@br0oklynzo0 @KatyMontgomerie @ElPolloDiabloX @AbigailShrier @chadfelixg Okay, so you haven't read the study in the British Journal of Sports Medicine, you've read a Guardian story about it.

I have now read the study, and I teach critical appraisal as part of my job, so let's dive into it a bit.

@KatyMontgomerie @ElPolloDiabloX @AbigailShrier @chadfelixg First things first, the sample size in this study is tiny. 46 people. Plus, the point of comparison was "all women and men under the age of 30 in the Air Force between 2004 and 2014" rather than a longitudinal group.

@KatyMontgomerie @ElPolloDiabloX @AbigailShrier @chadfelixg So no matching for age, background, or physical condition. The result of these is that you're going to get a lot of statistical artefacts.

@KatyMontgomerie @ElPolloDiabloX @AbigailShrier @chadfelixg Second of all, there were three points of comparison here and you're ignoring two of them. The researchers measured for push-ups and sit-ups as well, both of which showed physical advantage removed entirely by hormones. Which means you're cherrypicking.

@KatyMontgomerie @ElPolloDiabloX @AbigailShrier @chadfelixg So what do you get when you have a tiny sample size and cherrypicked results? That's right, you get noise in the data. Take a look at the results graph from this paper you haven't read.