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.
if you have an AR let's say around again talking about thresholds a lot of like it it's you'll find several places in in research literature where they basically just use an RQ of 0.96 as a proxy for your anerobic threshold for example
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 basically take an athlete in your training for short course or basically for sprinting you will basically see that then basically you are have an RQ that is higher than 0.96 if you go to extreme endurance at this this actually gets closer to 0.94 93 92 even