Diet interventions can change insulin, expenditure and intake, but several predictions of the broad causal model fail in particular controlled settings. Adaptation, diet order, food properties and expenditure measurement remain material sources of disagreement.
This dated addendum adds selected evidence and tests that could resolve the remaining questions. It does not regrade the archived review.
Each question identifies a limit in the checked evidence. A missing search result alone does not establish a gap in the entire field.
Competing explanation: Carryover, gut adaptation, fibre or food mass may dominate short crossover contrasts.
Discriminating test: Longer randomized feeding with washout or parallel arms, prespecified adaptation windows and intake endpoints; match food properties.
Competing explanation: Doubly labelled water assumptions, energy imbalance and adherence may shift estimated effects.
Discriminating test: Concurrent chamber calorimetry, isotope methods and measured food intake; prespecify correction models, baseline and energy-balance checks.
Competing explanation: Insulin may respond to intake, while sensory, intestinal or reward mechanisms affect hunger.
Discriminating test: Safe controlled mechanistic studies and longitudinal mediation within diet randomization; control glucose, protein, fibre and energy density.
Competing explanation: Weight-loss maintenance, untreated obesity and acute healthy-adult responses may have different effect modifiers.
Discriminating test: Prespecified insulin-secretion and disease-stage strata in independently replicated longer trials; compare interactions rather than post hoc responder subsets.
Electronic publication dates are used where recorded, with issue years shown separately. This is a selected chronology, not a claim of scientific priority or independent replication for every entry.
High-glycemic-index meals increased subsequent voluntary intake in the tested setting.
What it cannot establish: Acute meal effects do not establish chronic obesity initiation.
Fat restriction produced more calculated body-fat loss than carbohydrate restriction at matched calories.
What it cannot establish: Six-day comparisons do not settle all longer adaptation predictions.
Expenditure increased modestly while body-fat loss did not accelerate.
What it cannot establish: Sequence, energy imbalance and measurement precision bound inference.
Weight loss did not significantly differ; baseline insulin secretion did not select the better diet.
What it cannot establish: Free-living diet advice does not isolate every proposed mediator.
Lower carbohydrate intake increased reported expenditure after weight loss.
What it cannot establish: Outpatient adherence and expenditure-estimation assumptions need scrutiny; correction notice retained.
The high-glycemic-load low-fat diet produced lower intake than the ketogenic comparator.
What it cannot establish: Food properties and short crossover periods limit attribution to a single pathway.
Diet order affected the macronutrient study but not the ultra-processing study.
What it cannot establish: Reuses original cohorts; this is a sensitivity analysis, not an independent replication.
Glucose/insulin responses differed, while hunger and individual intake relations gave little model support.
What it cannot establish: Acute healthy-adult responses do not test weeks-long adaptation in common obesity.
Case-specific Consensus records assisted gap discovery, chronology and targeted paper questions. Shared template wording about an amyloid-specific Deep follow-up is not evidence of a Deep run for this topic; the dated source records establish the actual use and access limits. Primary identifiers, selected abstract passages, correction notices and available primary-body passages were cross-checked. Generated absence cells, duplicate milestones and unsupported access claims were rejected.
The targeted Consensus answer reported abstract-only access. Primary abstract and metadata were checked; no independently readable body was verified in this update.
This focused addendum does not establish 50–70 complete primary Methods/Results examinations per review. Baseline reading receipts and scores retain their original scope.
Selected full-text checks: 0; abstract checks: 8; metadata-only anchors: 0. Complete-paper examinations credited in this update: 0.
New enrichment: HSEF v5.3 causal distinctions. Archived scorecard schema: 5.4; retained as recorded.
Consensus attributed some milestones to later commentary or review papers. The chronology uses primary identifiers and keeps secondary cohort analyses explicit.
PMID 10049982 · DOI 10.1542/peds.103.3.e26
Selected abstract passages checked. Primary record and selected abstract passages checked; no complete-paper appraisal credited.
PMID 26278052 · DOI 10.1016/j.cmet.2015.07.021
Selected abstract passages checked. Primary record and selected abstract passages checked; no complete-paper appraisal credited.
PMID 27385608 · DOI 10.3945/ajcn.116.133561
Selected abstract passages checked. Primary record and selected abstract passages checked; no complete-paper appraisal credited.
PMID 30429127 · DOI 10.1136/bmj.k4583
Selected abstract passages checked. Primary record and selected abstract passages checked; no complete-paper appraisal credited.
Linked notices: Correction 33144344
Correction 33144344 was read: the pre-randomization column in Table 3 reports standard errors rather than standard deviations. That distinction must be retained when interpreting uncertainty.
PMID 29466592 · DOI 10.1001/jama.2018.0245
Selected abstract passages checked. Primary record and selected abstract passages checked; no complete-paper appraisal credited.
Linked notices: Correction 29614160 · Correction 29710144
Linked notice presence was checked in the primary record; its scientific impact was not verified in this update.
PMID 33479499 · DOI 10.1038/s41591-020-01209-1
Selected abstract passages checked. Primary record and selected abstract passages checked; no complete-paper appraisal credited.
PMID 39163976 · DOI 10.1016/j.ajcnut.2024.08.013
Selected abstract passages checked. Primary record and selected abstract passages checked; no complete-paper appraisal credited.
PMID 40043690 · DOI 10.1016/j.cmet.2025.01.015
Selected abstract passages checked. Primary record and selected abstract passages checked; no complete-paper appraisal credited.
Linked notices: Correction 40306286
Linked notice presence was checked in the primary record; its scientific impact was not verified in this update.
Read the dated addendum · Video script and storyboard insert · References (RIS) · References (BibTeX)