Andrew Huberman· PhD
If you had moderate levels of carbon dioxide tolerance, you're going to write down the number five. or you could even put five to six.
Loading…
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 had moderate levels of carbon dioxide tolerance, you're going to write down the number five. or you could even put five to six.
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.
if, for instance, you were able to go 50 seconds or longer for that discard until you hit lungs empty, you have a fairly high degree of carbon dioxide tolerance.
If you had low carbon dioxide tolerance, that is, you're 20 seconds or less, you're going to write down the number three.
And then if you are in that bracket of people that was able to discard your air over a period of 50 seconds or more, you're going to write down the number 8 to 10.