My understanding was that you can see exercise induced changes in risk factors (blood pressure etc) relatively easily, but that evidence for changes in health outcomes (like risk of death, lowered incidence of disease etc.) were on shakier ground.
He also claims that HIIT as more standard 150 aerobic exercise shows the same level of response for those same risk factors.
The guy claims that variable response to exercise (including ~10% negative responders) was a robust finding that most studies see. He didn’t explicitly discuss whether they had ruled our within person variation as the cause of that data.
My understanding was that you can see exercise induced changes in risk factors (blood pressure etc) relatively easily, but that evidence for changes in health outcomes (like risk of death, lowered incidence of disease etc.) were on shakier ground.
From what I can tell, this seems to be true. Does he talk about this in the video?
My understanding was that you can see exercise induced changes in risk factors (blood pressure etc) relatively easily, but that evidence for changes in health outcomes (like risk of death, lowered incidence of disease etc.) were on shakier ground.
He also claims that HIIT as more standard 150 aerobic exercise shows the same level of response for those same risk factors.
The guy claims that variable response to exercise (including ~10% negative responders) was a robust finding that most studies see. He didn’t explicitly discuss whether they had ruled our within person variation as the cause of that data.
From what I can tell, this seems to be true. Does he talk about this in the video?
I remember him doing so.