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.
and i i think doing a lot of research in the low load realm as we've done started i started to really see that maybe that's actually not the case because we almost always see muscle growth which is similar to or equivalent to that of highlight exercise but the strength assuming that we're not practicing the test repeatedly is almost always less
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.
to me i don't think we can make that claim because you're just assuming that the ability to document it means it's actually doing something with respect to strength
and that's kind of the where we've been at for you know ever since in other words that when we run a training study if you get stronger but we don't document a change in muscle size it's neural if you get stronger and we measure changes the muscle size well then it was neural and hypertrophy