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.
Well again, I just want to go back to what it is about um muscles that have such an impact on bones. And this is this is not always clear, right? So the more force that a muscle is applying to a bone, which is directly related to how much force you're trying to put on the muscle, you know, picking something up, contracting a muscle under an enormous external load.
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.
Um, and by the way, I think that can be isometric. I don't think that has to be isotonic. In other words, I don't even think the muscle has to change in length necessarily for that force to be experienced.
if they're in the business of trying to increase their BMD, they have to get wicked forces on their muscles.