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.
It's important too because we need to maintain those connections for all movement patterns right and so when we see long periods of physical inactivity think you know immobilization or bed rest the rate at which you lose muscle is shocking I mean it's really really dramatic and so we know that is a very extreme model of of atrophy that we we want to avoid
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.
almost 220 grams of muscle that is lost in a week
if we immobilize a lag almost 220 grams of muscle that is lost in a week
i' I've talked about this extensively on the podcast about the asymmetry in how quickly you lose versus how long it takes to get back
we immobilize young people so we put One lag in a cost for a week and then if you didn't believe the story about 1 to two% turnover of muscle you know because even after a week when the cost comes off you don't need an MRI scan to see which lag had been in the cost because
as little as two weeks could result in nearly 15 percent loss in the cross-sectional area of your quadricep muscle
what we found that there was a rapid decline after seven days a greater decline or a further decline from 7 to 14 then it tapered out now this is in in healthy people
declines with complete inactivity um or muscle tissues they occur very very rapidly within the first seven days you can see upwards of you know sometimes up towards a seven to maybe even ten percent loss in size of mass