The headline is broadly defensible, but the qualifications matter. Effect sizes vary by population, the strongest claims rest on shorter trials, and credible voices push back on how it's typically framed.
now i i should add that there's controversy in the literature there's a bunch of people who say that the supposed predictive value of acute chronic workload ratio as a statistical artifact um it may be it may not be i'm not too worried about that to me this is not about uh statistical predictive power it's just about keeping an eye on on trends and and it's uh knowing if you're if you're way out of whack with what you've been doing uh before
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.
there's controversy in the literature there's a bunch of people who say that the supposed predicted value of acute chronic workload ratio is a statistical artifact um it may be it may not be i'm not too worried about that to me this is not about uh statistical predictive power it's just about keeping an eye on on trends and and it's uh knowing if you're if you're way out of whack with what you've been doing uh before
there's controversy in the literature there's a bunch of people who say that the supposed predicted value of acute to Chronic work workload ratio is a statistical artifact