Peter Attia· MD
when we did that we did not see any mediation meaning that none of the change in strength could be explained by that change in muscle size in either one of the groups
Loading…
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 we did that we did not see any mediation meaning that none of the change in strength could be explained by that change in muscle size in either one of the groups
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.
when we did that we did not see any mediation meaning that none of the change in string could be explained by that change in muscle size in either one of the groups
essentially what mediation is doing is saying okay we have this group here how much strength did they gain so they got stronger so that's a direct relationship so when this group exercises they got stronger now mediation says okay let's add in a variable here to see if we can remove this relationship either partially or completely so if we add in muscle growth to the model and then this group no longer correlates with strength then we'll know that that relationship is completely driven by this this other variable