I've heard that supposed to be a, a potential one that's got some evidence

there is when people are injured like that's like the, if someone has knee cap pain, that's a great option to keep someone running, right? It will change the distress, you know, ten to 15 % over the course of a kilometer, over and over the course of each step, the load on the knee. It's a good one, and it has clinical support. Again, except for, there's a paper by hafer, i think she did. Ah, youo typically don't have a control group in most of these studies. So chris brahma has a really nice paper on that, t 20 19, just a ten % increase. And in terms of efficiency, this is where it gets weird. So i think, in my opinion, discancrunning. You self, organize, you figure out overtime. It's not like sprinting or rock climbing or boxing, where technique and absolute force matters. Think people do it. They figurer figure it out. So there's like, some old research by cavana that will say, like, people's self selected running cadences is slightly different thand they're mathematically most efficient. But when you look at it, it's like one or two steps per minute. So in practice it's nothing. So there is a paper by in people want to know that did step frequency training. And i think, and so, as long if your steps werea less than one 74 per per minute, they increased them. And then they showed that their economy approved, but only at one running speed. But they never, they never say hat ther like the thais buried in the results. They just say that taking more steps will make more efficient yout her. Yes, in terms of running economy. So that oxygen castat a certain case, but it's not at all paces, right?