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.
is the patient losing strength because they are no longer active or are they no longer active because they have lost strength my view is it's both I think these things feed off each other um which one's the first insult I suspect it's probably the loss of strength that contributes to the loss of activity but then I think those feedback and accelerates this thing you really get into a death spiral
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.
as we lose muscle mass we become less active and as we become less active we lose muscle mass
again there is an unmistakable relationship here between physical activity and muscle mass and age um and something very noticeable happens at the age of 75 um of course data like these can Cann not give us causality in other words can't tell us which one's causing the other but I think anybody who's observed people at this age would come to the conclusion that these are that there is bidirectional causality here in other words as we lose muscle mass we become less active and as we become less active we lose muscle mass