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.
um there was a study that just came out that looked at fast Ecentric versus slow ascentric and found that there was actually a little bit better uh outcomes with fast Ecentric compared to slow eccentrics and that actually relates back to for with respect to muscle mass
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.
Untrained participants who lowered weights had similar gains to those who lifted & lowered weights - but they performed half the repetitions.
Muscle thickness increased by 10.6% in the concentric + eccentric group and 9.7% among those who performed eccentric only. But the training volume for those performing eccentric only was half that of the concentric + eccentric group.
Eccentric exercises, which emphasize lowering a weight rather than lifting it, increase muscle size and strength with fewer repetitions.