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.
or normalized to time and then you're you know you're at least getting the the metabolically active tissue presumably yeah and and you know there's papers where they do things like let's divide by weight to the power of 0.68 or 0.7 which is another way of getting it effectively it's a way of approximating just the lean mass the metabolically active tissue
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.
there's papers where they do things like let's divide by weight to the power of 0.68 or 0.7 which is another way of getting it effectively it's a way of approximating just the lean mass the metabolically active tissue
if you want to compare apples to apples between athletes of different sizes you divide at least for a crude approximation you just divide by weight and so the numbers we usually hear are rather than liters of oxygen per minute it's milliliters of oxygen per minute per kilogram of body weight
there's a whole rabbit hole to go into is to say well why are we dividing by whole body weight because you know there's a bunch of things like skeleton and organs and stuff that don't scale the adipose tissue doesn't matter i mean you could argue a better comparison would be total liters per minute divided by lean mass divided by time or normalized to time and then you're you're at least getting the the metabolically active tissue presumably yeah and there's papers where they do things like let's divide by weight to the power of 0.68 or 0.7 which is another way of getting effectively it's a way of approximating just the lean mass the metabolically active tissue and you can go down that rabbit hole but i suspect you'll want to get to it's like at a certain point it doesn't matter that much anyway
why are we dividing by whole body weight because you know there's a bunch of things like skeleton you know there there's not an organs in that don't scale the adapost tissue doesn't matter I mean you could argue a better comparison would be total lers per minute divided by lean mass divided by time uh or normalized to time and then you're you know you're at least getting the the metabolically active tissue presumably
there's papers where they do things like let's divide by weight to the power of 0.68 OR7 which is another way of getting it effectively it's a way of approximating just the lean mass the metabolically active tissue