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 really comes down to the fact that you can use what's called a paired t-test um and and the the the Simplicity of the statistic of the paired t-test is is part of its Elegance here and that it it uh it basically eliminates a lot of variants
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.
Because when you're doing a parallel group design, which is where um you just have one group on one diet, one group on the other diet, you are assuming that the randomization process randomly distributes the baseline characteristics that may be different between groups to where they're equally distributed amongst the groups. But you don't know that for sure. But when you cross over now, you're guaranteed, I don't want to say guaranteed, but you are very confident that inherent baseline characteristics are now no longer a confounding variable. And it's likely that the people's overall lifestyles are going to be similar throughout the course of the experiment. And so you can take out some of those lifestyle or you can not take them out, but there's less risk of bias from inherent lifestyle differences as well.