I feel like this is a bit of an oversell. This article isn’t a study, it’s a hypothesis. It hasn’t been peer reviewed, and other than the author asserting that he’s affiliated with an affiliate of Stanford, I can’t find anything that says he is. Like he’s not on the Palo Alto Healthcare System’s site and his LinkedIn doesn’t list him as ever working there.
Regardless of where you stand on the issue, passing off a hypothesis by a exercise physiologist that hasn’t been peer reviewed as something people should use to form their opinion isn’t intellectually honest and is the same kind of pseudoscience that gets criticized on here all the time.
Wow! Thank you for this additional information. This is the due diligence we need on this site. I read and agree with the entire article but knowing all of the facts is so important.
I feel like this is a bit of an oversell. This article isn’t a study, it’s a hypothesis. It hasn’t been peer reviewed, and other than the author asserting that he’s affiliated with an affiliate of Stanford, I can’t find anything that says he is. Like he’s not on the Palo Alto Healthcare System’s site and his LinkedIn doesn’t list him as ever working there.
Regardless of where you stand on the issue, passing off a hypothesis by a exercise physiologist that hasn’t been peer reviewed as something people should use to form their opinion isn’t intellectually honest and is the same kind of pseudoscience that gets criticized on here all the time.
Wow! Thank you for this additional information. This is the due diligence we need on this site. I read and agree with the entire article but knowing all of the facts is so important.
The actual study is linked at the bottom of the article.
I know, that’s how I know it’s not an actual study. It’s a hypothesis that hasn’t been peer reviewed written by an exercise physiologist.
You are absolutely correct. The document states in no uncertain terms that it is a hypothesis.
Link to article: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7680614/