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.
and so that is really the gold standard and that's how it was done for decades and that's how most you know 90 plus per of the research has been done with either the EKG or with chest stps because that's really been the gold standard of How It's measured
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.
you would put a plus or minus of one or two milliseconds on any reading that comes outly as long as it's a good chest strap now the cavat is good skin contact and those sorts of things