trustmebro.to/r/…
✓ checked
trust me, bro:
here is the receipt.
the claim

Cardiac muscle resists fatigue unlike skeletal muscle because of its dense mitochondria and constant blood supply.

the verdict
SUPPORTED
the evidence backs this
Recorded sources
3 sources for · 0 against

Counts group repeated records of the same source within each side. They do not measure evidence strength or source independence.

Is it true that cardiac muscle resists fatigue unlike skeletal muscle because of its dense mitochondria and constant blood supply?

Yes. A reference article states cardiac muscle cells contain many mitochondria, making them highly resistant to fatigue, and notes the tissue requires a constant flow of blood; a second source confirms cardiomyocytes contain many mitochondria, and a third notes cardiac muscle's ultrastructural organization supports aerobic metabolism and resistance to fatigue.

Verdict: SUPPORTED · 3 sources for, 0 against · Last checked

The private library was unavailable for some searches in this check. Missing library results are not evidence against the claim.

Evidence for · 3
Get citation
Cardiac muscle. (n.d.). en.wikipedia.org. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cardiac_muscle

See more details
More for · 2
Get citation
Physiology, Cardiac Muscle - StatPearls - NCBI BookshelfTwitterFacebookLinkedInGitHubNCBI Insights BlogTwitterFacebookYoutube. (n.d.). ncbi.nlm.nih.gov. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/books/NBK572070/

2025
Get citation
Makhmudovich, S. S. N. o. H. (2025). STRUCTURE AND FUNCTIONAL ADAPTATIONS OF CARDIAC MUSCLE TISSUE. zenodo.org. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.17487707

Anyone with this link can read the claim and its public receipt, including any personal information in that text. Open permanent receipt.
Check your own claim
Challenge the receipt
Requests are recorded for review. This does not start an automatic check or guarantee a response time.

Citation formatting by citeproc-js (Frank Bennett) and the Citation Style Language project. Source and licenses.

This receipt is an automated verdict against our published method · not an opinion about any author or publication.
Terms · Privacy · How verdicts work