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.
And that's why you see in last years, these incredible runners, especially in long distance, doing things we never thought were possible in the worst possible way that we used to think, pronation and all kinds of things like our technical thoughts were totally misguided and wrong.
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 that's why you see in last years these incredible runners uh especially in long distance doing things we never thought were possible. pronation and and all kinds of things like our technical thoughts were totally misguided and wrong and and somebody comes in and does it in some way that is totally wrong and he he gets results we could never get and that's that's the beauty of playfulness experimentation change being different