Rhonda Patrick· PhD
However, many won't see notable cardiorespiratory benefits just meeting the guidelines for moderate intensity exercise if they don't also incorporate some vigorous-intensity work.
Loading…
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.
However, many won't see notable cardiorespiratory benefits just meeting the guidelines for moderate intensity exercise if they don't also incorporate some vigorous-intensity work.
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.
Up to 40% of people who follow conventional exercise guidelines—training 2-3 hours per week—see little to no improvement in their cardiorespiratory fitness.
number one is if those people were doing nothing they would be a lot less fit okay that's for sure and I can make almost anybody fitter and there's a little bit of disingenuousness about the non-responders also it's non-responders to the dose that they've been given
if you take someone who's A non-responder non-responder in quotes and increase their training dose they all improve