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.
on the other days I say Peter you don't need to do this anymore because honestly you can still get the same or nearly the same activation for all of the muscles involved using other movements single leg movements in particular where you don't have a fraction of the axial loading loading and yeah you might need to do two exercises instead of one but at the end of the day there's a there's a lower risk approach to get it
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 can still get the same or nearly the same activation for all of the muscles involved using other movements single leg movements in particular where you don't have a fraction of the axial loading loading and yeah you might need to do two exercises instead of one but at the end of the day there's a there's a lower risk approach to get it
I think a lot of those things can be done with for example squats and deadlifts you can accomplish many of those goals using single leg uh variants that are far less weight
On the other hand, I say, "Peter, you don't need to do this anymore because honestly, you can still get the same or nearly the same activation for all of the muscles involved using other movements, single leg movements in particular, where you don't have a fraction of the axial loadering loading.
I don't think there's a compromise in the benefits you're getting from single leg training. Like I said, there's probably more benefits that you're getting from that.