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 short answer is we don't know. We don't really know and in the aging field this is called antagonistic pleotrophy. So something that is good when you're young can be bad when you're old, right? It it relates to this to this concept.
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.
Put simply, it means biological traits that work for the young often come back to bite them when they are old.
Congrats @StevenAustad for winning the Williams Prize for his work on antagonistic pleiotropy, a powerful bio concept: Something that’s good for an organism when it’s young can come back to hurt it when it’s old.