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 biggest reason that is is probably because the human body is attuned and evolved almost entirely in um hundreds of millions of years before we were even human of what is in the modern context called food insecurity and so in order to make a real good case for allocating that much to muscle growth you're going to have to have a real distinct signal to ask your body to put more and more into that process so it kind of autocaps itself
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.
you keep pushing on the same pedal over and over and the systems are greatly desensitized to giving you more muscle growth the biggest reason that is is probably because the human body is attuned and evolved almost entirely in um hundreds of millions of years before we were even human of what is in the modern context called food insecurity and so in order to make a real good case for allocating that much to muscle growth you're going to have to have a real distinct signal to ask your body to put more and more into that process so it kind of auto caps itself