The evidence is convergent. Multiple independent sources reach the same conclusion, the underlying mechanism is well-characterized, and even the field's most cautious voices treat it as worth doing.
So if you're sore of like, okay, and you're moving around a little bit and you're like, man, this is a little bit sore, you can train. If you're like, I can't sit on the couch without crying because my glutes are so sore, like we probably don't need to train again, right.
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.
If you're like I can't sit on the couch without crying because my glutes are so sore. In that particular case, I'd say you've actually gone to the place of detriment because now you're going to have to skip a training session and now you're behind.
So your actual total volume, say across the month, is actually gonna be lower because you went way too hard in those workouts, had to take too many days off in between. You're going to see that you're going to cover less distance over the course of a month or six month or even a year. So you want to walk a pretty fine line and for most people I would say hedge a little bit on the side of less sore than more sore because frequency is very very important for almost all these adaptations.
So, you don't have to get sore, but we want to have enough of a stimulus to disrupt homeostasis.