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.
In the exerciser, it was about 95% slow-twitch. And so it's extremely clear-- again, I don't know if maybe their set point was a little bit higher towards that, and the non-exerciser devolved down to his place or the other one, but it doesn't matter. I mean, you're going from 40% slow-twitch in one case to 95% slow-twitch in another case.
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.