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.
but in cycling actually also what we only consider there is the net mechanical Power you don't consider the gross mechanical Power and should you really look at the let's say on your biochemical efficiency you you should not look at the net mechanical Power you should look at the gross mechanical Power
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.
I don't like let's say modeled numbers I want to have a raw numbers so in my case I basically I'm extracting basically the let's say the net and the gross mechanical power or the positive and the negative mechanical Power because these are the components I want to have
but in order to do so you have to have that interface that basically let's say distinguishes between gross mechanical Power and net mechanical Power and the interface between gross mechanical Power and net mechanical Power is only the let's say work efficiency like how efficiently are you working but not metabolizing or or moving