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.
so um like you had pointed out you know this study included adults that were up to age 79 so they're definitely older adults 65 and older right so older adults did massively benefit from engaging in vigorous intensity uh physical activity
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.
Going back to what Ben Lavine was talking about, I mean, at a certain age, past a certain age, if you don't engage in the vigorous exercise, you're just not going to adapt, especially with regard to the cardiac the cardio cardiac adaptations, the cardiovascular system. the heart just needs that extra stimulus and without it, the heart's just going to continue to stiffen fibrosis as you age.