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.
the more often it is stretched and held for long periods of time in said stretch position the more you are damaging the electrical architecture of it and so that's why we see a significantly high incidence almost 10x out of the general population in highly highly highly trained athletes for dysrhythmia atrial fibrillation being a common example
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.
the data that i found most convincing were the electrophysiologic data so it was looking at athletes the incidence of atrial fibrillation in cyclists and runners who were
it's really these high volume athletes high volume high intensity athletes who continue to do it all right past you know like in the middle age and beyond are the ones i see these people all the time because i've written about this a lot i see patients all the time come in with afib