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're not in that category and you only have the typical two or three colds a year you might have asthma or seasonal allergies you might be over fat you might be training for a while and then you kind of you lose time you can't train and then you get back into it and not in that category you subtract another five
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 you're recovering from an illness or you're kind of in an over trained situation you might actually need to discount that by another 10 right it might be 170 minus your age correct
all the way to the competitive athlete who has no health problems who has been progressing quite well they can add five to that number
if you're on medication for example you've got to subtract your age from 180 and you've got to subtract another 10.
you're saying that a person is going to be at their maximum aerobic output so meaning they're going to be maximally fat oxidizing at an approximate heart rate of 180 minus their age plus or minus a few modifications