Andrew Huberman· PhD
And at least, even if you're not powered for it, at least looking at that in exploratory analysis. Like as a grant reviewer, I'm charged with looking at, did they address sex as a biologically relevant variable anyway?
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.
And at least, even if you're not powered for it, at least looking at that in exploratory analysis. Like as a grant reviewer, I'm charged with looking at, did they address sex as a biologically relevant variable anyway?
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.
It's a recent switch, but there's a stipulation in every federally funded grant that both sexes, we don't refer to gender in scientific studies, unless it's a study of gender, per se. We refer to sex, meaning biological sex, so that there's a stipulation, that in order to receive and continue to receive funding, you have to do a studies on both males and females of that species, including humans.