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 so at the end of the day, it really goes to say that, you know, perceived exertion isn't necessarily the best way to gauge how hard you're going because if you're still going hard on your four or five seconds, you know, you're doing good.
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.
But yeah, to your point, my sense is when it comes to higher intensity, especially short duration work, the traditional way of thinking when we think of perceived effort, it's just... It doesn't fit as well, right? Like classic Borg RPE scales are, you know, based on six to 20 because that generally correlated with, you know, young fit individuals who had a resting heart rate of 60 and a maximum heart rate of