Seiler's thoughts on just how ambitious this study was and why he chose to work with Dr. Rosenblatt.

My involvement in that was obviously that I know a lot of the people in the whole ecosystem. And so I was involved in recruiting them and saying, hey, let's pull together. Let's give our data. And Michael and I had talked about this as doing this kind know a big database that could grow over time because you know we know that a lot of exercise physiology studies are underpowered these training studies are traditionally underpowered so for me that was the magic here was to achieve that cooperation among a bunch of different sports scientists that would actually give their raw data to someone and say, yep, go ahead, use it, you know. And so Michael is an outstanding, first he's a physical therapist, he's an outstanding clinician. He's excellent methodologically. He's as rigorous as they get when it comes to going through all the appropriate steps on the systematic review and the appropriate data use. I didn't agree with him on all interpretations and on, you know, I would have even maybe limited because there were some of the sample sizes I felt were too small to even include, whereas he said, well, let's just put it out there. And so we agreed to disagree on certain things, but the overall thing that we both agree 100% on was that this was a really good exercise in cooperation. And I think this is where sports science has to go if we're going to make progress on some of these issues like individualization, like understanding, clustering of different kinds of athlete that respond differently to different kinds of stimuli and so forth. So I think that was for me, the most exciting aspect of it. And obviously, yeah, the high intent, you know, that we see some differences that maybe for lower trained or less trained that the pyramidal is better than the polarized.