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.
The other way to assess muscular endurance is take the exact strength tests you did from the talk five minutes ago, which one did you do? Load that to 75%, and then do that for as many repetitions as you can. And that is a tremendous barometer of muscular endurance. So if you were able to do 200 pounds in your leg extension test, put 75% on that and do that as many reps as you can. You want to look for more than eight repetitions.
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 that is a good-- eight to 12 number is where you want to be looking at for there.
The general number that you're looking for is under 80%. That's going to tell you, is this a muscular endurance problem or is it an absolute strength problem?