×
I Took a VO2 Max Test and It Changed How I Think About Fitness

I Took a VO2 Max Test and It Changed How I Think About Fitness

VO2 max is an intimidating word for an easy-to-understand biometric: It’s how well your body uses oxygen when you push yourself. Short for “maximal oxygen uptake,” it’s been the gold standard for assessing cardiorespiratory fitness since the 1950s. Until recently, it’s mostly lived in research labs and elite training centers, helping coaches squeeze every last drop of performance out of elite skiers, runners, and cyclists. Today, VO2 max has escaped the lab and gone mainstream, landing on fitness trackers, longevity podcasts, and wellness clinics that promise to put a number on how fit you are.

I tested mine last year at Canyon Ranch’s Performance Lab Center, where they fitted me with a heart rate monitor and a tight, Darth Vader-esque mask at 8 am. After a night of little sleep and zero food, the lab technician put me on a treadmill and ramped up the speed and incline until I couldn’t keep going. No music. No hyper-caffeinated instructor yelling positive affirmations. Every few moments, the technician would ask me to rate my suffering how close I was to maxing out on a scale of 1 to 10.

The test is simple, if mildly sadistic: As the workout intensifies, your oxygen consumption rises until it doesn’t. That plateau marks your VO2 max, the upper limit of your aerobic capacity. When my test ended (right around the moment my patience did), I was told my results would arrive the next day. Still gasping, my first thought was that I could’ve gone longer. That lingering doubt is part of what makes VO2 max such a maddening and compelling metric.

Jump To

VO2 Max, Explained

Photograph: Peter Schiazza/Getty Images

“VO2 max is an objective measure of how a human energy system can take in oxygen and utilize it during exercise,” says Elizabeth Gardner, an associate professor of orthopedic surgery at Yale University School of Medicine.

Your body is always consuming oxygen to produce energy, but VO2 max captures the maximum amount of oxygen your system can use at peak effort. It’s essentially what happens when you’re working as hard as you possibly can. A high VO2 max means your heart and lungs are more efficient at delivering blood to your muscles, and your muscles are better at extracting oxygen from your blood to generate adenosine triphosphate (ATP).

“It’s the best predictor we currently have for premature mortality,” says Malene Lindholm, an exercise physiologist and senior research engineer at Stanford Cardiovascular Medicine. Higher VO2 max levels correlate with a lower risk of cardiovascular disease, type 2 diabetes, stroke, and certain cancers. Beyond disease prevention, stronger cardiovascular fitness is also linked to better sleep, improved mood, and a higher overall quality of life.

“It’s especially useful for anyone serious about peak performance and endurance sports,” says Tyler McQuality, associate director of the Center for Sports Innovation at Illinois Tech University. “There are certain intervals you can run based on VO2 max pacing and effort.”

Source link
#VO2 #Max #Test #Changed #Fitness

Lego-style propaganda videos alleging war crimes are flooding online feeds, echoing the White House’s own turn toward cryptic teaser clips and meme-native visuals. This is not just content drift. It is a new front in the information war, one where speed, ambiguity, and algorithmic reach matter as much as accuracy.

One Iran-linked outlet, Explosive News, can reportedly turn around a two-minute synthetic Lego segment in about 24 hours. The speed is the point. Synthetic media does not need to hold up forever; it only needs to travel before verification catches up.

Last month, the White House added to that confusion when it posted two vague “launching soon” videos, then removed them after online investigators and open source researchers began dissecting them.

The reveal turned out to be anticlimactic: a promotional push for the official White House app. But the episode demonstrated how thoroughly official communication has absorbed the aesthetics of leaks, virality, and platform-native intrigue. Even when official accounts adopt the aesthetics of a leak, questioning whether a record is real or synthetic is the only defensive move left.

Real vs. Synthetic: The New Friction

A zero digital footprint used to signal authenticity. Now, it can signal the opposite. The absence of a trail no longer means something is original—it may mean it was never captured by a lens at all. The signal has inverted. Truth lags; engagement leads.

Automated traffic now commands an estimated 51 percent of internet activity, scaling eight times faster than human traffic according to the 2026 State of AI Traffic & Cyberthreat Benchmark Report. These systems don’t just distribute content, they prioritize low-quality virality, ensuring the synthetic record travels while verification is still catching up.

Open source investigators are still holding the line, but they are fighting a volume war. The rise of hyperactive “super sharers,” often backed by paid verification, adds a layer of false authority that traditional open source intelligence (OSINT) now has to navigate.

“We’re perpetually catching up to someone pressing repost without a second thought,” says Maryam Ishani, an OSINT journalist covering the conflict. “The algorithm prioritizes that reflex, and our information is always going to be one step behind.”

At the same time, the surge of war-monitoring accounts is beginning to interfere with reporting itself. Manisha Ganguly, visual forensics lead at The Guardian and an OSINT specialist investigating war crimes, points to the false certainty created by the flood of aggregated content on Telegram and X.

“Open source verification starts to create false certainty when it stops being a method of inquiry—through confirmation bias, or when OSINT is used to cosmetically validate official accounts or knowingly misapplied to align with ideological narratives rather than interrogate them,” Ganguly says.

While this plays out, the verification toolkit itself is becoming harder to access. On April 4, Planet Labs—one of the most relied-upon commercial satellite providers for conflict journalism—announced it would indefinitely withhold imagery of Iran and the broader Middle East conflict zone, retroactive to March 9, following a request from the US government.

The response from US defense secretary Pete Hegseth to concerns about the delay was unambiguous: “Open source is not the place to determine what did or did not happen.”

That shift matters. When access to primary visual evidence is restricted, the ability to independently verify events narrows. And in that narrowing gap, something else expands: Generative AI doesn’t just fill the silence—it competes to define what’s seen in the first place.

Generative AI Is Getting Harder to Spot

Generative AI platforms have been learning from their mistakes. Henk van Ess, an investigative trainer and verification specialist, says many of the classic tells—incorrect finger counts, garbled protest signs, distorted text—have largely been fixed in the latest generation of models. Tools like Imagen 3, Midjourney, and Dall·E have improved in prompt understanding, photorealism, and text-in-image rendering.

But the harder problem is what van Ess calls the hybrid.

#Internet #Broke #Everyones #Bullshit #Detectorspropaganda,artificial intelligence,open source,satellite images,iran,war,politics">How the Internet Broke Everyone’s Bullshit DetectorsLego-style propaganda videos alleging war crimes are flooding online feeds, echoing the White House’s own turn toward cryptic teaser clips and meme-native visuals. This is not just content drift. It is a new front in the information war, one where speed, ambiguity, and algorithmic reach matter as much as accuracy.One Iran-linked outlet, Explosive News, can reportedly turn around a two-minute synthetic Lego segment in about 24 hours. The speed is the point. Synthetic media does not need to hold up forever; it only needs to travel before verification catches up.Last month, the White House added to that confusion when it posted two vague “launching soon” videos, then removed them after online investigators and open source researchers began dissecting them.The reveal turned out to be anticlimactic: a promotional push for the official White House app. But the episode demonstrated how thoroughly official communication has absorbed the aesthetics of leaks, virality, and platform-native intrigue. Even when official accounts adopt the aesthetics of a leak, questioning whether a record is real or synthetic is the only defensive move left.Real vs. Synthetic: The New FrictionA zero digital footprint used to signal authenticity. Now, it can signal the opposite. The absence of a trail no longer means something is original—it may mean it was never captured by a lens at all. The signal has inverted. Truth lags; engagement leads.Automated traffic now commands an estimated 51 percent of internet activity, scaling eight times faster than human traffic according to the 2026 State of AI Traffic & Cyberthreat Benchmark Report. These systems don’t just distribute content, they prioritize low-quality virality, ensuring the synthetic record travels while verification is still catching up.Open source investigators are still holding the line, but they are fighting a volume war. The rise of hyperactive “super sharers,” often backed by paid verification, adds a layer of false authority that traditional open source intelligence (OSINT) now has to navigate.“We’re perpetually catching up to someone pressing repost without a second thought,” says Maryam Ishani, an OSINT journalist covering the conflict. “The algorithm prioritizes that reflex, and our information is always going to be one step behind.”At the same time, the surge of war-monitoring accounts is beginning to interfere with reporting itself. Manisha Ganguly, visual forensics lead at The Guardian and an OSINT specialist investigating war crimes, points to the false certainty created by the flood of aggregated content on Telegram and X.“Open source verification starts to create false certainty when it stops being a method of inquiry—through confirmation bias, or when OSINT is used to cosmetically validate official accounts or knowingly misapplied to align with ideological narratives rather than interrogate them,” Ganguly says.While this plays out, the verification toolkit itself is becoming harder to access. On April 4, Planet Labs—one of the most relied-upon commercial satellite providers for conflict journalism—announced it would indefinitely withhold imagery of Iran and the broader Middle East conflict zone, retroactive to March 9, following a request from the US government.The response from US defense secretary Pete Hegseth to concerns about the delay was unambiguous: “Open source is not the place to determine what did or did not happen.”That shift matters. When access to primary visual evidence is restricted, the ability to independently verify events narrows. And in that narrowing gap, something else expands: Generative AI doesn’t just fill the silence—it competes to define what’s seen in the first place.Generative AI Is Getting Harder to SpotGenerative AI platforms have been learning from their mistakes. Henk van Ess, an investigative trainer and verification specialist, says many of the classic tells—incorrect finger counts, garbled protest signs, distorted text—have largely been fixed in the latest generation of models. Tools like Imagen 3, Midjourney, and Dall·E have improved in prompt understanding, photorealism, and text-in-image rendering.But the harder problem is what van Ess calls the hybrid.#Internet #Broke #Everyones #Bullshit #Detectorspropaganda,artificial intelligence,open source,satellite images,iran,war,politics

flooding online feeds, echoing the White House’s own turn toward cryptic teaser clips and meme-native visuals. This is not just content drift. It is a new front in the information war, one where speed, ambiguity, and algorithmic reach matter as much as accuracy.

One Iran-linked outlet, Explosive News, can reportedly turn around a two-minute synthetic Lego segment in about 24 hours. The speed is the point. Synthetic media does not need to hold up forever; it only needs to travel before verification catches up.

Last month, the White House added to that confusion when it posted two vague “launching soon” videos, then removed them after online investigators and open source researchers began dissecting them.

The reveal turned out to be anticlimactic: a promotional push for the official White House app. But the episode demonstrated how thoroughly official communication has absorbed the aesthetics of leaks, virality, and platform-native intrigue. Even when official accounts adopt the aesthetics of a leak, questioning whether a record is real or synthetic is the only defensive move left.

Real vs. Synthetic: The New Friction

A zero digital footprint used to signal authenticity. Now, it can signal the opposite. The absence of a trail no longer means something is original—it may mean it was never captured by a lens at all. The signal has inverted. Truth lags; engagement leads.

Automated traffic now commands an estimated 51 percent of internet activity, scaling eight times faster than human traffic according to the 2026 State of AI Traffic & Cyberthreat Benchmark Report. These systems don’t just distribute content, they prioritize low-quality virality, ensuring the synthetic record travels while verification is still catching up.

Open source investigators are still holding the line, but they are fighting a volume war. The rise of hyperactive “super sharers,” often backed by paid verification, adds a layer of false authority that traditional open source intelligence (OSINT) now has to navigate.

“We’re perpetually catching up to someone pressing repost without a second thought,” says Maryam Ishani, an OSINT journalist covering the conflict. “The algorithm prioritizes that reflex, and our information is always going to be one step behind.”

At the same time, the surge of war-monitoring accounts is beginning to interfere with reporting itself. Manisha Ganguly, visual forensics lead at The Guardian and an OSINT specialist investigating war crimes, points to the false certainty created by the flood of aggregated content on Telegram and X.

“Open source verification starts to create false certainty when it stops being a method of inquiry—through confirmation bias, or when OSINT is used to cosmetically validate official accounts or knowingly misapplied to align with ideological narratives rather than interrogate them,” Ganguly says.

While this plays out, the verification toolkit itself is becoming harder to access. On April 4, Planet Labs—one of the most relied-upon commercial satellite providers for conflict journalism—announced it would indefinitely withhold imagery of Iran and the broader Middle East conflict zone, retroactive to March 9, following a request from the US government.

The response from US defense secretary Pete Hegseth to concerns about the delay was unambiguous: “Open source is not the place to determine what did or did not happen.”

That shift matters. When access to primary visual evidence is restricted, the ability to independently verify events narrows. And in that narrowing gap, something else expands: Generative AI doesn’t just fill the silence—it competes to define what’s seen in the first place.

Generative AI Is Getting Harder to Spot

Generative AI platforms have been learning from their mistakes. Henk van Ess, an investigative trainer and verification specialist, says many of the classic tells—incorrect finger counts, garbled protest signs, distorted text—have largely been fixed in the latest generation of models. Tools like Imagen 3, Midjourney, and Dall·E have improved in prompt understanding, photorealism, and text-in-image rendering.

But the harder problem is what van Ess calls the hybrid.

#Internet #Broke #Everyones #Bullshit #Detectorspropaganda,artificial intelligence,open source,satellite images,iran,war,politics">How the Internet Broke Everyone’s Bullshit Detectors

Lego-style propaganda videos alleging war crimes are flooding online feeds, echoing the White House’s own turn toward cryptic teaser clips and meme-native visuals. This is not just content drift. It is a new front in the information war, one where speed, ambiguity, and algorithmic reach matter as much as accuracy.

One Iran-linked outlet, Explosive News, can reportedly turn around a two-minute synthetic Lego segment in about 24 hours. The speed is the point. Synthetic media does not need to hold up forever; it only needs to travel before verification catches up.

Last month, the White House added to that confusion when it posted two vague “launching soon” videos, then removed them after online investigators and open source researchers began dissecting them.

The reveal turned out to be anticlimactic: a promotional push for the official White House app. But the episode demonstrated how thoroughly official communication has absorbed the aesthetics of leaks, virality, and platform-native intrigue. Even when official accounts adopt the aesthetics of a leak, questioning whether a record is real or synthetic is the only defensive move left.

Real vs. Synthetic: The New Friction

A zero digital footprint used to signal authenticity. Now, it can signal the opposite. The absence of a trail no longer means something is original—it may mean it was never captured by a lens at all. The signal has inverted. Truth lags; engagement leads.

Automated traffic now commands an estimated 51 percent of internet activity, scaling eight times faster than human traffic according to the 2026 State of AI Traffic & Cyberthreat Benchmark Report. These systems don’t just distribute content, they prioritize low-quality virality, ensuring the synthetic record travels while verification is still catching up.

Open source investigators are still holding the line, but they are fighting a volume war. The rise of hyperactive “super sharers,” often backed by paid verification, adds a layer of false authority that traditional open source intelligence (OSINT) now has to navigate.

“We’re perpetually catching up to someone pressing repost without a second thought,” says Maryam Ishani, an OSINT journalist covering the conflict. “The algorithm prioritizes that reflex, and our information is always going to be one step behind.”

At the same time, the surge of war-monitoring accounts is beginning to interfere with reporting itself. Manisha Ganguly, visual forensics lead at The Guardian and an OSINT specialist investigating war crimes, points to the false certainty created by the flood of aggregated content on Telegram and X.

“Open source verification starts to create false certainty when it stops being a method of inquiry—through confirmation bias, or when OSINT is used to cosmetically validate official accounts or knowingly misapplied to align with ideological narratives rather than interrogate them,” Ganguly says.

While this plays out, the verification toolkit itself is becoming harder to access. On April 4, Planet Labs—one of the most relied-upon commercial satellite providers for conflict journalism—announced it would indefinitely withhold imagery of Iran and the broader Middle East conflict zone, retroactive to March 9, following a request from the US government.

The response from US defense secretary Pete Hegseth to concerns about the delay was unambiguous: “Open source is not the place to determine what did or did not happen.”

That shift matters. When access to primary visual evidence is restricted, the ability to independently verify events narrows. And in that narrowing gap, something else expands: Generative AI doesn’t just fill the silence—it competes to define what’s seen in the first place.

Generative AI Is Getting Harder to Spot

Generative AI platforms have been learning from their mistakes. Henk van Ess, an investigative trainer and verification specialist, says many of the classic tells—incorrect finger counts, garbled protest signs, distorted text—have largely been fixed in the latest generation of models. Tools like Imagen 3, Midjourney, and Dall·E have improved in prompt understanding, photorealism, and text-in-image rendering.

But the harder problem is what van Ess calls the hybrid.

#Internet #Broke #Everyones #Bullshit #Detectorspropaganda,artificial intelligence,open source,satellite images,iran,war,politics

Today’s Connections: Sports Edition is tricky! There are some red herrings you’ll have to avoid.

As we’ve shared in previous hints stories, this is a version of the popular New York Times word game that seeks to test the knowledge of sports fans.

Like the original Connections, the game is all about finding the “common threads between words.” And just like Wordle, Connections resets after midnight and each new set of words gets trickier and trickier — so we’ve served up some hints and tips to get you over the hurdle.

If you just want to be told today’s puzzle, you can jump to the end of this article for the latest Connections solution. But if you’d rather solve it yourself, keep reading for some clues, tips, and strategies to assist you.

What is Connections: Sports Edition?

The NYT‘s latest daily word game has launched in association with The Athletic, the New York Times property that provides the publication’s sports coverage. Connections can be played on both web browsers and mobile devices and require players to group four words that share something in common.

Each puzzle features 16 words, and each grouping of words is split into four categories. These sets could comprise anything from book titles, software, country names, etc. Even though multiple words will seem like they fit together, there’s only one correct answer.

If a player gets all four words in a set correct, those words are removed from the board. Guess wrong and it counts as a mistake — players get up to four mistakes before the game ends.

Players can also rearrange and shuffle the board to make spotting connections easier. Additionally, each group is color-coded with yellow being the easiest, followed by green, blue, and purple. Like Wordle, you can share the results with your friends on social media.

Here’s a hint for today’s Connections: Sports Edition categories

Want a hint about the categories without being told the categories? Then give these a try:

Here are today’s Connections: Sports Edition categories

Need a little extra help? Today’s connections fall into the following categories:

  • Yellow: MLB Teams, Colloquially

  • Green: UCLA

  • Blue: Can Follow Minnesota

  • Purple: Starts With Part of the Body

Looking for Wordle today? Here’s the answer to today’s Wordle.

Ready for the answers? This is your last chance to turn back and solve today’s puzzle before we reveal the solutions.

Drumroll, please!

The solution to today’s Connections: Sports Edition #565 is…

What is the answer to Connections: Sports Edition today?

  • MLB Teams, Colloquially — D-BACKS, JAYS, PHILS, SOX

  • UCLA — ANGELES, CALIFORNIA, LOS, UNIVERSITY

  • Can Follow Minnesota — LYNX, UNITED, VIKINGS, WILD

  • Starts With Part of the Body — ARMY, EARTHQUAKES, LEGACY, LIVERPOOL

Don’t feel down if you didn’t manage to guess it this time. There will be new sports Connections for you to stretch your brain with tomorrow, and we’ll be back again to guide you with more helpful hints.

Are you also playing NYT Strands? See hints and answers for today’s Strands.

If you’re looking for more puzzles, Mashable’s got games now! Check out our games hub for Mahjong, Sudoku, free crossword, and more.

Not the day you’re after? Here’s the solution to yesterday’s Connections.

#NYT #Connections #Sports #Edition #hints #answers #April #Tips #solve #Connections">NYT Connections Sports Edition hints and answers for April 11: Tips to solve Connections #565
                                                            Today’s Connections: Sports Edition is tricky! There are some red herrings you’ll have to avoid.As we’ve shared in previous hints stories, this is a version of the popular New York Times word game that seeks to test the knowledge of sports fans. Like the original Connections, the game is all about finding the “common threads between words.” And just like Wordle, Connections resets after midnight and each new set of words gets trickier and trickier — so we’ve served up some hints and tips to get you over the hurdle.If you just want to be told today’s puzzle, you can jump to the end of this article for the latest Connections solution. But if you’d rather solve it yourself, keep reading for some clues, tips, and strategies to assist you.
        SEE ALSO:
        
            Mahjong, Sudoku, free crossword, and more: Play games on Mashable
            
        
    
What is Connections: Sports Edition?The NYT‘s latest daily word game has launched in association with The Athletic, the New York Times property that provides the publication’s sports coverage. Connections can be played on both web browsers and mobile devices and require players to group four words that share something in common.
    
        This Tweet is currently unavailable. It might be loading or has been removed.
    


Each puzzle features 16 words, and each grouping of words is split into four categories. These sets could comprise anything from book titles, software, country names, etc. Even though multiple words will seem like they fit together, there’s only one correct answer.If a player gets all four words in a set correct, those words are removed from the board. Guess wrong and it counts as a mistake — players get up to four mistakes before the game ends.
    
        This Tweet is currently unavailable. It might be loading or has been removed.
    


Players can also rearrange and shuffle the board to make spotting connections easier. Additionally, each group is color-coded with yellow being the easiest, followed by green, blue, and purple. Like Wordle, you can share the results with your friends on social media.
        
            Mashable Top Stories
        
        
    

        SEE ALSO:
        
            Wordle-obsessed? These are the best word games to play IRL.
            
        
    
Here’s a hint for today’s Connections: Sports Edition categoriesWant a hint about the categories without being told the categories? Then give these a try:Here are today’s Connections: Sports Edition categoriesNeed a little extra help? Today’s connections fall into the following categories:Yellow: MLB Teams, ColloquiallyGreen: UCLABlue: Can Follow MinnesotaPurple: Starts With Part of the BodyLooking for Wordle today? Here’s the answer to today’s Wordle.Ready for the answers? This is your last chance to turn back and solve today’s puzzle before we reveal the solutions.Drumroll, please!The solution to today’s Connections: Sports Edition #565 is…What is the answer to Connections: Sports Edition today?MLB Teams, Colloquially — D-BACKS, JAYS, PHILS, SOXUCLA — ANGELES, CALIFORNIA, LOS, UNIVERSITYCan Follow Minnesota — LYNX, UNITED, VIKINGS, WILDStarts With Part of the Body — ARMY, EARTHQUAKES, LEGACY, LIVERPOOLDon’t feel down if you didn’t manage to guess it this time. There will be new sports Connections for you to stretch your brain with tomorrow, and we’ll be back again to guide you with more helpful hints.Are you also playing NYT Strands? See hints and answers for today’s Strands.If you’re looking for more puzzles, Mashable’s got games now! Check out our games hub for Mahjong, Sudoku, free crossword, and more.Not the day you’re after? Here’s the solution to yesterday’s Connections.

                    
                                            
                            
                        
                                    #NYT #Connections #Sports #Edition #hints #answers #April #Tips #solve #Connections

New York Times word game that seeks to test the knowledge of sports fans.

Like the original Connections, the game is all about finding the “common threads between words.” And just like Wordle, Connections resets after midnight and each new set of words gets trickier and trickier — so we’ve served up some hints and tips to get you over the hurdle.

If you just want to be told today’s puzzle, you can jump to the end of this article for the latest Connections solution. But if you’d rather solve it yourself, keep reading for some clues, tips, and strategies to assist you.

What is Connections: Sports Edition?

The NYT‘s latest daily word game has launched in association with The Athletic, the New York Times property that provides the publication’s sports coverage. Connections can be played on both web browsers and mobile devices and require players to group four words that share something in common.

Each puzzle features 16 words, and each grouping of words is split into four categories. These sets could comprise anything from book titles, software, country names, etc. Even though multiple words will seem like they fit together, there’s only one correct answer.

If a player gets all four words in a set correct, those words are removed from the board. Guess wrong and it counts as a mistake — players get up to four mistakes before the game ends.

Players can also rearrange and shuffle the board to make spotting connections easier. Additionally, each group is color-coded with yellow being the easiest, followed by green, blue, and purple. Like Wordle, you can share the results with your friends on social media.

Here’s a hint for today’s Connections: Sports Edition categories

Want a hint about the categories without being told the categories? Then give these a try:

Here are today’s Connections: Sports Edition categories

Need a little extra help? Today’s connections fall into the following categories:

  • Yellow: MLB Teams, Colloquially

  • Green: UCLA

  • Blue: Can Follow Minnesota

  • Purple: Starts With Part of the Body

Looking for Wordle today? Here’s the answer to today’s Wordle.

Ready for the answers? This is your last chance to turn back and solve today’s puzzle before we reveal the solutions.

Drumroll, please!

The solution to today’s Connections: Sports Edition #565 is…

What is the answer to Connections: Sports Edition today?

  • MLB Teams, Colloquially — D-BACKS, JAYS, PHILS, SOX

  • UCLA — ANGELES, CALIFORNIA, LOS, UNIVERSITY

  • Can Follow Minnesota — LYNX, UNITED, VIKINGS, WILD

  • Starts With Part of the Body — ARMY, EARTHQUAKES, LEGACY, LIVERPOOL

Don’t feel down if you didn’t manage to guess it this time. There will be new sports Connections for you to stretch your brain with tomorrow, and we’ll be back again to guide you with more helpful hints.

Are you also playing NYT Strands? See hints and answers for today’s Strands.

If you’re looking for more puzzles, Mashable’s got games now! Check out our games hub for Mahjong, Sudoku, free crossword, and more.

Not the day you’re after? Here’s the solution to yesterday’s Connections.

#NYT #Connections #Sports #Edition #hints #answers #April #Tips #solve #Connections">NYT Connections Sports Edition hints and answers for April 11: Tips to solve Connections #565

Today’s Connections: Sports Edition is tricky! There are some red herrings you’ll have to avoid.

As we’ve shared in previous hints stories, this is a version of the popular New York Times word game that seeks to test the knowledge of sports fans.

Like the original Connections, the game is all about finding the “common threads between words.” And just like Wordle, Connections resets after midnight and each new set of words gets trickier and trickier — so we’ve served up some hints and tips to get you over the hurdle.

If you just want to be told today’s puzzle, you can jump to the end of this article for the latest Connections solution. But if you’d rather solve it yourself, keep reading for some clues, tips, and strategies to assist you.

What is Connections: Sports Edition?

The NYT‘s latest daily word game has launched in association with The Athletic, the New York Times property that provides the publication’s sports coverage. Connections can be played on both web browsers and mobile devices and require players to group four words that share something in common.

Each puzzle features 16 words, and each grouping of words is split into four categories. These sets could comprise anything from book titles, software, country names, etc. Even though multiple words will seem like they fit together, there’s only one correct answer.

If a player gets all four words in a set correct, those words are removed from the board. Guess wrong and it counts as a mistake — players get up to four mistakes before the game ends.

Players can also rearrange and shuffle the board to make spotting connections easier. Additionally, each group is color-coded with yellow being the easiest, followed by green, blue, and purple. Like Wordle, you can share the results with your friends on social media.

Here’s a hint for today’s Connections: Sports Edition categories

Want a hint about the categories without being told the categories? Then give these a try:

Here are today’s Connections: Sports Edition categories

Need a little extra help? Today’s connections fall into the following categories:

  • Yellow: MLB Teams, Colloquially

  • Green: UCLA

  • Blue: Can Follow Minnesota

  • Purple: Starts With Part of the Body

Looking for Wordle today? Here’s the answer to today’s Wordle.

Ready for the answers? This is your last chance to turn back and solve today’s puzzle before we reveal the solutions.

Drumroll, please!

The solution to today’s Connections: Sports Edition #565 is…

What is the answer to Connections: Sports Edition today?

  • MLB Teams, Colloquially — D-BACKS, JAYS, PHILS, SOX

  • UCLA — ANGELES, CALIFORNIA, LOS, UNIVERSITY

  • Can Follow Minnesota — LYNX, UNITED, VIKINGS, WILD

  • Starts With Part of the Body — ARMY, EARTHQUAKES, LEGACY, LIVERPOOL

Don’t feel down if you didn’t manage to guess it this time. There will be new sports Connections for you to stretch your brain with tomorrow, and we’ll be back again to guide you with more helpful hints.

Are you also playing NYT Strands? See hints and answers for today’s Strands.

If you’re looking for more puzzles, Mashable’s got games now! Check out our games hub for Mahjong, Sudoku, free crossword, and more.

Not the day you’re after? Here’s the solution to yesterday’s Connections.

#NYT #Connections #Sports #Edition #hints #answers #April #Tips #solve #Connections

Post Comment