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.
if you can have people who can still carry on activities of daily living but one of them has a vo2 max of 50 mils per minute per gig and the other is 30 mils per minute per gig by the way neither of those people would ever qualify as disabled because whether you're at 30 or 50 in vo2 max you
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.
it's this focus on cognitive health and uh physical health that get you so much of that lifespan benefit
this figure says if you want to live a good life you better have a high VO2 max because this gives you a very clear all-in-one view of what actually happens as your V2 Max declines you lose capacity
if you just limit it to physical right you can you can have people who can still carry on activities of daily living but one of them has a V2 Max of 50 Ms per minute per kig and the other is 30 MS per minute per kig by the way neither of those people would ever qualify as disabled because whether you're at 30 or 50 in V2 Max you can still do any activity of daily living but one of those people can clearly get more out of life right you can take someone who can you know uh has the grip strength to hang on to a bar for 30 seconds versus hang on to a bar for 2 minutes both of those people will see no immediate difference in their day-to-day activities but one person can do far more should they choose to