The headline is broadly defensible, but the qualifications matter. Effect sizes vary by population, the strongest claims rest on shorter trials, and credible voices push back on how it's typically framed.
then the next part is people will say after about three to four weeks when the muscle is also getting bigger that that change in fiber size will also be contributing to a change in string and that's something that we have recently taken some exception to
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.
what's the conventional thinking on this the conventional wisdom or the conventional thinking is that once you once muscle growth is there that it's probably contributing to changes in strength and I think that's the the textbook definition neural first followed by large contributions from muscle hypertrophy
the next part is people will say after about 3 to four weeks when the muscle is also getting bigger that that change in fiber size will also be contributing to a change in string and that's something that we have recently taken some exception to um and there's been a lot of really good discussions about that part of it