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.
So I would think the numbers are are pretty low. We spoke a little bit about this, but we have digital statistics that actually show people who have signed up to train with our programs, let's say, either be at home or at the gym, the percentage of people that make it through our programs is only 20%.
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.
It might be then Gabrielle your stat is 70% of 50 be the reciprocal of that 30% of 5015. It might be that our range is somewhere from 5 to 15% if I were going to sort of triangulate between these three data points.
And there's some really good data uh paper by Bill Kramer he just wrote and said about one in five women participate in resistance training. So about 19% and it's only one day a week.