This page reads nothing from your match history. Load it on a fresh profile with no import behind it and it looks exactly the same as it does on a full one. It does not wait for your data, and it cannot say anything about you.
That is deliberate, and it is recent. The page used to carry a session-length breakdown, a condensed copy of the break comparison, and a pointer at the matchups where your losing runs cluster. All of that now lives on Sessions & tilt, which is the page about sittings and has the room to show those readings at full size with their sample sizes attached. Three pages were describing the same statistics at three levels of detail, and the condensed copies were the ones a reader hit first.
What was left behind is the half that was never personal: general practice for playing a lot, and published findings with their sources.
None of it is medical advice. The page repeats that, and so does this guide. Persistent pain, or anything that worries you, goes to a professional.
Habits
General practice, in a short list. One number in it is yours: the session gap from your Settings is quoted in the micro-breaks line, since that is the boundary every session calculation on the site runs on. It appears as a familiar landmark, and no claim is made that it is the right length to sit for.
The wrist bullet is the one with a hard edge on it. Warm up before you play, stop on anything that actually hurts, and take persistent pain to a doctor instead of grinding through it.
The last bullet points back at Sessions & tilt, because whether you should stop for the night is a question your own record can answer and this page cannot. That comparison has floors under it and often no verdict to give; the sessions guide explains when it will and will not commit.
Research — the topic panels
Below Habits, one panel per topic, in a fixed order:
- Research — Tilt & mental state — what anger does to reaction time and to the way decisions get made under it, and what the esports literature says about breaks.
- Research — Diet & hydration — hydration and sustained attention, water intake reference values, diet and long-run cognition.
- Research — Exercise & stretching — exercise and executive function, sedentary risk, the wrist and eye-strain evidence.
- Research — Caffeine, cannabis & nicotine — stimulants, anxiety, reaction time, withdrawal.
- Research — Checking your body for stress — the physical signature of acute stress and whether noticing it is trainable.
A topic with no entries renders no panel, so the page shows what it has.
How an entry is built
Each entry has two parts and the split between them is the whole point of the panel.
The statement is a published finding in plain language, with a link to the source under it. It opens in a new tab. Nothing is paraphrased into a recommendation.
The assumption, where there is one, sits under the statement behind a small
caps assumption label. It is guesswork about how the finding might matter in
competitive play, written by the person who runs the site. The research does not
say it, and no assumption on the page is evidence for anything.
Some entries carry a note as well, and the notes are the part to read slowly, since they usually carry the reason to be careful with the finding above them. One says the effect sizes varied by domain, moderate for working memory and small elsewhere. Another says its study was correlational and self-reported, which makes it an association and no more than that. An assumption sometimes flags its own stretch too, admitting that the study population was young and that extending it to adults is the guess.
How to read a finding here
Look at what was measured before you look at what it might mean for you. A result about middle-aged adults on a sustained-attention task is not a result about you in a set, and the gap between those two is exactly where the assumption line sits.
Watch for null results. The eye-strain entry reports that a controlled test of scheduled screen breaks found no significant effect on eye strain, reading speed or accuracy, which makes the popular 20-20-20 rule an open question. A null result kept on the page is a better sign than one quietly dropped.
Nothing here is personalised and nothing here is a plan. It is context for the questions the data panels keep raising and cannot answer from a match history.
The long version
Between Habits and the research panels there is a link to Under pressure: the physiology of ranked play. That guide is the argument these scattered findings are fragments of: what competition does to your heart rate and cortisol while you sit perfectly still, and why fine-motor execution is the first thing high arousal takes away from you. Read it if you want the reasoning behind the citations.
Where your own numbers are
Everything on this subject that is computed from your history is on Sessions & tilt:
- whether your win rate falls off as an evening gets longer,
- what happens after a losing run when you queue straight back in against when you step away,
- the tilt readings, including how much rating you tend to give back from a session's own peak,
- which of your matchups the losing runs cluster in.
The sessions guide covers all of them, including the floors that decide when each one is willing to show you a number.