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 even though you say it's obvious I I think it's important for people to hear this discussion because I don't I don't think enough people understand both for performance and also longevity why you have to be at the more extremes of kind of zone two zone five is where the progress comes
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.
everything i'm talking about is geared towards this centenarian olympics which we've talked about in the past this idea of being the most kick-ass 90-year-old possible and that's really based on two energy systems so it's got the stability and the strength piece we talked about and then it's got this low-end aerobic energy system which is zone two that we'll talk about in a second and then i think it's punctuated with brief bursts of generally zone five