The evidence is convergent. Multiple independent sources reach the same conclusion, the underlying mechanism is well-characterized, and even the field's most cautious voices treat it as worth doing.
including this review that's also linked there on concurrent training and how one can use concurrent training, meaning training for endurance, training for strength, training for hypertrophy, training for all these different things without having to train constantly everyday twice a day, et cetera.
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.
It is very hard, for instance, to do a one-to-one mile repeats like run a mile rest for equivalent time, run a mile rest for equivalent time to do that two or three times a week, and also do weight training before or do a long run afterwards. That would quickly lead to break down for most people, unless you have very, very good energy utilization systems. You're really kind of advanced or elite athlete, and or dare I say you're using tools to enhance your performance at the level of blood or hormones.
It does seem like you can do concurrent training as I mentioned before, if you allow anywhere from four to six or ideally 24 hours between workouts.
Ask yourself, what are you trying to emphasize, and then emphasize that for a 10 to 12 week cycle.