Great BFR deep dive! I really appreciated the thoughtful comments and questions by @Jonathan and @ambermalika that brought up topics that still need to be addressed.
It was quite obvious that even though the evidence is there, Chad is still skeptical and is having trouble wrapping his head around the whole “something for nothing” theory, which is completely understandable. Because, as a decades-long athlete and coach, he has lived the life of working hard to see benefits and work harder than the other guys to win.
Even though BFR has been around for decades, there is still a lot to be learned and I appreciated everyone’s caution in addressing the topic. I think the aim of this podcast was to present the overwhelming evidence in support of BFR’s benefits while still trying to place emphasis on it’s potential dangers - especially to TR athletes who, as a group, may tend to lean more toward the “start extreme and taper from there if needed” end of the axis 
Nonetheless, the entire body of evidence @chad presented not only showed BFR’s benefits but also its safety.
Outside of the statements of caution in the last several minutes by Chad, Jonathan and Amber, I thought this was the big takeaway statement from Chad regarding BFR:
“The less trained, the moderately trained, the immobile, that’s what we’re going to talk about right now. Caitlin’s question – can it benefit time-crunched athletes to get better endurance gains or are the effects short-lived?
So, I used this as an opportunity to talk about who’s best served by blood flow restriction training. And it turns out, pretty much everybody. Untrained, trained, elite, immobilized, strength athletes, endurance athletes, it’s across the board. There’s science to support it benefitting everybody in small ways and in bigger ways.”
and later:
“We’ve seen example after example of increased muscle hypertrophy and muscle strength. And I think this might be the best application for supplementing your training. Because athletes may already be pushing up against what their bodies can compensate for, can recover from, so if you add a little low-load training, low muscle damage in the process could be an excellent supplementary avenue.”
At the end, Jonathan was talking about how he tends to lean away from activities that increase RPE these days and I couldn’t help but think - is that possibly because increased RPE tends to equate to increased time to recovery? Is there more appeal to short-lived high RPE if there is not an equal required recovery time compared to the effort?
And final thought, there’s a lot of talk about marginal gains and the alternative things that can be done to find those gains (sorry but I already do a PRD and still want to maximize my other gains.) Until recently, most TR riders would literally put themselves in extreme physical discomfort and maxed out RPE… just to find a number! What was it, if you make it to 19 minutes and 30 seconds then you just have to keep going to record a higher FTP? And, these BFR sessions are recommended for 20 minutes or less. It’s not like we don’t know how to be uncomfortable for that duration already and expect less of an outcome!
Anyway, my initial question almost three years ago was if anyone had heard or read evidence of it relating to cycling and I knew when Chad finally addressed it, that it would be as deep and thorough as possible and this podcast did not disappoint!
Looking forward to seeing what future research brings and how @Nate_Pearson and Jonathan’s BFR journeys go 