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.
so people with lower HRV are be more like the 50 60 people with more moderate 60 70 higher 70 80 you know Elite athletes are going to be 90 to 100 it's more of a scale that we have a more familiar relationship with I would say and the the data is more normalized from a uh from a standpoint of a bell curve so it's just an easier to interpret but that's the reason for it
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.
so we use rmssd and then we use a log natural transform and a multiplier that sounds like a lot of math but essentially if you look at the data of rssd and you look at like a normal bell curve it's skewed it's non-normal it's all the way to the left so you get these normal ranges of I know 20 to 80 or 100 like you said but then you can get an elite athletes 180 200 and so you this big bunch of data on the far left hand side it's kind of hard to interpret so again I'm not a statistician I didn't create the formula but essentially to normalize this data and make it look more naturally distributed more like a normal bell curve you do this log natural transform use a multiplier and more if it's ends up on a scale that looks more like a 100 point scale