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.
they actually published a paper where they looked at um just flexing like isometric contraction and we're actually able to show like with long isometric contractions like some hypertrophy which before that we always thought oh isometric doesn't actually grow muscle right like there's there's very little benefit to 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.
isometrics where you're just holding positions very good for joint very good for connected tissue and very good for just doing something different all three of these are equally effective for hypertrophy so your gains and muscle size are going to be identical across the board
isometrics where you're just holding positions very good for joint very good for connected tissue and very good for just doing something different
isometrics this the shorter answer is they're they're going to be activating a number of those same mechanisms
I don't think I was actually aware that isometric training could generate or elicit the same hypertrophy response as isotonic or movement-based contraction