The evidence is convergent. Multiple independent sources reach the same conclusion, the underlying mechanism is well-characterized, and even the field's most cautious voices treat it as worth doing.
If you find that your discard times are dropping even if they're in the 42nd range or 52nd range, but normally you can do 75 seconds or 120 seconds. If they're starting to drop by anywhere from 15% to 20%, you're veering in the direction of not recovering.
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.
If your carbon dioxide discard time is 20 or 25 seconds or less, you are not necessarily recovered from your previous days activities.
If your carbon dioxide discard time is somewhere between about 30 seconds and 60 seconds, you are in what we would call kind of the green zone where you are in a position to do more physical work.
And if your carbon dioxide discard time is somewhere between 65 and 120 seconds, well then you have almost certainly recovered your nervous system. I'm not talking about the individual muscles but your nervous system is prepared to do more work.
If your carbon dioxide discard time is somewhere between about 30 seconds and 60 seconds, you are in what we would call the green zone, where you are in a position to do more physical work.
If your carbon dioxide discard time is somewhere between 65 and 120 seconds, well, then you have almost certainly recovered your nervous system. I'm not talking about the individual muscles, but your nervous system is prepared to do more work.
If your carbon dioxide discard time is 20 or 25 seconds or less, you are not necessarily recovered from your previous day's activities.