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.
But again, like, you know, in here I am a science guy and I could appreciate the benefits of a bro-split. Especially 'cause again, like to what end? Who's goal are we trying to achieve here? Those are ours. Like if I'm applying my standards and my goals or even like athletic ideals, but they just want to get in shape, then it's perfectly fine to do a bro split in that instance, if you're sticking to it again and you're seeing the results that you want to see from it.
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.