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.
caveat 2 which is again very very highly trained individuals you won't see people who are like Eric or other folks who are six to 8 to 10 years into very serious training um who don't have to go to failure probably a little bit more than what I just said
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 also would not dismiss the fact that for very high-level...let's say you're very close to your genetic ceiling, that it might make the need to go to failure, at least on some of the sets, more relevant, beneficial, we don't have good...this is purely speculative on my end.