Peter Attia· MD
we know we can smash actually on these people with very low risk and get a lot of stimuli there and not have to worry about getting in position at different parts
Loading…
The headline is broadly defensible, but the qualifications matter. Effect sizes vary by population, the strongest claims rest on shorter trials, and credible voices push back on how it's typically framed.
we know we can smash actually on these people with very low risk and get a lot of stimuli there and not have to worry about getting in position at different parts
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.
it's like okay great we know we can smash ax on these people with very low risk and get a lot of stimuli there and not have to worry about getting in position at different parts
isometric things are much safer for indiv individuals who haven't uh done conditioning in the past than isotonic movement based um you know meaning strength movements where the muscle is changing length