The headline is broadly defensible, but the qualifications matter. Effect sizes vary by population, the strongest claims rest on shorter trials, and credible voices push back on how it's typically framed.
In order to change the nerve to muscle connectivity in ways that will better serve you, you need a stressor during the actual training which particular stressor depends on your training goals. But that stressor is almost always going to be associated with inflammation, and then after the training, you want to try and get into a state of reduced inflammation.
Every Sunday: the week’s new conflicts and verdict changes — and nothing else.
Native comments, Twitter mentions, and Reddit threads about this claim — surfaced together so the conversation isn't fragmented across platforms.
Bookmarking — the dossier-vs-overview split is the right call. Most of the time I want overview; sometimes I want receipts.
Would love a "what would change this verdict" RSS feed. Sign me up if it exists.
Inflammation is the basis by which adaptations occur to exercise. So if, for instance, you were to weight train and use a heavier than normal weight kind, do a set to failure or create some little micro tears in the muscle that are healthy in the sense that they would create adaptations and make that muscle stronger, maybe even grow that muscle, there's an inflammatory response associated with that that is critical to the positive adaptation.