is a measure of who answers surveys, not of what the therapies do. Before/after photos sit entirely outside the evidence.

Gaps in this topic as filed

  • The decisive trial does not exist: symptom-enriched, slow-release or twice-daily LT3, patient-reported primary outcome, genotype substudy - the design the 2021 consensus specifies.
  • No long-term blinded data. Trials run weeks to months; the observational dementia/mortality signal (Beltrao 2026) has no randomised counterpart.
  • Slow-release T3 formulations are barely tested (one pharmacokinetic RCT noted in the search, not filed).
  • Riis 2024 (DTE systematic review), Hidalgo 2024 (interventions for persistent symptoms) and the 2026 network meta-analysis of adjunct strategies were identified in the search but not filed; candidates for a second pass.
  • Nothing on subclinical hypothyroidism or dose titration, adjacent questions with their own literatures.