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.
But the expectation, as I understand it, would be that the person that sprints or that does heavy squats, explosive work, would then have more fast-twitch muscle fibers in their quad. And their non-exercising counterpart would have fewer. That would make sense.
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.
so any type of work if you do biopsy on somebody who is a couch potato you're going to find that person probably has a higher uh concentration of white fibers than you and I wild very counterintuitive very counterintuitive