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.
in general fast twitch fibers let's just keep it fast and slow for now to to not confuse people are generally bigger than slow TCH fibers by diameter so they're generally wider than them but when you throw training into the equation that all goes out the window um I have I have analyzed I can't tell you how many thousands of slow twitch fibers and they are bigger than fast R fibers in that individual person
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.
So, we're just talking about a massive spectrum there from very inactive, very sedentary, very high risk behavior
generally speaking, there's two main types of muscle fibers. They can be quantified different ways, histochemically, there's different ways to measure them. But there's slow twitch and fast twitch muscle fibers. Those definitions are based on basically how quickly the muscle fibers can shorten or contract. And so the fast twitch are sort of fast, explosive, very, very quick. So we think of those associated with variable fast, explosive, powerful movements, where the slow twitch, they don't generate as much force, but they don't fatigue very quickly as well.
When we do high intensity, we certainly don't only recruit type twos. We've already called on our slow twitch, and then we start to recruit the fast twitch as well.