We can't find evidence that holds up here. Proponents are reasoning from mechanism or analogy rather than direct human data, and the most credible skeptics raise objections we can't dismiss.
now that said i've always felt that the problem with super slow training is unless it's done to failure which is upsettingly painful if you've tried those workouts it's probably not nearly as beneficial as traditional training
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.
you know the the sort of super slow advocates will say it's on par with traditional training right you could do 20 minutes once or twice a week and have the benefits of six hours per week i'm not sure that that's true even from a hypertrophy standpoint but if it is true it's probably limited to the few people who truly can fail