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 our mind this does provide some method of trying to address this because we see a group with no growth compared to a group with growth but the strength is the same suggesting that that change in muscle size is not necessary for a change in strength nor does it appear to be contributing given that the strength is the same
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.
and i don't think that that's a fair argument honestly because i don't know that you have to know for sure what something is to say we don't have a lot of evidence for this and there's a lot of evidence against this