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.
the strength metrics also favored the non-ex exerciser yeah it's it was all favored to neutral yeah like it's like either some of the metrics were similar or not statistically different but like they hedge towards a non- exerciser so you could say at best they were neutral to favoring the non- exerciser is I think the most Fair way but there's not a metric there that favored the the exerciser on that side of the house
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.
if you looked at muscle quality so this is Echo intensity on an ultrasound this is vertical jump this is leg extension strength it was either identical or it favored the non-exercising twin