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.
The other three things that you get spit out are bone mineral density, visceral fat, and then the metrics that allow you to compute, like to basically compute what's called appendicular lean mass index and fat-free mass index. And so those three metrics are significantly more important than body fat.
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.
I think Texas scans are super valuable and I think people should look at their v80 their visceral adipose tissue
it's a scan of your body that is T traditionally been used to assess bone mineral density and bone health but the beauty of it is it also tells us how much lean muscle mass you have how much visceral fat you have how much sub subcutaneous fat you have and your bone mineral density
but I think there's three others that are more important and the first is actually bmd bone mineral density and um that is both reported in an absolute amount in grams per centimeter squared and it's also reported in a z-score