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.
There's something about hitting muscular failure that's great for generating hypertrophy, but it really, according to Pavle, and I'm finding this too, it sort of teaches your nervous system to reach that static point where you can't move any longer. And it really eats into your recovery ability.
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.
but study after study after study illustrates that when you're getting one or two reps away from failure it is often statistically undifferentiating of true failure training probably mostly because of that nervous system component is exponentially higher
what you're getting if you go north of that is a 10:1 fatigue to stimulus ratio whereas everything before was like 1:1 2:1 3:1 5:1
when you're getting one or two reps away from failure it is often statistically undifferiable on raw growth than going all the way to failure however the fatigue of true failure training probably mostly because of that nervous system component is exponentially higher