Rhonda Patrick· PhD
It also shows a clear dose-response for vigorous activity that’s much weaker for moderate activity and barely detectable for light activity.
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.
It also shows a clear dose-response for vigorous activity that’s much weaker for moderate activity and barely detectable for light activity.
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 with moderate, too. So, up to about 50 minutes per day, you kind of saw this linear dose response, uh, this risk reduction up to about 50 minutes per day of moderate activity. And then after that, you didn't see more risk reduction basically from getting more moderate activity.
And I think that a lot of the data would show you need a lot more moderate intensity activity or the dose response of that is much higher than the 150 to 3 minutes, which actually had been increased a little bit. They recently added the 300 minutes. It used to be just 150, but I think yeah, based on what we've been talking about today, I mean, they certainly need an update