I try to make a practice out of simply refusing to read any single study that says something exciting. If it's true, people will replicate the study, and we ca

I try to make a practice out of simply refusing to read any single study that says something exciting. If it's true, people will replicate the study, and we can read the meta-study on their replications and be appropriately amazed later. But chances are, publication bias has caused something statistically insignificant to be claimed as true, and people will lap it up because that's the sorry state of science journalism. The fact that in this study the sweat appeared to be of the same amount in both cases is another sign that the experiment was likely just flawed.