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.
Yeah, absolutely. You know, now maybe not necessarily as intense as some of these programs that you see, but absolutely that style of functional training, whatever you want to call it or label it, can be extremely beneficial, I think. And in a time-efficient way, you get strength gains and some aerobic conditioning as well.
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.
You know, especially if, you know, we're talking air squats, burpees, sets, pushups, where you also keep recovery periods relatively short. You know, you engage in that for 10 to 20 minutes, you can keep your maximum, your heart rate up to about 80% of maximum, but you've done a lot of resistance style training that's increasing functional strength as well.
But you know, so like, I don't...only doing heavy resistance training as traditionally practiced, I think you're definitely leaving something on the table in terms of cardiorespiratory fitness and health benefits and all of that. I think it's a really good question of, you know, again, if it's that person like we talked about, the classic individual, you know, type A, limited time, still engaged in real life with responsibilities, family, job, things like that, and they have an hour a week to train, if they only did high-intensity functional training, calisthenics-style, bodyweight-style exercise, I could see a lot of value in that, right, in terms of aerobic conditioning and gains in strength.