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.
if you want to be accurate obviously you want to do this but if you want to understand more of a fueling strategy perspective then of course you need CO2 to better understand okay where are you how are you using the how say fuels at different times
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.
because we also talk about V2 and vco2 vco2 is really what is really useful for is to do get an instantaneous picture of of course what kind of substrate are you using and whether you are at an RR value of let's say even 0.8 or even let's say below 0.8 for example but let's say that you are 08 or you're 09 or you are one in RR value basically it doesn't make that much of a difference in your energy yield
so one ml of oxygen you if you use 20 Jews of energy 20 Jews as a as a as a as a or as a number to basically understand your energy demand there you won't go very wrong whether you had been using so if you put this into into the formula and you start to look okay how much big of a difference it is there is not a massive difference yes there is a difference but it's not massive