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.
What's that about is far more human subtlety. The guy who won the race has a decline in testosterone because he came in three minutes later than he really, really was expecting. And everybody now is going to be writing it up about how he's over the hill. And the guy who came in 73rd is having a boost of testosterone because he was assuming he'd be dead from a heart attack by the third mile, [Andrew laughs] and instead he managed to finish.
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.
In in competitions, the winners afterwards are more likely to have higher testosterone and the losers will have lower.