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.
getting to this idea that more than 50% should be basically practice a little bit of work at the very top end of the spectrum but not too much and then a little bit of work at the other end and you should be in a good spot
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 a person is doing many hours of aerobic training, they would necessarily need to include more moderate-intensity training.
So if you're a serious or an elite or very high-level endurance athlete, you're engaged in 15, 20 sessions of training per week. You're training 25, 30 hours a week of training. And the best evidence, you know, gleaned...there's some scientific evidence, largely, you know, opinion from high-level coaches and athletes is about an 80-20 split there is sort of the ideal mix or ratio to optimize endurance performance.