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 we took stool samples. We took blood. We did vertical jump tests. We did maximum strength tests. We did MRIs of muscle mass. We did VO2 max tests. We did efficiency stuff. We did genetic testing. We did an IQ test. We did psychological battery. We wanted to look at everything to figure out of these things, what differ between the twins? And if so, the second key question there is, by how much?
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.
Monozgous, identical twins mean they have the exact same DNA. So an egg was fertilized, split, and then two humans grew out of that with the exact same DNA. And so now we can start answering the question, well, yeah, OK. What about, maybe, these cross-country skiers? Maybe they were just genetic freaks. Maybe it didn't matter. It's like some people have-- well, genetics are always a component to it, but how much? Well, now we have a scenario lining up where it's like, wait a minute. You have monozygous twins. So we have a replica of a human being, exact same DNA. The only differences that we would see in their physiology now would be due to lifestyle circumstances.