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.
when you look at the graphs that describe loss of muscle in the elderly um everybody's familiar with what these graphs look like which is they start out here and they drop down here and for those listening to me it's kind of like a a smooth curve that drops like a stone you know usually once people are in the eighth decade of life in their mid 70s
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.
It probably becomes relevant in the 70s. Uh, in the eighth decade of life, um, is where you really start to see the difference.
By the time many adults reach their 70s and 80s, they may have only 60–80% of the muscle mass they had at 30.