Andrew Huberman· PhD
this notion of not necessarily having to go to failure and still being able to evoke strength and hypertrophy um adaptations is a really intriguing one
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.
this notion of not necessarily having to go to failure and still being able to evoke strength and hypertrophy um adaptations is a really intriguing one
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.
doesn't really matter for muscle growth because it's really just about doing enough hard sets and putting that mechanical tension on the muscle
as far as like um hypertrophy I think that force is probably less important I think it's more about just having s enough sufficiently hard sets however you slice that
what seems to be important for building muscle is a few things the first is mechanical tension and understanding that mechanical tension is cumulative throughout reps and sets... the research seems to suggest for a muscular hypertrophy you have to get within a few reps of failure to really maximize the response
mechanical tension number of hard sets and muscles at long lengths meaning uh there does seem to be quite a bit of research that even when you equalize for proximity to failure if you aren't taking a muscle to a long length under tension you're probably not maximizing the benefits of it