Andrew Huberman· PhD
So the number we're going to throw out typically is like two to four minutes.
Loading…
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.
So the number we're going to throw out typically is like two to four minutes.
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 you were training for strength, maybe the extra few minutes doesn't matter so much when you get back under the bar you might find, you might find that it's a better response for your body to rest even longer than you've been told three, four minutes, five minutes.
It follows that if a large range of repetitions are performed that a large range of rest intervals are allowed, meaning that there could be rest intervals between sets of as low as 30 seconds between sets or as high of two or three minutes, depending on the loads that one is using.
So in order to maintain that we have to do a low repetition range but in addition we also have to have a high rest interval because if we have any amount of fatigue incur and we have to then either reduce the reps or reduce the intensity we've lost the primary driver.