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.
So so the idea was that you you have a picture a triangle with a with a base and a peak. Um and the base is is what we think of as your capacity to do sustained submaximal effort over a long period of time. Um so think of something you could do for hours and then the peak is is represents your maximum aerobic output. So what you could sustain for you know 5 to 10 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 only parked yourself at one level of training, you would through enough volume increase both of these. But that's not the way to maximize the problem. And it's certainly not the most timeefficient way to do it. Nor is it necessarily um the best way to do it.