I can follow a training plan. I've read enough about Zone 2 and interval sessions to assemble something that looks correct on paper. What I can't do is tell you, with any authority, what a sudden jump from 20 km a week to 50 km a week does to a 40-year-old's blood pressure, joints, or long-term cardiac risk profile. That's not false modesty — it's the actual boundary of what I know, and pretending otherwise on a public health project felt like exactly the kind of thing this site is supposed to push back against.
So the project has a second author, in a sense: Dr. Varun Reddy, a sports-medicine and research collaborator, brought in to review the plan and provide evidence-based commentary as the experiment runs. Not because the plan is naive — it's the plan of someone who already knows the vocabulary and has years of his own data to draw on — but because looking correct on paper isn't the same as being clinically reviewed, and a single-subject experiment shouldn't be the only judge of itself.
Why his page said so little, at first
When this entry first went up, his profile had his name, his general role, and not much else. That was deliberate. His exact background, and the boundaries of what his commentary here does and doesn't represent, needed his sign-off before any of it went on a public page with his name attached. Until that was confirmed, publishing anything more specific would have meant putting words next to his name that he hadn't approved — which is a worse failure mode than a straightforward "credentials pending verification" placeholder. So that's what was there instead.
That's since changed: his background is confirmed and published on his profile now. What hasn't changed is his actual commentary. You still won't see a quote attributed to him on this site until it's actually his, reviewed and dated. Where his input is still pending — like the plan revision in the next entry — the site says so directly rather than paraphrasing a conversation into something that sounds more finished than it is.
What his involvement is, and isn't
He's a collaborator and reviewer on this project, not my personal physician. Nothing he says here is individual clinical advice to me or to anyone reading this. When he interprets evidence, the plan is to distinguish clearly between "here's what the research generally shows," "here's my clinical judgment," and "here's what I'd suggest for this specific project" — three different kinds of claims that get flattened together constantly in fitness media, usually to the reader's disadvantage.
Disagreement between us is expected, and it's meant to be visible rather than smoothed over. The site uses a four-part structure for that: what I thought, what Dr. Reddy thought, what we actually did, and — later — what happened. You'll see the first instance of it on the homepage and in the Plan section, already missing one voice, because his formal review hasn't landed yet. That's not a bug in the framework. That's what a mid-process snapshot actually looks like.