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.
I actually think, you know, maybe you should do some longer intervals at a little bit lower intensity. You know, maybe you should be incorporating some three, four, five-minute intervals as hard as you can go during those rather than almost exclusively doing Tabata-style type training.
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.
I suspect for improvements in your cardiorespiratory fitness and that, the different challenge may be a little better.
The power outputs that you're working at are going to be different than when you're doing Tabatas.
the key is like a longer interval longer than like a Tabata like a 20 second interval and so you know probably about at least 1 minute at the highest sustainable intensity that you can do
The longer the interval, the more robust the effect on improving cardiorespiratory fitness.
You can do a minute on, a minute off. You can do 30 seconds on, 20 seconds off. You can do 20 seconds on, 10 sec like Tbatas. All these things do improve cardiorespiratory fitness.