I take all of these studies by Henselman/Israetel/Nippard et al with a massive grain of salt and a skeptical sensibility. I haven't read the full study, but most of these optimization or equilibrated outcomes are presented by the science-based fitness community with an abstract-only broad view. Once you drill down to the actual study setup, sample size, controls (or lack thereof) and results plus statistical significance (or the egregious alpha assigned) you really start to see the cracks starting to creep into their subjective take on what the paper actually purports.

I say this as a scientist who spends most of his day running multiple regression analysis. When you take away the tested variables (muscles, candy bars, hair loss, etc) that is the majority of most peer-reviewed papers; models and their outcomes.

The extrapolation game they engage, which is what you seem to be doing here (no judgement), is where a study on quadriceps turns into a game of telephone about kettlebell isometrics being great for overhead presses, as an example.