The evidence is convergent. Multiple independent sources reach the same conclusion, the underlying mechanism is well-characterized, and even the field's most cautious voices treat it as worth doing.
I think he's probably in his late 50s, early 60s. And uh what he was revealing uh was you know unique among the questions I typically get around testosterone. But I think it points to the fact that who knows maybe he has a higher than normal receptor density that can make use of of those levels of testosterone. I mean there's so many ways in which hormone levels can play out in one direction or another or something in between.
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.
and then I don't know sort of endocrine revolution of 70s 80s or so turns out how loud someone is yelling at you counts what the hormone levels are how sensitively you can hear them the levels of your receptors and target cells turn out to be essential as well and there's all sorts of endocrine domains where in fact screwie receptor levels are much more consequential and impactful than our screwie levels of the hormone itself and individual differences in levels of receptors what version you have how well it works how avidly it holds on to the hormone what it is then coupled with afterward downstream inside the cell that whole world turns out to be as central to understanding individual differences as are the levels of hormones themselves and as sensitive to all those things ranging from genes to prenatal environment to early develop and to psychological factors and so on