The evidence is convergent. Multiple independent sources reach the same conclusion, the underlying mechanism is well-characterized, and even the field's most cautious voices treat it as worth doing.
this idea of sarcopenia which for The Listener or the viewer the definition of sarcopenia by the way became a disease it wasn't even classified as a disease till 2016 wow yes wow which is very recent for a disease it is a decrease in muscle mass and function
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.
sarcopenia is the loss of skeletal muscle mass and function it's believed to be about 1% per decade after 50 years I believe uh that it is higher and I believe that it starts much earlier I believe it starts in your 30s if you are inactive
the icd10 code for sarcopenia to recognize it as a disease was 200 16
it's believed to be about 1% per decade after 50 years I believe uh that it is higher and I believe that it starts much earlier I believe it starts in your 30s if you are inactive
the international classification for disease which if you're a physician listening to this you know that this is the ICB 10 code sarcopenia is the loss of skeletal muscle mass in function
the icd10 code for sarcopenia to recognize it as a disease was 2016