Andrew Huberman· PhD
No, not at all. I think a more intuitive way is to take a repetition range.
Loading…
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.
No, not at all. I think a more intuitive way is to take a repetition range.
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.
So there are equations you can run, and you can just Google these anywhere, and these are called conversion charts. And so it says okay, if I did 75 pounds on my bench press and I did it eight times, you can just run an estimate to say, okay, you're probably going to be able to bench about 95 pounds for one rep max or something. So that's a very easy conversion chart.