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.
we helped them to move faster, burn calories at a higher rate, right? Exercise more efficiently, the amount of time they put in is going to produce a better physical outcome, and also, it didn't hurt them, right? They're saying, "It doesn't hurt as much."
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.
And I thought, "Oh, that's something we can play with, right? They are elite [laughing] and they are accomplished, but that visual strategy isn't necessarily something that you have to be in the perfect physical condition to be able to adopt, and so I wonder, can that help the rest of us who aren't competing for an Olympic gold and who have no chance of ever getting one, but who want to exercise better, have a better time doing it, and maintain a commitment to that exercise goal that they might have, that they might otherwise, by February or March, be giving up on, if they had said it at the beginning of January?"
And what we found is that those people that we trained, just everyday normal people doing this moderately challenging exercise, they were able to move 27% faster. They could do the exercise more quickly, and they said it hurt 17% less.
they were able to move 27% faster. They could do the exercise more quickly, and they said it hurt 17% less.