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.
the other one is is do the opposite which is like okay we're going to go higher we're going to go set to 20 set to 25 High very high repetition range and really get after it — not do as much damage because you don't tend to get as sore from those really high repetition ranges than you will typically the other ones and and see if we can blst bust through some plate 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.
then if all of the signs show that you're not actually excessively fatigued your volume is either okay or less than it could be if you're not getting great results visually but you're always running into strength plateaus if you're always tired and sore and if you're north of 20 sets per muscle per week on average hard sets then probably doing less is good