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.
what's nice is that if I push on something all I'm doing is just creating an isometric it's just a vector isometric instead of pulling an isometric through the length of the tissue I'm putting it in a different vector and angle so that would just be one I could start there
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 look at any of the mobility work I'll just put r large really comes down to just doing a couple things most of them are just isometrics so we have a lot of isometrics which everyone can agree is good stuff and we do a lot of tempo work that's really just moving slowly through range it just may be that I'm using a different tool to have that isometric stimulus or that that Tempo moving slowly stimulus
So if I have you laying your quad, your quads on a roller and then contract and relax, that's a very sophisticated thing we're doing there. We're teaching your brain it's safe to develop force in this position. But that's just really a sneaky version of an isometric again, right?