Direct evidence is thin. The claim is plausible and aligns with adjacent findings, but there isn't yet a body of high-quality work that would let us call it well-supported on its own terms.
the question is if a person goes from call it I don't know 50 met hours per week of exercise to 100 met hours per week of exercise excise and let's assume that doing that increases their calcification a is that with or without more risk let's assume it is with more risk but is that risk more or less than the benefit that they gain going from the 25 or 50 to the 100 met hours a week of exercise
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.