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 we found just the opposite that actually these participants with clinical depression who we had induced to ruminate got even stronger benefits walking in nature than our non-clinical sample >> on on working memory >> on working memory.
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 I think part of that might be that it's it's actually giving them some of the attentional resources necessary to deal with the rumination.