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 other thing is, their development always looks exceedingly balanced. You don't really tend to see climbers that are overdeveloped in the torso and underdeveloped in the arms, or overdeveloped in the arms despite all the climbing and underdeveloped relatively in the other limb movement.
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 look at the physiques, for example, on rock climbers, I mean, they have-- to me, of course they have-- usually the experienced climbers have pretty remarkable body compositions. They tend to be lean, and lithe, and flexible, all those things that many people aspire to.
That's one thing that I've really noticed about climbers. Like you see guys that are in the gym. I've spent a fair amount of time in gyms and there's this phenotype where they've got these big wide shoulders, wide back, and the whole thing. And then they got like this little head and a little neck and you go well their upper spine they're not training their neck and it it looks crazy.