Getbig.com: American Bodybuilding, Fitness and Figure
Getbig Main Boards => Gossip & Opinions => Topic started by: Lion666 on October 12, 2010, 11:01:08 PM
-
can u post up that write up you had on muscle hypertrophy, think u had ur own theories and old school methods mixd in the post as well... it was a thread u had years back...
i made this request in the arnie thread, about him beat sergio...
this
this is for mr canada not the other vince
-
lol you better not be referring to Goodrum
-
Hell, if you read these forums you know that Vince G CSN MFT PHD knows infinitely more than I do about bodybuilding and training. Hope this helps.
-
Hell, if you read these forums you know that Vince G CSN MFT PHD knows infinitely more than I do about bodybuilding and training. Hope this helps.
of course thats why theres threads requesting he make post re training...
so when u find the time vince and if u remember the write ups, going back some years here, it'd be cool if u could make that post...
-
This would be interesting. Post it up, Vince.
-
I would need a book to explain everything. Resident experts all know vastly more than I do. That is why they can criticize what I post.
There are some questions that most trainers don't factor into their theories.
Number 1. How do you avoid the repeated bout effect? In other words, if you train really hard your body will adapt but then you have to do something considerably harder the next time to keep that muscle growing. How much harder is unknown.
Number 2. Is it possible to keep a muscle constantly growing week by week?
Number 3. Is there any feedback mechanism to indicate rapid growth and therefore guide training?
Number 4. Are there any examples of rapid hypertrophy in the literature? What protocols were effective?
Number 5. Can animals studies be applied to humans?
-
i rather hear this from goodrum basile.
-
I'll take a stab at this......
Number 1. How do you avoid the repeated bout effect? In other words, if you train really hard your body will adapt but then you have to do something considerably harder the next time to keep that muscle growing. How much harder is unknown.
The current ideas that make sense to me to avoid this would be along the lines of purposefully slightly detraining ('deloading' or DC's 'cruise') for 1-3 weeks. i.e. 2 steps forward, one step back. That has worked pretty well for me. Or something along the lines of what Poliquin suggests by making dramatic changes in the routine every 2-3 months. (3 months of Doggcrapp, 3 months of german volume, 3 months of 5x5, etc.)
Number 2. Is it possible to keep a muscle constantly growing week by week?
In my experience, no, muscle/strength gains aren't linear.
Number 3. Is there any feedback mechanism to indicate rapid growth and therefore guide training?
Soreness, progression in weights/reps, appetite increase, even the pump is a pretty good indicator of how well an exercise is targeting the area.
Number 4. Are there any examples of rapid hypertrophy in the literature? What protocols were effective?
Colorado Experiment? lol
Number 5. Can animals studies be applied to humans?[/color]
Probably to some women I have had.......
-
The Colorado experiment didn't fool anyone. Not a fair dinkum experiment. Casey merely rapidly regained much of his lost size.
Btw, I am excluding all drugs from this discussion.
It is possible to grow rapidly and continuously for at least a month and perhaps longer per muscle. Gains should be linear and regular.
Typically changing routines won't avoid the RBE.
Two feedback mechanisms are measureable gains in size and DOMS. It is controversial how important DOMS is and even if it is related to hypertrophy.
-
The Colorado experiment didn't fool anyone. Not a fair dinkum experiment. Casey merely rapidly regained much of his lost size.
I agree.
It is possible to grow rapidly and continuously for at least a month and perhaps longer per muscle. Gains should be linear and regular.
"At least a month..." doesn't sound that linear. That is about the norm. Blast for 5-6 weeks, maybe even a couple of months, then deload. When I said gains aren't linear I mean that, generally, at least strength gains, can't be made weekly starting Jan 1 and increase reps/weight every time until the end of December. The body needs some kind of deload. Period.
Now maybe you could switch to some kind of volume/different kind of loading while you are cruising and keep muscle gains going more linearly. But... that requires a routine change. ;)
-
By linear I mean you will be able to measure the gains and they will be the same after each training day. If injury can be avoided I see no reason why growth can't continue. Vast changes in protocols and exercises are probably not required.
Consult Antonio's experiments with fowl and their anterior latissimus dorsi muscles.
-
. If injury can be avoided I see no reason why growth can't continue. Vast changes in protocols and exercises are probably not required.
Sounds good in theory, but in practice gains seem to stall. Can you write out what you think a good, typical weekly routine would look like?
Consult Antonio's experiments with fowl and their anterior latissimus dorsi muscles.
I'll look into that - thanks.
-
Everyone thinks the routine is the important thing. Nope, but of course it is not unimportant. What I wanted to do was do a thought experiment about the possibility of rapid, sustained hypertrophy. If it were possible could we reverse engineer the gains and come up with a workout by workout strategy? Fowl managed to gain something like 200 to 300% larger muscles in 30 days. That obviously exceeds anything likely with humans but the experiment might have value re protocols and strategies.
The key to solving this problem is to avoid the RBE. If you have to deal with that like countless thousands fail daily at doing then you are not going to succeed. You literally have to rethink the very tenets of bodybuilding. We all were taught that you stressed a muscle then waited for it to over-compensate through recovery. Guys like Arthur Jones noticed that longer times between training sessions were required and just about everyone out there started resting longer between training days. Eventually I think the idea was that retraining should occur about twice a week. Bryan Haycock believes that you should retrain a muscle every 48 hours because it no longer is creating new muscle after that. It appears that Haycock is on the right track here, but only partly so.
-
screw the haters Vince...I'd like to hear your ideas! I've been looking to change up my routine recently, post up a monthly training regime.
-
Have a read of this article re animal hypertrophy experiments.
http://www.jospt.org/members/getfile.asp?id=1447
-
Vince "Yoda" Goodrum is officially the mose knowledgeable man on this board. Rejoice!
-
you do seem to have some very good ideas on training vince. are you suggesting training every 48 hours or twice a week or were those just examples ? you are doing a very good job at explaining some of the reasoning you have behind your training theory(s), but you havent been specific at all as to what you think is the correct way to train... if you could go into some detail, id enjoy reading your thoughts and am open to trying them out. im particularly interested in what you have to say about training frequency and the repeated bout effect
-
Yes vince make this post
can u post up that write up you had on muscle hypertrophy, think u had ur own theories and old school methods mixd in the post as well... it was a thread u had years back..
-
Hell, if you read these forums you know that Vince G CSN MFT PHD knows infinitely more than I do about bodybuilding and training. Hope this helps.
Translation: 67.5% flotsam: 32.5% jetsam.
-
Translation: 67.5% flotsam: 32.5% jetsam.
(http://www.vmknobs.com/Smileys/default/clapping.gif)
"1"
-
Look, if intellectual dickheads like Chimps is going to contribute sweet bugger all then I won't be posting anything further here.
-
you do seem to have some very good ideas on training vince. are you suggesting training every 48 hours or twice a week or were those just examples ? you are doing a very good job at explaining some of the reasoning you have behind your training theory(s), but you havent been specific at all as to what you think is the correct way to train... if you could go into some detail, id enjoy reading your thoughts and am open to trying them out. im particularly interested in what you have to say about training frequency and the repeated bout effect
i'll bite.
im curious too.
-
There are lots and lots of guys who want information. Vince Gironda said that wherever he went people wanted information. That hasn't changed. What I have to offer is a theory and a strategy that actually works. Of course it takes above average intelligence to actually be able to apply this theory. If you are a knucklehead then you will insist on sets and reps and that is clearly not going to be sufficient for these wannabes. It isn't about sets and reps. It isn't about frequency. Yet these factors are very important. How can that be?
No one can present a theory based on sets and reps and guarantee results. There are many reasons why most fail. Let us take a specific muscle as an example. Biceps. Now this is a muscle that we all love to show if we have any bulk there. Even women love to flex their biceps to show they have been in the gym. Okay, what does the biceps do. Well, according to anatomy and physiology texts biceps have three functions. The first everyone knows and that is flexion or rotation. Yes, doing various curls. The second function is supination. You use this function a bit when doing dumbbell curls while seated or on an incline. The third function is not that important and it is to slightly raise the arm at the end of curls. So when you finish a curl you can lift the arm higher and this further stresses the biceps.
So much for this anatomy lesson. Well, let us approach this from another direction. When is the last time you knew your biceps were growing? When was the last time you actually got those biceps sore after a hard workout? Since we use biceps and forearms in most upperbody training it is difficult to get these muscles sore. My point here is what would happen if we could easily get them sore? Would we witness rapid growth? Absolutely. If we could keep them sore then they should keep growing rapidly. No one knows the precise time to retrain but if Haycock is right then somewhere around two or maybe three days will be required. You never let the muscle recover because then the RBE pops up and you are never going to get bigger arms. That is why millions of guys are blasting away and not growing much at all.
-
^^^ Hehe. Three large(ish) paragraphs and you've really never (definitively) said anything. And you wonder why you attract propwash!?
-
Let us discuss the technology of training. This is a subject overlooked by many people. If you have actually tried to get other people to grow you know there are practical problems in the gym. The plain, unvarnished truth is movement complicates matters immensely. Things may appear the same but that isn't easy to prove and know in the gym.
I think it takes perhaps an exceptional intelligence to build large muscles. This seems strange. Why do we need to be smart to get big? Well, you could be a natural and fluke it. However, you have to be lucky and actually do everything right in order to grow really big. This is not easy to do and that is why so few actually get big.
Let us get back to the biceps. You have to select an exercise that will actually put mechanical tension on your biceps. I can't tell you how many serious bodybuilders cheat in most of their exercises. Instead of putting mechanical tension on their muscles they try to lift heavy weights to impress others in the gym. That is natural and we all are guilty to some degree or other. However, you cannot cheat the hyerptrophy response. If you don't put the muscle under severe mechanical tension it cannot grow. It is as simple as that. If your biceps isn't very sore the next couple of days following a workout then you are simply not growing bigger biceps. It then makes a big difference how you train and what exercise you are using. If you have access to my biceps-supinator machine you should be able to have a brutal workout and involve all three functions of the biceps. You can do regular curls then do supination at the end to further exhaust the biceps. Then you can lift the arms at the end to recruit more fibres.
-
^^^ Hehe. Three large(ish) paragraphs and you've really never (definitively) said anything. And you wonder why you attract you attract propwash!?
Let me be quite clear here. Fuck you, Dr Chimps, you goddamned condescending asshole. What the hell do you know about hypertrophy? Nothing. Go back to reading your treasured comic books.
-
Let me be quite clear here. Fuck you, Dr Chimps, you goddamned condescending asshole. What the hell do you know about hypertrophy? Nothing. Go back to reading your treasured comic books.
Hmm. One: You still really haven't explained yourself. Two: I've never claimed to be an expert on 'hypertrophy,' but I do allow myself the range to question some fraud who claims to be. Three: I'm not a comic book fan.
/you do have a filthy mouth
-
Let me be quite clear here. Fuck you, Dr Chimps, you goddamned condescending asshole. What the hell do you know about hypertrophy? Nothing. Go back to reading your treasured comic books.
Meltdown... Vince bro, im sure your Cardiologist has warned you about that hypertension! Easy dog, you don't want Noworries out living you, do you? LOL
-
Ignore the trolls and the haters vince we want to learn more pls keep posting :)
-
Train hard no more than 4x week. Eat a lot of food and rest.
Simple as that
-
Dr Chimps is a genuine, total asshole. There is no doubt about this at all. He is not an expert in hypertrophy so has absolutely nothing to offer Getbig.
-
Dr Chimps is a genuine, total asshole. There is no doubt about this at all. He is not an expert in hypertrophy so has absolutely nothing to offer Getbig.
Hmm. One: You still really haven't explained yourself. Two: I've never claimed to be an expert on 'hypertrophy,' but I do allow myself the range to question some fraud who claims to be. Three: I'm not a comic book fan.
/you do have a filthy mouth
-
^^^ Hehe. Three large(ish) paragraphs and you've really never (definitively) said anything. And you wonder why you attract propwash!?
Agreed. "You can progress in a linear fashion...err... for at least a month!" :D
-
I'm not entirely sure I am sold on the soreness leads to muscle growth philosophy. Nor am I sold on all of these NO2 products which help you achieve a better pump, but again I do not see how this is specifically translating into muscle growth.
-
Who said soreness leads to muscle growth? I am saying that there is no rapid muscle growth without soreness. Therefore if you can keep a muscle sore it should keep growing. This is a physiological process that can be checked. Try it on one muscle group and see if it is true. Triceps and calves are good choices.
-
I would need a book to explain everything. Resident experts all know vastly more than I do. That is why they can criticize what I post.
There are some questions that most trainers don't factor into their theories.
Number 1. How do you avoid the repeated bout effect? In other words, if you train really hard your body will adapt but then you have to do something considerably harder the next time to keep that muscle growing. How much harder is unknown.
Number 2. Is it possible to keep a muscle constantly growing week by week?
Number 3. Is there any feedback mechanism to indicate rapid growth and therefore guide training?
Number 4. Are there any examples of rapid hypertrophy in the literature? What protocols were effective?
Number 5. Can animals studies be applied to humans?
1. yes, thoughts?
i added periodization with recuperative wrkouts blended into training but to keep traing with intenisty at all ranges of muscle fiber. some ppl think that goin in and load as many a x reps and trying to do the same if not more at >x and never fully reocvering. although u cant fault the intent on something.
its a fine line to walk between gains & injury.
ur dealing with a person that believes someone with experience and knowledge of training that "lives in a gym" will more than likely be better than someone 3xwk45minper with all things equal.
2. is it? itd be nice to atleast maximize potential for over short & long period of time. bodies are meant to adapt. some ppl do because they have to not bc there building for a contest/event or following trainprograms. personally, pikd up a weight 12 yrs ago and for the majority of everyday since, results have been noticed to even the slightest degree for the majority of time, then stay the same finally detract from being least. think there are a lot of ppl that can attest to similar experiences. do what works for you.
3 prob each individual is their own best. are there? were any tests run in a clnclstudy etc?
4 ppl gotta research. question is does the stuff work?
5 good question considering the calorie starved bird and hindered endocrine system that had the weight attached to its wing etc... and others unique studies of the sort.
-
The Colorado experiment didn't fool anyone. Not a fair dinkum experiment. Casey merely rapidly regained much of his lost size.
thats similar to the 5 you posed before because of the studies were they a "marketing" ploy to sell product, etc influence.. which almost seems to be the case, even though ppl do like nautilus eqiupmnt. its tough to go with those "findings"anyway bc thats possible on the table
Btw, I am excluding all drugs from this discussion.
yes
It is possible to grow rapidly and continuously for at least a month and perhaps longer per muscle. Gains should be linear and regular.
stuff like this
Typically changing routines won't avoid the RBE.
Two feedback mechanisms are measureable gains in size and DOMS. It is controversial how important DOMS is and even if it is related to hypertrophy.
some ppl rest during some ppl dont
-
While I respect the size that many top bodybuilders have developed it cannot be said that these gains were achieved through training alone. Thus, going by what the guys do in the gym is hardly going to be either enlightening or valid when it comes to hypertrophy theory. They literally do not know what is responsible for their gains and neither does anyone else. Could be mostly the drugs but how would anyone know without controlled studies. That is not going to happen at any university that I know of.
Periodization and other strategies are important if you are trying to cope with the RBE. I prefer to try to not have to deal with it. The assumption I am making is that if you can get a muscle to respond by growing it is easier to keep it growing than to let it recover and then have to deal with the difficult RBE. An analogy would be to try rolling a huge 6 foot tyre along the road. It takes a huge effort to get it going but almost nothing to keep it rolling along.
Universities have been doing a lot of research in exercise science at the molecular level. That is okay but is hardly the sets and reps stuff that we want to know about. Another problem is that the language used in that discipline is so difficult and technical that few comprehend the literature. Not at all good for reading the science to find out the latest results.
If the studies on fowl were important then how come just stretching one wing produced so much hypertrophy in such a short time? Up to 300% growth in 30 days. That is totally unapproachable by humans as far as we know. Bryan Haycock estimates that it would require about 8 hours training a day to achieve the maximum amount of possible hypertrophy from training. It would be interesting to conduct an experiment for about 3 months using these protocols to answer these questions. If it were possible to put on 3 inches on your upper arms in 3 months it might not be as crazy as it seems. We could lock up experimental subjects in a room and monitor their progress!!
-
Let us discuss the technology of training. This is a subject overlooked by many people. If you have actually tried to get other people to grow you know there are practical problems in the gym. The plain, unvarnished truth is movement complicates matters immensely. Things may appear the same but that isn't easy to prove and know in the gym.
I think it takes perhaps an exceptional intelligence to build large muscles. This seems strange. Why do we need to be smart to get big? Well, you could be a natural and fluke it. However, you have to be lucky and actually do everything right in order to grow really big. This is not easy to do and that is why so few actually get big.
Let us get back to the biceps. You have to select an exercise that will actually put mechanical tension on your biceps. I can't tell you how many serious bodybuilders cheat in most of their exercises. Instead of putting mechanical tension on their muscles they try to lift heavy weights to impress others in the gym. That is natural and we all are guilty to some degree or other. However, you cannot cheat the hyerptrophy response. If you don't put the muscle under severe mechanical tension it cannot grow. It is as simple as that. If your biceps isn't very sore the next couple of days following a workout then you are simply not growing bigger biceps. It then makes a big difference how you train and what exercise you are using. If you have access to my biceps-supinator machine you should be able to have a brutal workout and involve all three functions of the biceps. You can do regular curls then do supination at the end to further exhaust the biceps. Then you can lift the arms at the end to recruit more fibres.
well being real with yourself and working within yourself you know where u ought to be ie weight form etc., so u truly do cheat urself. at the same time of being smart, someone also needs humility and be humble to really get there.
was watch that "docu"vid about kai,,, firstly,,, thought when he strtd getting mor vid time he has it as far as training goes. know gona catch heat for sayin him but its true, talkinj about bb'n, palumbo said it right, kai "choosees his words so careful' but still hes knows his stuff.think hes got awesome theory and training advice. he too is an advocate or using some "overtraining" throghout his vids he make comments in regards to.
Who said soreness leads to muscle growth? I am saying that there is no rapid muscle growth without soreness. Therefore if you can keep a muscle sore it should keep growing. This is a physiological process that can be checked. Try it on one muscle group and see if it is true. Triceps and calves are good choices.
yes,, when the bodies growing its now outside homeostasis, its a painful process. inflamation is soth good and bad, its good for whats its purpose of occuring is but bad in the sense what it does or why it occurs. its repairing, thats good,, u touch it it feels hot swollen hurts, its healing "changing", immune sysytem. it hurts. it was once mentioned that a serious intense workout is in reocvery similar to a major surgery. either way its sore. key is walking that line now and not getting injured yet maintaing or pushing ever so slightly to keep it like that,,, the anabolic state basically.
question is how?etc etc thats where known ur "shizzy" comes in handy because this ios really a think mans sport. ppl dont wana giv any cred but dr's go to school for yrs to learn and work on the human body.
when we're in the gym hangin and bangin, stretchn n slangn, str8 up liftin plate that for at any splight second concentration is lost, bang, torn this, snapd that,crushd this, fracturd that and of course kill ya. (look it the usc player,bar fell throat, then guy declining, took his jaw off.) we are doing all this using weights as a tool to grow bodyparts and all that goes with bbn' along with the science... and we dont get no mainstream love... frig, dont want it anyways from ppl that dont get it...
respect due bitches
thats y its cool its "cult"sport
theres so many differnt facets that makes it great
good stuff goin
-
The key to all of this is rest and recovery. All the literature recommends that we recover and that is when we grow. This is so ingrained that few even question this or try other methods.
About 70 years ago John Grimek tried doing 100 sets of standing presses. He concluded that such high sets were of no value and it seemed to him that there was a threshold beyond which doing more sets was not only fruitless but foolish. Arthur Jones argued that doing volume was insanity and quite stupid. He did a lot of research to support his claims.
What can we say now that both of these men are no longer with us? Were they right or partly right or what? I don't think Grimek's conclusions were valid. Doing something once and not controlling other factors is not proof of much. You are hardly going to get valid results from one occasion with one subject. You may be right but that is highly unlikely.
Anecdotally we can estimate that the single thing that most large bodybuilders do is variations of volume training. It appears that large muscles are good at doing volume training and so that is what you have to do to get big muscles. There may be other methods that give results from time to time but no research has proven that shorter, harder workouts are going to work over a long period of time.
There is a correlation with strength but it appears not to apply beyond certain levels. For individuals there is a correlation between what you can do for 10 reps and your muscle size.
Now getting back to recovery. Do we need to recover to grow? I argue that this merely introduces the repeated bout effect and this is responsible for plateaus and slow growth.
-
While I respect the size that many top bodybuilders have developed it cannot be said that these gains were achieved through training alone. Thus, going by what the guys do in the gym is hardly going to be either enlightening or valid when it comes to hypertrophy theory. They literally do not know what is responsible for their gains and neither does anyone else. Could be mostly the drugs but how would anyone know without controlled studies. That is not going to happen at any university that I know of.
i still think the guys that actually won the o were better in the training dept than other comptitors as the deciding factor bc all other things re drugs could be duplicated,, while they may not utitlize it or what ev if diff bc at least the playn field is lvl, lol
Periodization and other strategies are important if you are trying to cope with the RBE. I prefer to try to not have to deal with it. The assumption I am making is that if you can get a muscle to respond by growing it is easier to keep it growing than to let it recover and then have to deal with the difficult RBE. An analogy would be to try rolling a huge 6 foot tyre along the road. It takes a huge effort to get it going but almost nothing to keep it rolling along.
yes, if your grown keep goin... no sense getn cut if u dont have to. how do u aviod it all together then?
Universities have been doing a lot of research in exercise science at the molecular level. That is okay but is hardly the sets and reps stuff that we want to know about. Another problem is that the language used in that discipline is so difficult and technical that few comprehend the literature. Not at all good for reading the science to find out the latest results.
If the studies on fowl were important then how come just stretching one wing produced so much hypertrophy in such a short time? Up to 300% growth in 30 days. That is totally unapproachable by humans as far as we know. Bryan Haycock estimates that it would require about 8 hours training a day to achieve the maximum amount of possible hypertrophy from training. It would be interesting to conduct an experiment for about 3 months using these protocols to answer these questions. If it were possible to put on 3 inches on your upper arms in 3 months it might not be as crazy as it seems. We could lock up experimental subjects in a room and monitor their progress!!
the story goes that arnold would put massive amounts of time in the gym, when he was in army, that turnd out to be his job, 8hrs a day. just an example of "volume"
now that would be 8hrs per day with virtually no rest days then...? so going with that u could train everyday period? or others being marathon workouts. essentially the threshhold for overtraining is very high.
i believe that to be the cse from my own exp.
how about a lil more on that 8hr a day workout example u outlined above. "8 hours training a day to achieve the maximum amount of possible hypertrophy from training." would that be same bodypart everyday or rotate them to stagger days like upper lower etc.
lets "build and flesh this out" a little more
so far 8 hours a day per ? it seems from above everyday.. etc.. we can use this practically and just put up to the trainprotocol and use it.
-
The issue of inflammation vs hypertrophy comes up. Some accept that muscles are bigger after training hard but deny this is true hypertrophy. What they claim is that I experienced an extended inflammation by keeping calves and triceps sore for a month. Hell, I was getting super strong in the process. That surprised me because I had always heard that your capacity was reduced after training. That seemed to be at first but once you started training the sore muscle it responded and was usually stronger the next time you trained. This went in the face of Selye's theories of stress that Mike Mentzer believed and followed. To them it was a requirement that you rest because this was when you grew. From what I discovered this was untrue and it was better to not recover but to keep the muscle as sore as you could make it. Well, within reason.
I have wanted to try training 12 hours a day on arms for a short time and see what happens. I would alternate an effective biceps with a triceps exercise and do them heavy for 12 straight hours super setting them. I would retrain every second or third day going by how sore the muscles were. Clearly this would cause tauma in the muscle and some immediate, rapid physiological changes might occur to cope with what is happening in the muscles. I don't advise anyone try this cold. Work up to the occasion where you can do a 12 hour shift! Might be crazy but it might trigger immediate adaptation.
We need to know why the birds with weights attached to one wing had so much muscle growth in one month. If it is possible for birds then it might apply to humans. We evolved to deal with a violent, competing environment and who knows what our hypertrophy potential is? If we could tap into our resources by exceptional protocols we might be able to induce unbelieveable gains. By the way, we are assuming maximum nutrition here. Maximum in the sense of having a balanced sufficient diet to provide what is needed for growth and energy.
-
The key to all of this is rest and recovery. All the literature recommends that we recover and that is when we grow. This is so ingrained that few even question this or try other methods.
exactly
About 70 years ago John Grimek tried doing 100 sets of standing presses. He concluded that such high sets were of no value and it seemed to him that there was a threshold beyond which doing more sets was not only fruitless but foolish. Arthur Jones argued that doing volume was insanity and quite stupid. He did a lot of research to support his claims.
yes gironda did that too as well as many other that were the pioneers of the accepted foundation of knowledge etc.
thats the way it was done, self experimentation over long periods of time a month etc, documenting discussing... things that make this thing gr8
What can we say now that both of these men are no longer with us? Were they right or partly right or what? I don't think Grimek's conclusions were valid. Doing something once and not controlling other factors is not proof of much. You are hardly going to get valid results from one occasion with one subject. You may be right but that is highly unlikely.
Anecdotally we can estimate that the single thing that most large bodybuilders do is variations of volume training. It appears that large muscles are good at doing volume training and so that is what you have to do to get big muscles. There may be other methods that give results from time to time but no research has proven that shorter, harder workouts are going to work over a long period of time.
many a ppl balme volume for the gr8 builds they have. a lot of top guys use vt. i think volume is way to go.
There is a correlation with strength but it appears not to apply beyond certain levels. For individuals there is a correlation between what you can do for 10 reps and your muscle size.
sometimes size isnt an indicator tho..
it is that strength in that 10 range that gives size many times.
Now getting back to recovery. Do we need to recover to grow? I argue that this merely introduces the repeated bout effect and this is responsible for plateaus and slow growth.
good question
i'll say again, its a fine line between injury and gains.
another word id like to use is frequency. we are talking about recovery and while it can be possible to workout and train everyday,,, that doesnt mean the same muscle is being traind everyday.
another idea would be ppl who work 40 hrs a wk with some type of repetitive exercise and/or with resistance and weight.. and what devopment ehy have it the muscle groups used.... they dont have the luxury of sayn hey im a lil sore gona take today off.
-
Bodybuilders always want to train all their muscles. They fear atrophy if they do not train them each week. Well, for the purposes of this discussion we don't worry about training everything. What we want to find out is how to maximally grow a muscle and keep it growing. When we know that we can use our information and apply it in a way to alternate muscle groups and stimulate growth where we want it. Because the muscles work together around various joints there will be some tension on adjoining muscles and thus they will either stay the same or grow a bit while targetting other muscles.
I haven't put together a complete DOMS training schedule. I am more interested in establishing how to get incredible gains in the shortest time possible. If we could generate two inches in upper arm growth in a month that would be newsworthy. If we could add a third inch the next month that would be amazing.
-
The issue of inflammation vs hypertrophy comes up. Some accept that muscles are bigger after training hard but deny this is true hypertrophy. What they claim is that I experienced an extended inflammation by keeping calves and triceps sore for a month. Hell, I was getting super strong in the process. That surprised me because I had always heard that your capacity was reduced after training. That seemed to be at first but once you started training the sore muscle it responded and was usually stronger the next time you trained. This went in the face of Selye's theories of stress that Mike Mentzer believed and followed. To them it was a requirement that you rest because this was when you grew. From what I discovered this was untrue and it was better to not recover but to keep the muscle as sore as you could make it. Well, within reason.
done similar with calves, everyday month,, other bodyparts as well
once you get past the inital soreness for the day 1-3or4 after that its ok and strength goes up. after a month or so and integrating tinto a more "normal" training sched, 2-4x wk etc.. there was laggin even residual soreness deep inside the muscle, which had grown and developed that didnt fully go away for long time.
there is a term oldtimers used,, even think larry scott maentioned cramping.
I have wanted to try training 12 hours a day on arms for a short time and see what happens. I would alternate an effective biceps with a triceps exercise and do them heavy for 12 straight hours super setting them. I would retrain every second or third day going by how sore the muscles were. Clearly this would cause tauma in the muscle and some immediate, rapid physiological changes might occur to cope with what is happening in the muscles. I don't advise anyone try this cold. Work up to the occasion where you can do a 12 hour shift! Might be crazy but it might trigger immediate adaptation.
interesting
We need to know why the birds with weights attached to one wing had so much muscle growth in one month. If it is possible for birds then it might apply to humans. We evolved to deal with a violent, competing environment and who knows what our hypertrophy potential is? If we could tap into our resources by exceptional protocols we might be able to induce unbelieveable gains. By the way, we are assuming maximum nutrition here. Maximum in the sense of having a balanced sufficient diet to provide what is needed for growth and energy.
along with similar studies if performed and/or available
Bodybuilders always want to train all their muscles. They fear atrophy if they do not train them each week. Well, for the purposes of this discussion we don't worry about training everything. What we want to find out is how to maximally grow a muscle and keep it growing. When we know that we can use our information and apply it in a way to alternate muscle groups and stimulate growth where we want it. Because the muscles work together around various joints there will be some tension on adjoining muscles and thus they will either stay the same or grow a bit while targetting other muscles.
I haven't put together a complete DOMS training schedule. I am more interested in establishing how to get incredible gains in the shortest time possible. If we could generate two inches in upper arm growth in a month that would be newsworthy. If we could add a third inch the next month that would be amazing.
heck id be happy with 2" in 2 months
:)
-
I wondered about training daily and decided, by experience, that it might be safer to rest a day between all-out workouts. Again, I would consult the protocols used by Dr Antonio to get 300% growth in one month in fowl muscles. It may be that daily training is the way to go. However, it may be that training every second or third day is adequate for sustained growth. What you train on the days between is up to you. It is possible to do Ray Mentzer splits where you do something like lat pulldowns and triceps training one day and chest and biceps training later. In between you do legs. Shoulders are always difficult to fit in so not sure how to accommodate them. Ray's idea is to train each muscle twice per week. Once directly and once indirectly. My feeling is that this is probably not sufficient to generate maximum hypertrophy.
When I grew my arms and calves an inch larger in a month I was rushing back to the gym very excited by my growth and strength increases. I made two simple mistakes that caused injuries and now I know how to avoid that happening. It shows that sometimes we can train in certain ways and not get injured but if we sustain that training we will injure ourselves. In my case I was doing ballistic heel raises for calves and was able to do set after set after set of 60+ reps with 600 and 700 pounds. Perhaps 20 such sets. Gosh, I was getting strong and my calves were over 18 cold then. Bouncing movements will lead to tears in the Achilles tendon so can't be sustained like what I was doing.
For triceps I was doing lying extensions and had my elbows on the bench. This is how everyone was doing them in the gyms I was at. Well, I damaged the sheath that goes over the elbow joint by rubbing my elbows against the pads time after time under huge loads. We can prevent any injury by simply warming up the triceps and keeping the elbows off the pads.
-
I don't think that there's an optimal way to train for hypertrophy as everyone is different genetically. For example different people have different ratios of slow and fast twitch muscle fibres.
truegood point, thinkn gentics takes place here and that is the dif "looks"
Another example is that some pro bodybuilders who dedicate their lives to training and take massive amounts of anabolic substances yet have small calves or other bodyparts. Why do some bodybuilders calves not grow very much no matter what they do?
one word maybe
"training"
All we really know is that muscle needs a certain threshold of tension placed on it, for a certain amount of time, and a recovery phase. Adequate nutrients, hormones, rest etc also play a big part. There are too many variables at play all interacting with each other, so focussing on just the training method is flawed.
true, other things important to but training is a very big & main component to the end game tho
in regards to nutrients hormones etc... thats why the animal studies are important, ie the bird experiment
-
If we start saying that we do what works for us then it ceases being a science. While individuals do vary, and this includes potential to grow muscle, we are arguing that the optimum way to train must embrace the same strategies and principles and apply to everyone.
The technology of training is underappreciated. Too many now believe 'it is all drugs' that they disregard training methods as contributing to hypertrophy.
Take the standing triceps extensions most bodybuilders do. I would bet that most use this exercise for some gains but there is a cutoff point where doing it will no longer cause any growth. Why is that? Well, Arthur Jones pointed out that the triceps responds best when prestretched by placing the elbows near the head. You get this best in the lying triceps extensions. Believe me, this exercise can be effective but almost everyone cheats at it and cancels out any possible growth from doing it. Quite incredible the way so many think they are training effectively but are not putting much mechanical tension on target muscles.
There are effective exercises for most muscles. Some people believe you have to provide novelty and keep changing things. I am not sure this is a requirement. While I embrace the concept of novelty I don't think it is necessary if you are stimulating maximum growth. It is when you stall your growth that you have to try something different.
Those who are not intelligent enough to apply these theories cannot and will not grow much. They will conclude that it didn't work.
-
We need to know why the birds with weights attached to one wing had so much muscle growth in one month. If it is possible for birds then it might apply to humans. We evolved to deal with a violent, competing environment and who knows what our hypertrophy potential is? If we could tap into our resources by exceptional protocols we might be able to induce unbelieveable gains. By the way, we are assuming maximum nutrition here. Maximum in the sense of having a balanced sufficient diet to provide what is needed for growth and energy.
I find your thinking interesting. Look at men who do manual labor, for instance mechanics, farmers and so-on. Most mechanics have very thick hands and fingers and powerful looking forearms. My own father was a mechanic and had very thick fingers and a very powerful grip. Although I have larger triceps, pecs, lats etc., than him, my hands look like baby hands compared to his. This development is the result of chronic "overuse", perhaps comparable to the fowl-example you have referred to.
NN
-
I wondered about training daily and decided, by experience, that it might be safer to rest a day between all-out workouts. Again, I would consult the protocols used by Dr Antonio to get 300% growth in one month in fowl muscles. It may be that daily training is the way to go. However, it may be that training every second or third day is adequate for sustained growth. What you train on the days between is up to you. It is possible to do Ray Mentzer splits where you do something like lat pulldowns and triceps training one day and chest and biceps training later. In between you do legs. Shoulders are always difficult to fit in so not sure how to accommodate them. Ray's idea is to train each muscle twice per week. Once directly and once indirectly. My feeling is that this is probably not sufficient to generate maximum hypertrophy.
...
I have systematically tried out training each muscle group once pr week vs twice pr week. I grew continously on the two pr. week schedule for 6 months and suffered no injuries. On the once pr week schedule I had lots of joint pain and clearly less progress. I have never used drugs, except for creatine ;-). Of course, this is anectodical, but for me clearly true after systematically trying it out. (been training with weights for about 16 years)
NN
-
I find your thinking interesting. Look at men who do manual labor, for instance mechanics, farmers and so-on. Most mechanics have very thick hands and fingers and powerful looking forearms. My own father was a mechanic and had very thick fingers and a very powerful grip. Although I have larger triceps, pecs, lats etc., than him, my hands look like baby hands compared to his. This development is the result of chronic "overuse", perhaps comparable to the fowl-example you have referred to.
NN
I think this phenomenon can be explained by a principle sometimes referred to genetic bias. If you are built like a Woody Allen and naturally small and weak you are not going to go into manual labor or be drawn into occupations that require strength. If you are a Paul Anderson then being a piano mover is a very real option. So it's kind of like putting the cart before the horse. It's like saying playing basketball makes you tall.
Vince, tiresome as he can often be, I believe has a lot to offer in this field of "hypertrophy" training. Say what you will of him, and he is an eccentric sort, but he is also a thinking man. It's frustrating trying to squeeze out any useful, coherent and specific information out of him because I think he's just tired (hence the "tiresome" label). Tired in the sense that I get tired as the years wear on. Same old stuff. Same old know it alls that only want to preach and argue but not listen and debate. You just don't want to bother anymore because you know the questions asked are not in the spirit of edification but to show how little you know and/or how wrong you are and how much smarter the questioner is. That he is the expert. Hence, the tiresome "Everyone is an expert" refrain.
You've drawn the old bugger out a bit and already I have learned something new. Or rather have clarified one of his beliefs. I never agreed with him about the body not having to recover for hypertrophy to occur. But, as he probably noticed, he never said body but rather the muscle. It seems he is referring to localized recovery, i.e., the individual muscle itself; and I was referring to systemic recovery, i.e., the body as a whole which we all need, at that very minimum, in the form of daily sleep whether we lift weights or not. Two different things entirely. Now I still don't know if that is valid but it does change the equation substantially and gives me something to consider.
In a debate, before one can come to any conclusions about right and wrong, valid or invalid, we have to have clarity. Being crystal clear about exactly what we are talking about. Being on the same page if you will.
There are endless opportunities here on GetBig to bash the former Mr. Canada. Opportunities that are ravenously seized upon. But there are some that do want to hear what decades of experience and being there as generations of bodybuilders, from Pearl to Cutler that have come and gone, has been distilled in the not quite yet senile mind . For just this one thread let the man speak. Those who don't care what he has to say, think ill of him, wish him harm, relish making unsubstantiated accusations about his personal life..., there will be many more opportunities for that. But for this one thread, just this one thread, just leave it be. Go elsewhere. No one is forcing you to listen. Remember, Vince didn't start this thread. A poster has shown a genuine interest and was the one that solicited the ideas and theories from Vince. Give the OP and the rest of us a fair chance to hear the man out. Fair dinkum?
-
In order to appreciate what I am claiming you have to be prepared to abandon cherished beliefs. As long as you insist the muscle must recover then you are not going to accept what I am proposing.
Those of us who have been around a long time eventually default to various ways of training and do not change nor do we grow much ever again. As we age we assume nature didn't mean for us to have large muscles so tend not to train that way. My experience suggests that making gains is possible at any age but more effective for males who have natural testosterone. The big problem in old age is to find the sufficient motivation to train in a regular fashion and hard enough to cause hypertrophy.
So, what is distilled from what I am saying is not so much a program but a strategy. DOMS training requires that you generate sufficient soreness in target muscles. If your muscles are not very sore following training then you go back and train that muscle again. You might have to try different things here. This is where vast experience comes in handy. A lot of this is not obvious but is stuff we discover through training long and hard. Once your muscle is quite sore you have achieved your immediate objective and rest a day or maybe two. Then you retrain that muscle doing about the same thing you did to cause that soreness. Hopefully you will be a bit stronger and can add some additional weight for your sets. Now comes the interesting part that I have distilled from almost 52 years training. You warm up the muscle by ascending sets and do something more than 15 reps during that warmup. Then you keep the resistance the same and then do set after set after set after set with that maximum resistance. You will find that your reps might diminish with the sets. The reason we chose 15 was two fold. To cause more of a muscle pump and to allow about 10 minimum reps for the last maximum weighted sets. This is best for hypertrophy. Of course you are always trying to do more reps and use more weight. There must be a progression because it is the progression that partly triggers the hypertrophy response. You retrain the muscle before the soreness evaporates. That seems crazy but so far I haven't found a problem with this way of training. You have to avoid the dangerous moves and ballistic movements because the sheer volume of exercise with such heavy weights will tax the body. Probably every 3rd day might be sufficient.
-
Pellius has come a long way from being Mark Twain. Thanks for your interest.
If you read 'The Stress of Life' by Hans Selye you see a man who saw things no one else was looking for. I had a discussion with Ray Mentzer about stress and the GAS. General Adaptation Syndrome. I wondered if it were possible not to turn on the whole adaptation response. Ray was adamant that any training that leads to hypertrophy will cause the system to respond to the stress. He didn't think it was possible to train a muscle and not switch on the whole body adaptation response to the stress. I came to envisage all training as being like a funnel. To be effective and result in hypertrophy you had to achieve the same physiological responses. All the methods are in the wide part of the funnel but all methods must pass through the narrow part and result in exactly the same physical responses. Your symptoms will be a huge pump, your muscles will be shaking, you will be buggered and you will be sweating. There will be no exceptions. If you don't experience these phenomena you won't grow much. The next day you MUST be quite sore in the target muscle.
What I found by training calves and arms the same day was that I wasn't exhausted and each training day returned with enthusiasm. My soreness was most welcome because I knew I would be able to physically measure both bodyparts the following day and they would be larger by 1/10 inch. In ten workouts I had added 1 full inch to both bodyparts. It remains to be seen what would happen if the larger muscles are targetted. I would have the same positive response if I substituted lat pulldowns for biceps curls and supersetting the pulldowns with lying triceps extensions. I don't do triceps pressdowns nor anything using a barbell. Never use a rope! Those lying barbell exercises are dangerous and will injure your elbows because you have to use additional force to prevent the bar from hitting your face. Use the lying triceps extensions because the triceps are under tension from being in the stretched position. Come to my gym and I will show you how to do this exercise. A pity you can't buy this equipment.
-
Pellius has come a long way from being Mark Twain. Thanks for your interest.
If you read 'The Stress of Life' by Hans Selye you see a man who saw things no one else was looking for. I had a discussion with Ray Mentzer about stress and the GAS. General Adaptation Syndrome. I wondered if it were possible not to turn on the whole adaptation response. Ray was adamant that any training that leads to hypertrophy will cause the system to respond to the stress. He didn't think it was possible to train a muscle and not switch on the whole body adaptation response to the stress. I came to envisage all training as being like a funnel. To be effective and result in hypertrophy you had to achieve the same physiological responses. All the methods are in the wide part of the funnel but all methods must pass through the narrow part and result in exactly the same physical responses. Your symptoms will be a huge pump, your muscles will be shaking, you will be buggered and you will be sweating. There will be no exceptions. If you don't experience these phenomena you won't grow much. The next day you MUST be quite sore in the target muscle.
What I found by training calves and arms the same day was that I wasn't exhausted and each training day returned with enthusiasm. My soreness was most welcome because I knew I would be able to physically measure both bodyparts the following day and they would be larger by 1/10 inch. In ten workouts I had added 1 full inch to both bodyparts. It remains to be seen what would happen if the larger muscles are targetted. I would have the same positive response if I substituted lat pulldowns for biceps curls and supersetting the pulldowns with lying triceps extensions. I don't do triceps pressdowns nor anything using a barbell. Never use a rope! Those lying barbell exercises are dangerous and will injure your elbows because you have to use additional force to prevent the bar from hitting your face. Use the lying triceps extensions because the triceps are under tension from being in the stretched position. Come to my gym and I will show you how to do this exercise. A pity you can't buy this equipment.
I read Seyle's book at 18 yrs. solely due to reading the articles by Mike Mentzer. Love him or hate him, he was the one the got me thinking about bodybuilding and there was something different from standard routines you read in the mags that Arnold and the rest was doing. At the time I was training six days a week, each body part 3x/wk. Eventually, through sheer exhaustion, I reduced it to six days/wk each body part 2x/wk. Chest/back, shoulders/arms, legs. Still 12-20 sets per body part. Also, during that time when I was working as a security guard a fellow by the name of Hank Grundman opened up a Nautilus gym that was all the rage in the late 1970s through the mid 1980s. He gave me a book that had all the writings and bulletins at the time by Arthur Jones. It opened up a whole new world for me because it introduced ideas that I never considered. Full range motion, variable resistance, negative resistance, rotary resistance, directness (isolating muscle groups) of resistance, progression, intensity, pre-exhaust, frequency, duration, correlation (not causation) between size and strength.... Before it was mostly about sets and pumps. Also, that though we are all unique and different in so many ways, that fundamentally -- biologically -- we are identical. If the basic fundamental principles didn't apply to all of us then a field such as medical science could not exist. We different only in specifics. If you have a bacterial infections an antibiotic will cure it. What specific antibiotic will vary widely. In my case, I am allergic to penicillin so I was given tetracycline as a child. Still the fundamental principle of antibiotics treating bacterial infections apply to everyone.
There exists a fundamental hypertrophy training system that applies to all. What the specifics are and how someone responds vary widely. The search continues, sort of, but with the wide spread use of anabolics the attitude seems to be, why bother?
-
Arthur Jones probably prevented me from getting 18+ inch arms. After his extensive writing and even ads it was thought to be stupid to train too long or too frequently. We started looking for minimums. Larry Scott influenced us because he had narrow shoulders yet won the Mr Olympia. We all thought he retired when Sergio Oliva showed up. Anyway, Larry suggested that when training arms or calves, you train to pump them bigger than ever. If you could achieve that pump you should be bigger the next day. Fitting that in with what Jones advocated I ended up doing about 7 total sets per bodypart which included the warmup sets. We all more or less did a pyramid program and did a set or two after the maximum by reducing the weight and trying to get an additional pump. There was a writer in Ironman who suggested that it was the waste products in tired muscles that led to the hypertrophy. Sergio Oliva seemed to practice this strategy by doing lots and lots of sets. He would even come out of the changeroom and do an additional set or two to keep the pump.
Yes, anabolic steroids ruined bodybuilding as we knew it. Nowadays the interest isn't about training but drug protocols.
By the way, Pellius, your early experiments with training were probably doomed to failure because of your inadequate calories. All that expensive protein being converted to energy but you still didn't eat enough to grow big muscles. No wonder you struggled for decades looking for the right method to make gains. Countless others have similar experiences.
The one factor I overlooked was the sets at maximum resistance. I found this out the hard way when this large Pacific Islander trained at my gym in Blacktown in the old days. We started with 10 plates in the lat pulldown and I did way more than he did. Next set was 15 plates X 5 kg. About 80 kg resistance including the assembly. Well, I did 18 reps and he did 15 reps. Then he said it was my set. Shit, I could manage only 9 reps. He did 15 reps. I gave up at that point and he continued doing 15 rep sets again and again. Then he did seated rowing. Big muscles allowed you to do heaps of sets with fairly heavy weights. I had missed this crucial factor all those years.
-
If we start saying that we do what works for us then it ceases being a science. While individuals do vary, and this includes potential to grow muscle, we are arguing that the optimum way to train must embrace the same strategies and principles and apply to everyone.
The technology of training is underappreciated. Too many now believe 'it is all drugs' that they disregard training methods as contributing to hypertrophy.
Take the standing triceps extensions most bodybuilders do. I would bet that most use this exercise for some gains but there is a cutoff point where doing it will no longer cause any growth. Why is that? Well, Arthur Jones pointed out that the triceps responds best when prestretched by placing the elbows near the head. You get this best in the lying triceps extensions. Believe me, this exercise can be effective but almost everyone cheats at it and cancels out any possible growth from doing it. Quite incredible the way so many think they are training effectively but are not putting much mechanical tension on target muscles.
There are effective exercises for most muscles. Some people believe you have to provide novelty and keep changing things. I am not sure this is a requirement. While I embrace the concept of novelty I don't think it is necessary if you are stimulating maximum growth. It is when you stall your growth that you have to try something different.
Those who are not intelligent enough to apply these theories cannot and will not grow much. They will conclude that it didn't work.
exactly, we are all different but we are more the same,,, bodyparts arms legs etc., function of muscles etc.
"training is underappreciated"
yes very, reason being are there are truly gr8 physiques few and far in between
there may be somethin with someone like a kai for example, who takes training and theory and recognizes and explorers it
its a shame that some ppl can build a physiqu that rivals champions of yesteryear or even today just because they respond well to supplments and diet strictly (if at all even, some supps negate the need to diet strict and stiil cut up from information passed around)...
instead of training "the best"
I find your thinking interesting. Look at men who do manual labor, for instance mechanics, farmers and so-on. Most mechanics have very thick hands and fingers and powerful looking forearms. My own father was a mechanic and had very thick fingers and a very powerful grip. Although I have larger triceps, pecs, lats etc., than him, my hands look like baby hands compared to his. This development is the result of chronic "overuse", perhaps comparable to the fowl-example you have referred to.
NN
exactly,,, some ppl do bc they have to and dont follow a accepted form of training protocol and still get results just as someone following a train program with similar results in mind may or may not achieve.
piont being it kicks overtraining and recovery in the butt a lil
-
I have systematically tried out training each muscle group once pr week vs twice pr week. I grew continously on the two pr. week schedule for 6 months and suffered no injuries. On the once pr week schedule I had lots of joint pain and clearly less progress. I have never used drugs, except for creatine ;-). Of course, this is anectodical, but for me clearly true after systematically trying it out. (been training with weights for about 16 years)
NN
agreed, found results similar myself
-
I think this phenomenon can be explained by a principle sometimes referred to genetic bias. If you are built like a Woody Allen and naturally small and weak you are not going to go into manual labor or be drawn into occupations that require strength. If you are a Paul Anderson then being a piano mover is a very real option. So it's kind of like putting the cart before the horse. It's like saying playing basketball makes you tall.
good point, unless u get the desire to be "able" to ;)
Vince, tiresome as he can often be, I believe has a lot to offer in this field of "hypertrophy" training. Say what you will of him, and he is an eccentric sort, but he is also a thinking man. It's frustrating trying to squeeze out any useful, coherent and specific information out of him because I think he's just tired (hence the "tiresome" label). Tired in the sense that I get tired as the years wear on. Same old stuff. Same old know it alls that only want to preach and argue but not listen and debate. You just don't want to bother anymore because you know the questions asked are not in the spirit of edification but to show how little you know and/or how wrong you are and how much smarter the questioner is. That he is the expert. Hence, the tiresome "Everyone is an expert" refrain.
You've drawn the old bugger out a bit and already I have learned something new. Or rather have clarified one of his beliefs. I never agreed with him about the body not having to recover for hypertrophy to occur. But, as he probably noticed, he never said body but rather the muscle. It seems he is referring to localized recovery, i.e., the individual muscle itself; and I was referring to systemic recovery, i.e., the body as a whole which we all need, at that very minimum, in the form of daily sleep whether we lift weights or not. Two different things entirely. Now I still don't know if that is valid but it does change the equation substantially and gives me something to consider.
In a debate, before one can come to any conclusions about right and wrong, valid or invalid, we have to have clarity. Being crystal clear about exactly what we are talking about. Being on the same page if you will.
There are endless opportunities here on GetBig to bash the former Mr. Canada. Opportunities that are ravenously seized upon. But there are some that do want to hear what decades of experience and being there as generations of bodybuilders, from Pearl to Cutler that have come and gone, has been distilled in the not quite yet senile mind . For just this one thread let the man speak. Those who don't care what he has to say, think ill of him, wish him harm, relish making unsubstantiated accusations about his personal life..., there will be many more opportunities for that. But for this one thread, just this one thread, just leave it be. Go elsewhere. No one is forcing you to listen. Remember, Vince didn't start this thread. A poster has shown a genuine interest and was the one that solicited the ideas and theories from Vince. Give the OP and the rest of us a fair chance to hear the man out. Fair dinkum?
cool
-
Arthur Jones probably prevented me from getting 18+ inch arms. After his extensive writing and even ads it was thought to be stupid to train too long or too frequently. We started looking for minimums. Larry Scott influenced us because he had narrow shoulders yet won the Mr Olympia. We all thought he retired when Sergio Oliva showed up. Anyway, Larry suggested that when training arms or calves, you train to pump them bigger than ever. If you could achieve that pump you should be bigger the next day. Fitting that in with what Jones advocated I ended up doing about 7 total sets per bodypart which included the warmup sets. We all more or less did a pyramid program and did a set or two after the maximum by reducing the weight and trying to get an additional pump. There was a writer in Ironman who suggested that it was the waste products in tired muscles that led to the hypertrophy. Sergio Oliva seemed to practice this strategy by doing lots and lots of sets. He would even come out of the changeroom and do an additional set or two to keep the pump.
Yes, anabolic steroids ruined bodybuilding as we knew it. Nowadays the interest isn't about training but drug protocols.
sas but true, some people love to train tho,, to ppl that dont use though this is the only thing more so than diet,,, even guys that do bc that playing field is atcually level in regards to drugs, its still they guy that trains "the best"
By the way, Pellius, your early experiments with training were probably doomed to failure because of your inadequate calories. All that expensive protein being converted to energy but you still didn't eat enough to grow big muscles. No wonder you struggled for decades looking for the right method to make gains. Countless others have similar experiences.
then in the bird study its either the proper training technique that was used stimulated muscle growth even without calories bc its not the case in human here then. training without calorie = no mass ,,,,or,,,,, the wrong training without calaorie = no mass
???
i always wondered about how much food is actually retained? is there where digestive enzymes come in, even still, ppl poop.
can a person build with any type of training program without excess calories, does the body find a way, or take whatever it needs and/or can get from whatever lil food it gets??? makes the best with what it has, so to speak.
The one factor I overlooked was the sets at maximum resistance. I found this out the hard way when this large Pacific Islander trained at my gym in Blacktown in the old days. We started with 10 plates in the lat pulldown and I did way more than he did. Next set was 15 plates X 5 kg. About 80 kg resistance including the assembly. Well, I did 18 reps and he did 15 reps. Then he said it was my set. Shit, I could manage only 9 reps. He did 15 reps. I gave up at that point and he continued doing 15 rep sets again and again. Then he did seated rowing. Big muscles allowed you to do heaps of sets with fairly heavy weights. I had missed this crucial factor all those years.
so ur saying that set volume is important then?
-
I don't agree with the soreness theory.
-
Soreness is a tired and stressed muscle.
Therefore you don damage to it. All you have to do is eat enougha nd rest so it recovers before the next day. It really is that simple. DOMS are a sign of a good workout.
-
Who said soreness leads to muscle growth? I am saying that there is no rapid muscle growth without soreness. Therefore if you can keep a muscle sore it should keep growing. This is a physiological process that can be checked. Try it on one muscle group and see if it is true. Triceps and calves are good choices.
"If you keep a muscle sore, it should keep growing..." Say what? I could train triceps every day, 30 sets and FRY THEM 7 days per week and I am pretty certain that at the end of this experiment my triceps wouldn't have grown at all.
Last time I checked, training breaks down muscle... rest, recovery/food causes growth.
-
Know it all experts have arrived and added their 2 cents worth. Physiology isn't about belief. It is about what happens in muscles after certain stresses and the timetable of hypertrophy. It is my hunch that painful DOMS is an indication that growth is occurring in the target muscle. If the cause of the DOMS was a severe training session with reasonably heavy weights then there is no doubt in my mind that hypertrophy is occurring. There are some experiments that support this hypothesis. The trouble with most of the scientists in exercise science is that they are hardly interested in large muscles so don't do research that would settle these arguments.
In the meantime, we have to extrapolate, postulate and experiment with our bodies and see what happens. If something happens to us we might be on to something that would happen to everyone.
Why do muscles experience DOMS? That seems to be an odd response of the body to some kinds of exertion. Why have that soreness? What purpose does it serve? If we use evolutionary biology we can imagine that this DOMS has some benefit otherwise it wouldn't have evolved. Perhaps there is no benefit and that is just the way our muscles work that we inherited.
-
"If you keep a muscle sore, it should keep growing..." Say what? I could train triceps every day, 30 sets and FRY THEM 7 days per week and I am pretty certain that at the end of this experiment my triceps wouldn't have grown at all.
Last time I checked, training breaks down muscle... rest, recovery/food causes growth.
First of all that isn't what I recommend. Second, you have no idea what would happen if you did that protocol and ate plenty of extra food.
Last time you checked you accepted what just about everyone else believes. Is it any wonder, then, that so few trainees actually build huge muscles? I am wasting my time talking to knuckleheads.
-
Worst thread ever.. Please Vince, tell us more about your bicep machine ::)
-
"If you keep a muscle sore, it should keep growing..." Say what? I could train triceps every day, 30 sets and FRY THEM 7 days per week and I am pretty certain that at the end of this experiment my triceps wouldn't have grown at all.
Last time I checked, training breaks down muscle... rest, recovery/food causes growth.
try it and find out before u make any assumptions.
when something heals it inflamed and that causes soreness....
thats why nsaid pain relievers inhibit muscle growth,,, one of the pruposes to take them along with stopping inflammation is to stop the pain,,, inflmtion and pain are relative
-
The guys who have gotten reasonably big know what I am talking about and we have a different discussion compared to wannabes and know-it-alls. This happens because the physiology is the same in all of us. More or less. Those who are not growing have to ask why they are not growing. That is the biggest problem in bodybuidling. How come the vast majority of guys blasting away in countless gyms are staying the same day in and day out? If everyone believes they are training hard enough how come they aren't growing larger and larger? Nope, most come to a stop. At this point they believe they need drugs to get bigger. When they finally try the drugs they discover they hardly change at all and a revelation occurs and they believe they don't have the genetics.
If we go back to about 1960 we will see a near miracle occur in Southern California. A small, narrow shouldered dude from Idaho arrived and thought he would win bodybuilding titles. It was almost a laugh and Vince Gironda wasn't impressed with Larry Scott when he introduced himself at Vinces Gym. Hi, I'm Larry Scott. To which Vince replied, So what!
How did this narrow guy win Mr California and soon after the first two Mr Olympia titles? In 5 short years Larry transcended that little muscular guy and developed huge arms and shoulders. What did Larry do that so many never do? Most observers would have declared that Larry didn't have the genetics to be Mr Olympia.
-
Know it all experts have arrived and added their 2 cents worth. Physiology isn't about belief. It is about what happens in muscles after certain stresses and the timetable of hypertrophy. It is my hunch that painful DOMS is an indication that growth is occurring in the target muscle. If the cause of the DOMS was a severe training session with reasonably heavy weights then there is no doubt in my mind that hypertrophy is occurring. There are some experiments that support this hypothesis. The trouble with most of the scientists in exercise science is that they are hardly interested in large muscles so don't do research that would settle these arguments.
In the meantime, we have to extrapolate, postulate and experiment with our bodies and see what happens. If something happens to us we might be on to something that would happen to everyone.
Why do muscles experience DOMS? That seems to be an odd response of the body to some kinds of exertion. Why have that soreness? What purpose does it serve? If we use evolutionary biology we can imagine that this DOMS has some benefit otherwise it wouldn't have evolved. Perhaps there is no benefit and that is just the way our muscles work that we inherited.
"Know it all experts have arrived and added their 2 cents worth." pay no attention whatsoever to the very very few that dont understand this... more than serious bbr's and prob even pros too,,, basically anyone thats been doing this longer than a decade knows this is valuable.
can we go back and delve into this a lil more vince... ie make it a hypothetical workout routine etc...
"If the studies on fowl were important then how come just stretching one wing produced so much hypertrophy in such a short time? Up to 300% growth in 30 days. That is totally unapproachable by humans as far as we know. Bryan Haycock estimates that it would require about 8 hours training a day to achieve the maximum amount of possible hypertrophy from training. It would be interesting to conduct an experiment for about 3 months using these protocols to answer these questions. If it were possible to put on 3 inches on your upper arms in 3 months it might not be as crazy as it seems. We could lock up experimental subjects in a room and monitor their progress!!"
vince u mentioned in the other post about u doing the 12hr a dayarm routine,,, and think u sadi u did it every other day,,, u also mentioned u gained an inch arm growth over a month, 10 wrkouts,, so did u train every 3 days then? were they the same experiment or 2 different experiments. what did u do to get the 1" growth ovr 10 wrkouts.
keep going,, u dont have to "convince" anyone to suspend their belief of mainstream and accepted theory of weight training... some ppl see thru mrkting ploys or swayed studies or worse,,, the experience of no gains lol etc...
so much great feedback from others on this thread, to even bother to acknowledge ppl that knock or mock this thread is an injustice. someone that disagrees an offers other theories and infact adds to the convo is welcome and appreciated, everyone doesnt have to think alike. there are adults in this thread that intend to have a mature conversation about acheiving something most of us have in common as a goal.
-
I don't agree with the soreness theory.
food for thought...
thats why nsaid pain relievers inhibit muscle growth,,, one of the pruposes to take them along with stopping inflammation is to stop the pain,,, inflmtion and pain are relative
-
The guys who have gotten reasonably big know what I am talking about and we have a different discussion compared to wannabes and know-it-alls. This happens because the physiology is the same in all of us. More or less. Those who are not growing have to ask why they are not growing. That is the biggest problem in bodybuidling. How come the vast majority of guys blasting away in countless gyms are staying the same day in and day out? If everyone believes they are training hard enough how come they aren't growing larger and larger? Nope, most come to a stop. At this point they believe they need drugs to get bigger. When they finally try the drugs they discover they hardly change at all and a revelation occurs and they believe they don't have the genetics.
yes yes and yes... one thing that the intro of drugs did was cause ppl to stop finding ways to keep pushing the limits of building muscle thru training alone. when all things are equal in the drug dept., more so than who "responds" best re genetics etc., the single factor that will seperate the champ from the rest is training, you get out what u put in. ppl want to look like a muscle beast but dont want to pay the price and do the things one needs to do to really get it. they look a certain way bc they can perform a certain way. now u can fake it for a while, prob spend money for drugs etc. however,,, will u keep it yr after yr and stay the same and or make improvements if u remove drugs. no. someone that "lives" in a gym and trains using proper muscle hypertrophy protocol in thier training programs will.
lil jumbled i know, just finished up a leg wrkout, dizzy and sik, u guys get my point tho
8)
u know feelin gr8
If we go back to about 1960 we will see a near miracle occur in Southern California. A small, narrow shouldered dude from Idaho arrived and thought he would win bodybuilding titles. It was almost a laugh and Vince Gironda wasn't impressed with Larry Scott when he introduced himself at Vinces Gym. Hi, I'm Larry Scott. To which Vince replied, So what!
How did this narrow guy win Mr California and soon after the first two Mr Olympia titles? In 5 short years Larry transcended that little muscular guy and developed huge arms and shoulders. What did Larry do that so many never do? Most observers would have declared that Larry didn't have the genetics to be Mr Olympia.
lol,
vince g, lol had that same attitude with arnold, lol
very true,,, actually the guys with the best genetics dont always win shows/contests,,, as we have seen. ppl used to say and stiil do that flew w had the best genetics, yet he never won the o and even lost it to ppl that some would say had poor bb genes.
can we start building a hypothetical wrkout scenerio for muscle hypertrophy vince. somethin obscure that doesnt have to fit into any accepted paradigm whatsoever,,, you mentioned about the article to achieve 300% growth one would have to train 8hrs a day.
now would that be total body? same muscle group everyday? same wrkouts everyday? upperbod one day lower bod next day?
do u have any other references to studies similar to the bird/wing study, just for some thoughtfood that we can use to build this hypotheticalhyperwrkout ...
-
It is hard to keep up with the posts. Anyway, let me continue a bit with Larry Scott. Larry was educated as an engineer so is well above average in the intelligence department. How did he find ways to get so huge that he amazed friends, family and even judges?
I suppose Larry was blessed with being with a guru like Gironda. The guy was knowledgeable and ruthless re training. Somehow Larry started to make gains but this was to be expected when you arrive in Los Angeles and are excited about training. Over the years he started experimenting and altering exercises to get them more effective. He would train his arms and each time he would try to pump them bigger than before. After workouts he refrained from most activities and declared that even table tennis might reverse some gains so wouldn't play that. That surely is an extreme attitude but it shows how serious Larry was about training. He found out that he could survive unbelievable pain via lactic acid build up in the muscles. He would literally use burns to cause more and more pain. The harder he trained and the more pain he endured the larger he got. The guy did extraordinary things to build those extraordinary muscles. It was no accident. He wanted full muscle bellies so fashioned exercises so that he targetted the brachialis. He would turn his wrists out and put tension on the long head of the biceps. To this day he probably had the best shaped arms in the business. Did I mention his shoulders? For a narrow guy Larry knew he needed huge shoulders to give him the illusion of width. His training employed the same partial movements and burns that saw Larry build some of the best shoulders in his day. The rest of his body was satisfactory. When he posed in New York in 1965 he literally brought the house down. The crowd was yelling, "Larry, Larry, Larry, Larry..... long and loud. Even after the contest the fans hung around to catch a glimpse of this hero. To this day Larry remembers that day as probably the best day in his life.
-
There is some confusion with some training I did back in 1998 or so to gain 1 inch on my arms and calves in 30 days. I did 10 workouts so trained every 3rd day. I kept my muscles quite sore the whole month. Felt great and got strong as well.
The 12 hour arm experiment I have yet to do. This would involve warming up then alternating biceps and triceps for 12 hours using the same maximum resistance. Sounds crazy but I wonder what would happen. I would retrain probably every 3rd day.
The third day is interesting. I came to this conclusion partly because of what I learned when pinch grip training. I was training for a grip contest at my gym and did pinch grip training. I varied the frequency but discovered that if I trained sooner than the 3rd day I lost strength. If I trained later than the 3rd day I lost strength. If I trained exactly every 3rd day I got stronger and stronger. Later I pinched 92.5 Kg on my pinch grip machine which uses a mirror-finished stainless steel grip plate. I thought if I made such good gains in strength then maybe hypertrophy is the same. If you retrain too soon you aren't as strong. The 3rd day you are stronger. You could wait for a week and perhaps be even stronger but then you have to cope with the repeated bout effect and that changes everything. The RBE is a serious impediment to big muscles. If you read the literature you will find that one severe workout can affect the body and stop it from growing further even if similar severe workouts are done later. Why should this be so? Well, the body tries to conserve energy and resources. It doesn't like carrying extra bulk because that requires more resources. If you immobilize a muscle it atrophies. We see this when people wear a cast. This makes sense. No need to have large muscles if you aren't using them.
The technology of training has evolved all over the world during the last 70 years. We should know by now what works and what doesn't. It is quite amusing how confused just about everyone is regarding training.
-
There is some confusion with some training I did back in 1998 or so to gain 1 inch on my arms and calves in 30 days. I did 10 workouts so trained every 3rd day. I kept my muscles quite sore the whole month. Felt great and got strong as well.
The 12 hour arm experiment I have yet to do. This would involve warming up then alternating biceps and triceps for 12 hours using the same maximum resistance. Sounds crazy but I wonder what would happen. I would retrain probably every 3rd day.
The third day is interesting. I came to this conclusion partly because of what I learned when pinch grip training. I was training for a grip contest at my gym and did pinch grip training. I varied the frequency but discovered that if I trained sooner than the 3rd day I lost strength. If I trained later than the 3rd day I lost strength. If I trained exactly every 3rd day I got stronger and stronger. Later I pinched 92.5 Kg on my pinch grip machine which uses a mirror-finished stainless steel grip plate. I thought if I made such good gains in strength then maybe hypertrophy is the same. If you retrain too soon you aren't as strong. The 3rd day you are stronger. You could wait for a week and perhaps be even stronger but then you have to cope with the repeated bout effect and that changes everything. The RBE is a serious impediment to big muscles. If you read the literature you will find that one severe workout can affect the body and stop it from growing further even if similar severe workouts are done later. Why should this be so? Well, the body tries to conserve energy and resources. It doesn't like carrying extra bulk because that requires more resources. If you immobilize a muscle it atrophies. We see this when people wear a cast. This makes sense. No need to have large muscles if you aren't using them.
The technology of training has evolved all over the world during the last 70 years. We should know by now what works and what doesn't. It is quite amusing how confused just about everyone is regarding training.
this goes back to recovery and how much do you need to proceed.
lets take biceps for example,
24 hrs to recover from a wrkout is a number that floats out "there" against 1oo hrs for spinal erectors.
if you didnt care about strength for example before ur 2nd day or even every/other day.
it doesnt like carrying extra bulk either but exactly opposite of the cast, working muscles everyday.
this is where training knowledge kicks in and prevents injury while walking the line of gains injury.
basically we're like walking wounds after serious training.
dorian used a cool comment about sand paper one time
is everybody really concerned with too much when in reality its really not enough.
the question is how much is enough?
so you didnt do the 12hr yet. what about that other guy with re 8hr = 300%...?
on the 10 wrkouts did u use diff weights set reps etc? tot time wrkout etc?
has anyone done a lift or trained specific muscle group/s for long periods of time, week, months?
results
stories
injuries lol
???
-
I think Bryan Haycock estimated the amount of time needed each day to stimulate 100% hypertrophy in humans. He didn't do any studies or tests so it was a guess, I suppose, partly based on the fowl experiments. The fowl walked around with progressively heavier weights on one wing. So doing that during daylight would be equivalent to 8 hours training. Or so he claims. I have no idea. What interests me is if the body will adapt rapidly to usual demands.
It may be the the development of calouses resembles hypertrophy. There is optimum protocols for gaining the maximum thickness of calouses. Experience shows us that too much work can cause damage and not growth. So exactly where to draw the line is one of those operational things that must be worked out by pioneers. We are unlikely to get any studies to find our answers. I am afraid that academia regards musclemen as mirror athletes and totally unimportant and perhaps a travesty.
It may be that muscles are different from calouses and might adapt rapidly via hypertrophy to unusual and extreme demands. What amuses and frustrates me is how difficult it is to switch this process on. Just about everyone thinks bodybuilding is an easy pastime and you just lift weights and take steroids. Nothing could be further from the truth. The brain is involved and in a real sense big muscles are a property of brain functioning. The brain must supervise the hypertrophy. Well, supervise is probably not the right word. If it is true about the brain being involved this would partly explain why so few obtain really large muscles. Sometimes individuals have the genetics, experience and intelligence but still fail to get some bodyparts as big as they want.
-
Gym owner and champion bodybuilder Milos Sarcev had trouble getting his arms big enough to match his torso and legs. He tried just about everything and foolishly even oil injections that almost killed him. No one would say that Milos isn't highly intelligent. He is also extremely knowledgeable when it comes to training. I don't happen to agree with his specific methods of rapid training but if he can get results then he is obviously doing something right.
Okay, how come his arms failed to respond to his training? This isn't easy to explain. I have a theory about torso champions vs arm champions. Larry Scott was an arms-shoulders champion. Milos was a torso champion. My hunch is that torso guys have a really hard time putting sufficient mechanical tension on their arms. Oh, they do the exercises. When you watch them train you notice they swing a lot and the momentum allows them to use heavy weights. All impressed except the biceps. If you do not put mechanical tension specifically on the biceps they won't grow. You will swear you are training them hard but the results say otherwise. The triceps are relatively easy to get larger. The trick is finding specific exercises that isolate and target the muscles. You have to immobilize the upper arms and put the triceps in a stretched position for best results. Then you have to keep your elbows and shoulders still so that the arm rotates by triceps contractions alone. That again is more difficult to do than it seems. I have supervised person after person and just about everyone cheats. They use way too much weight and the only way they can lift those heavy weights is to cheat. So they change the angle of the shoulders and they don't reach back very far and they push the elbows out at the end. Many also lift the upper arms off the pads. When you do this you are cheating. The muscle won't be stressed and you are wasting your time. How do you know if you stressed your triceps? They will be quite sore the 3 days following that workout. If they are not sore then the workout wasn't effective and again you are wasting your time. If your muscles don't get sore my advice is to return to the gym and retrain them.
-
The issue of training the whole body has been raised here. Well, don't worry about doing so much. That might be part of the reason so many stay the same. They are doing way too much and it isn't possible for all the muscles to grow all the time. So target some muscles and see what you need to do to get them to grow. When you know that you can then fit in other muscles while you rest the ones you just trained. You can combine bodyparts and hit them hard for a month then target other bodyparts. If you are growing in part of your body you tend to grow in adjoining muscles as well. I found this out when I did only arms for a month. My whole upper body responded and was larger. Don't worry about training everything because they won't atrophy while growth is occurring around them.
-
First of all that isn't what I recommend. Second, you have no idea what would happen if you did that protocol and ate plenty of extra food.
Last time you checked you accepted what just about everyone else believes. Is it any wonder, then, that so few trainees actually build huge muscles? I am wasting my time talking to knuckleheads.
You are a retard. End of story. You can postulate all you want about things, but you are still a retard.
-
By the way, Pellius, your early experiments with training were probably doomed to failure because of your inadequate calories. All that expensive protein being converted to energy but you still didn't eat enough to grow big muscles. No wonder you struggled for decades looking for the right method to make gains. Countless others have similar experiences.
Actually, when I first move to Cali and got a job at a gym I started living more the BBing life style. I ate all the time and got up to around 230 lbs. I was fat and any trace of abs was no where to be found. By my mid to late twenties I lost interest in BBing and focused more on fitness, athleticism and functional ability. I missed the whole Haney, Dorian and only caught the tail end (maybe 2004) of the Coleman era when I started trolling the BBing boards.
-
Know it all experts have arrived and added their 2 cents worth. Physiology isn't about belief. It is about what happens in muscles after certain stresses and the timetable of hypertrophy. It is my hunch that painful DOMS is an indication that growth is occurring in the target muscle. If the cause of the DOMS was a severe training session with reasonably heavy weights then there is no doubt in my mind that hypertrophy is occurring. There are some experiments that support this hypothesis. The trouble with most of the scientists in exercise science is that they are hardly interested in large muscles so don't do research that would settle these arguments.
In the meantime, we have to extrapolate, postulate and experiment with our bodies and see what happens. If something happens to us we might be on to something that would happen to everyone.
Why do muscles experience DOMS? That seems to be an odd response of the body to some kinds of exertion. Why have that soreness? What purpose does it serve? If we use evolutionary biology we can imagine that this DOMS has some benefit otherwise it wouldn't have evolved. Perhaps there is no benefit and that is just the way our muscles work that we inherited.
Could it be that the soreness is to discourage using the muscle and letting it rest?
-
try it and find out before u make any assumptions.
when something heals it inflamed and that causes soreness....
thats why nsaid pain relievers inhibit muscle growth,,, one of the pruposes to take them along with stopping inflammation is to stop the pain,,, inflmtion and pain are relative
I've heard that about NSAID such as Advil and Tylenol but has it been confirmed by any studies or is this just speculation?
-
You are a retard. End of story. You can postulate all you want about things, but you are still a retard.
So I will assume you will no longer be commenting on this thread and move along and not waste any more time on this retard.
-
12 hour a day work outs? Well, no one has tried them yet so it's true we don't know for sure what results it will yield but we can speculate. I'm sure most of us know what it's like to consistently work 12 hour days at your job. How do you feel after doing this for a few weeks? It would be safe to assume that your job does not match the activity level and intensity of a weight lifting session.
It is not always true that you actually have to do something or see it done to get a pretty good idea as to the results.
-
12 hour a day work outs? Well, no one has tried them yet so it's true we don't know for sure what results it will yield but we can speculate. I'm sure most of us know what it's like to consistently work 12 hour days at your job. How do you feel after doing this for a few weeks? It would be safe to assume that your job does not match the activity level and intensity of a weight lifting session.
It is not always true that you actually have to do something or see it done to get a pretty good idea as to the results.
well they work. as long as you dont hold a job. ::)
-
Could it be that the soreness is to discourage using the muscle and letting it rest?
It is irrelevant what the body is trying to do to us when it is sore. Naturally we tend to not want to work sore muscles. However, my point is what happens if we don't completely rest the muscle and train it again on the 2 or 3rd day? Why did the fowl gain so much muscle in such a short time? I haven't examined the protocols used or if rest was part of the program. That would be important to know. Anecdotally I know from what I did that training every 3rd day was fine. Growth continued in a regular fashion and enthusiasm was exceedingly high because of the gains. The reason few have discovered this is because they literally do not believe it. Instead they believe that you grow when you rest. Yes, but rest for how long? Haycock and his Hypertrophy Specific Training advocated 48 hour intervals while my experience suggests every 3rd day. So twice a week isn't every 3rd day yet that is what many are doing. Close, but not quite good enough. As soon as you rest too long you encounter the repeated bout effect and this is quite hard to overcome.
-
It is irrelevant what the body is trying to do to us when it is sore. Naturally we tend to not want to work sore muscles. However, my point is what happens if we don't completely rest the muscle and train it again on the 2 or 3rd day? Why did the fowl gain so much muscle in such a short time? I haven't examined the protocols used or if rest was part of the program. That would be important to know. Anecdotally I know from what I did that training every 3rd day was fine. Growth continued in a regular fashion and enthusiasm was exceedingly high because of the gains. The reason few have discovered this is because they literally do not believe it. Instead they believe that you grow when you rest. Yes, but rest for how long? Haycock and his Hypertrophy Specific Training advocated 48 hour intervals while my experience suggests every 3rd day. So twice a week isn't every 3rd day yet that is what many are doing. Close, but not quite good enough. As soon as you rest too long you encounter the repeated bout effect and this is quite hard to overcome.
The point was brought up that what, if anything, is your body trying to tell by being sore. Pain is generally understood as a warning system sometimes to prevent injury and sometimes to prevent or discourage working hard. I think your body's natural inclination is to conserve energy and only exert itself when necessary for survival.
When the owner of the new and then novel Nautilus gym, Hank Grundman, who live in the condo that I worked as a security guard at 18 yrs, gave me that book, which I still have, of Arthur Jones' writings and bulletins, one of the principles that fused in my brain was that your body required no less than 48 hours or rest between training sessions but no more than 96 hours. He believed, though changed his mind later in life, that after 96 hours your muscles start to "decondition."
Some have propose that because it takes a lot of the body's resources to develop new muscle that it will not so readily give it up so easily. I always read these great claims by HIT devotees that when they take a week off they always come back bigger and stronger. That has never, ever been the case for me. Whenever I have taken an entire week off training, usually due to illness, injury or travel, I always come back weaker. That's why I never miss a workout when I'm healthy. Even if I'm beat and tired as hell I still go in and do something. I just try to do to the same number of reps with the same weight to positive failure and back off on the intensity variables such as forced reps, burns, drop sets.
-
Arthur Jones was a genius. No doubt about that. He was, however, not a bodybuilder in any significant way. He did discover things and did a lot of research because he didn't want to give his money to the government.
When you read what Arthur writes it is refreshing and logical. The key analogy that Arthur used to describe how muscles contracted was to use a freight train with box cars. Unfortunately, the sliding filament theory isn't exactly like box cars in a train. The logic comes crashing down on that simple mistake.
What about our bodies and survival? Can we imagine humans in very early days as homo sapiens. Suppose one of our very distant relatives was out hunting and encountered an animal that he couldn't conquer. Suppose he was totally exhausted from the struggle. The next day he awoke sore but hungry. Would this individual be able to get up and hunt again even though his muscles were sore? I have no doubt he would have. Therefore, survival would have made it likely that we inherited this soreness to get us to rest but if we didn't we could still make big efforts and fight again and again. To harvest this potential today we have to ignor the pain and retrain before the soreness goes away.
-
Arthur Jones was a genius. No doubt about that. He was, however, not a bodybuilder in any significant way. He did discover things and did a lot of research because he didn't want to give his money to the government.
When you read what Arthur writes it is refreshing and logical. The key analogy that Arthur used to describe how muscles contracted was to use a freight train with box cars. Unfortunately, the sliding filament theory isn't exactly like box cars in a train. The logic comes crashing down on that simple mistake.
What about our bodies and survival? Can we imagine humans in very early days as homo sapiens. Suppose one of our very distant relatives was out hunting and encountered an animal that he couldn't conquer. Suppose he was totally exhausted from the struggle. The next day he awoke sore but hungry. Would this individual be able to get up and hunt again even though his muscles were sore? I have no doubt he would have. Therefore, survival would have made it likely that we inherited this soreness to get us to rest but if we didn't we could still make big efforts and fight again and again. To harvest this potential today we have to ignor the pain and retrain before the soreness goes away.
Actually, I watched a National Geographic special on cheetahs that may be similar to your analogy. Cheetahs are a very specialize creatures built mainly for speed at the expense of other attributes (mostly size and strength). Each pursuit requires a tremendous amount of energy and it is estimated that a cheetah has maybe up to 3 or 4, maybe even 5, attempts before it's finished. Unlike lioness, it's a solitary hunter and doesn't have partners to take up the slack. With each failure the chances of success is a bit diminished until by the fourth or fifth attempt it becomes so weak, due to energy expenditure and lack of energy replacement, that even if it is successful, as in the case they featured in this documentary, where the exhausted cheetah was lucky enough to stumble upon an injured prey. His prize was lost to other predators, in this case hyenas, as the feline was too weak to defend itself and it's catch.
When I hear somebody tell me that it's all in the mind and you can conquer biological and physiological limitations inherent in all corporeal beings through sheer force of will I'll show you someone who has never pushed himself beyond the limitations imposed by pain, your body's structural integrity and cardiovascular stress. To the point where it simply stops functioning and you often lose consciousness. To the motivated and disciplined individual the weak link is always the body not the mind and spirit.
-
I've heard that about NSAID such as Advil and Tylenol but has it been confirmed by any studies or is this just speculation?
yeah ive read a few articles on line,,, ergo-log, pub med etc...
along with actually noticing effects myself taking celebrex yrs back and training... usually with a nice wrkout u feel sore,,, tired whatever u feel the next day, point is u recognize that utrained the day before,,, taking that crap after a train ssn and tthe next day,, u feel very very dif.. it almsot seems like it took longer to recover,,, the soreness wasnt as bad but lastd a longer time.
i was at the dr and he tried to prescribe me that crap or stuff like it advil,, clebrx, wnat ev all same garbage to me,,, i refused, he asked why and i told him about the diminished muscle gains,, he agreed and acknowledge the same so...
try it and c what u think...
theres enough info out there for me tho... besides simple fact is it targets that inflamtion and thats the going on that repairs you so..
-
You are a retard. End of story. You can postulate all you want about things, but you are still a retard.
"If you keep a muscle sore, it should keep growing..." Say what? I could train triceps every day, 30 sets and FRY THEM 7 days per week and I am pretty certain that at the end of this experiment my triceps wouldn't have grown at all.
Last time I checked, training breaks down muscle... rest, recovery/food causes growth.
lets talk about experiences and routines that ppl actually did instead of be "pretty certain" or using imagination and common mainstream accepted theory on hypertrophy to determine an outcome. no secret this thread goes against the grain. btw, anyone that adds and offers up any type of training knowledge that has thought behind it, whether accpepted or not is far from a tard... however ppl that makes claims and bash others are just that.
good thread goin so far... anybody else with some cool "outlandish" muscle building info, training, recovery etc.
-
I looked for the article by Antonio about the quail and this is one study that I found. Interestingly the protocol was what I concluded. Resistance every 3rd day.
J Appl Physiol. 1993 Sep;75(3):1263-71.
Progressive stretch overload of skeletal muscle results in hypertrophy before hyperplasia.Antonio J, Gonyea WJ.
Department of Cell Biology and Neuroscience, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas 75235-9039.
AbstractIntermittent stretch of the anterior latissimus dorsi (ALD) muscle produces fiber hypertrophy without fiber hyperplasia (J. Appl. Physiol. 74: 1893-1898, 1993). This study was undertaken to determine if a progressive increase in load and duration of stretch would induce extremely large muscle fiber areas or if the fibers would reach a critical size before the onset of fiber hyperplasia. Weights ranging from 10 to 35% of the bird's mass were attached to the right wing of 26 adult quail while the left wing served as the intra-animal control. The stretch protocol was as follows: day 1 (10% wt), days 2 and 3 (rest), day 4 (15% wt), days 5-7 (rest), day 8 (20% wt), days 9 and 10 (rest), days 11-14 (25% wt), days 15 and 16 (rest), and days 17-38 (35% wt). Birds were killed after 12, 16, 20, 24, and 28 days of stretch not including rest days. Muscle mass increased 174% (12 days), 196% (16 days), 225% (20 days), 264% (24 days), and 318% (28 days). Muscle length increased 60% (12 days), 34% (16 days), 59% (20 days), 50% (24 days), and 51% (28 days). Mean fiber area increased 111% (12 days), 142% (16 days), 75% (20 days), 90% (24 days), and 39% (28 days). Fiber number, which was measured histologically, increased significantly by 82% only in the 28 days of stretch group. The percentage of slow tonic fibers did not change for any of the time points examined.
How To
Skip to main content
Skip to navigation
About NCBI Accesskeys
My NCBISign InPubMedU.S. National Library of Medicine
National Institutes of Health Search:All DatabasesPubMedProteinNu cleotideGSSESTStructureG enomeBioSampleBioSystems BooksCancerChromosomesCo nserved DomainsdbGaPdbVar3D DomainsEpigenomicsGeneGe nome ProjectGENSATGEO ProfilesGEO DataSetsHomoloGeneJourna lsMeSHNCBI Web SiteNLM CatalogOMIAOMIMPeptidome PMCPopSetProbeProtein ClustersPubChem BioAssayPubChem CompoundPubChem SubstanceSNPSRATaxonomyT oolKitToolKitAllUniGeneU niSTSSearchClearLimits
Advanced search
Help
Display Settings:Abstract
Send to:
J Appl Physiol. 1993 Sep;75(3):1263-71.
Progressive stretch overload of skeletal muscle results in hypertrophy before hyperplasia.Antonio J, Gonyea WJ.
Department of Cell Biology and Neuroscience, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas 75235-9039.
AbstractIntermittent stretch of the anterior latissimus dorsi (ALD) muscle produces fiber hypertrophy without fiber hyperplasia (J. Appl. Physiol. 74: 1893-1898, 1993). This study was undertaken to determine if a progressive increase in load and duration of stretch would induce extremely large muscle fiber areas or if the fibers would reach a critical size before the onset of fiber hyperplasia. Weights ranging from 10 to 35% of the bird's mass were attached to the right wing of 26 adult quail while the left wing served as the intra-animal control. The stretch protocol was as follows: day 1 (10% wt), days 2 and 3 (rest), day 4 (15% wt), days 5-7 (rest), day 8 (20% wt), days 9 and 10 (rest), days 11-14 (25% wt), days 15 and 16 (rest), and days 17-38 (35% wt). Birds were killed after 12, 16, 20, 24, and 28 days of stretch not including rest days. Muscle mass increased 174% (12 days), 196% (16 days), 225% (20 days), 264% (24 days), and 318% (28 days). Muscle length increased 60% (12 days), 34% (16 days), 59% (20 days), 50% (24 days), and 51% (28 days). Mean fiber area increased 111% (12 days), 142% (16 days), 75% (20 days), 90% (24 days), and 39% (28 days). Fiber number, which was measured histologically, increased significantly by 82% only in the 28 days of stretch group. The percentage of slow tonic fibers did not change for any of the time points examined.
How To
Skip to main content
Skip to navigation
About NCBI Accesskeys
My NCBISign InPubMedU.S. National Library of Medicine
National Institutes of Health Search:All DatabasesPubMedProteinNu cleotideGSSESTStructureG enomeBioSampleBioSystems BooksCancerChromosomesCo nserved DomainsdbGaPdbVar3D DomainsEpigenomicsGeneGe nome ProjectGENSATGEO ProfilesGEO DataSetsHomoloGeneJourna lsMeSHNCBI Web SiteNLM CatalogOMIAOMIMPeptidome PMCPopSetProbeProtein ClustersPubChem BioAssayPubChem CompoundPubChem SubstanceSNPSRATaxonomyT oolKitToolKitAllUniGeneU niSTSSearchClearLimits
Advanced search
Help
Display Settings:Abstract
Send to:
J Appl Physiol. 1993 Sep;75(3):1263-71.
Progressive stretch overload of skeletal muscle results in hypertrophy before hyperplasia.Antonio J, Gonyea WJ.
Department of Cell Biology and Neuroscience, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas 75235-9039.
AbstractIntermittent stretch of the anterior latissimus dorsi (ALD) muscle produces fiber hypertrophy without fiber hyperplasia (J. Appl. Physiol. 74: 1893-1898, 1993). This study was undertaken to determine if a progressive increase in load and duration of stretch would induce extremely large muscle fiber areas or if the fibers would reach a critical size before the onset of fiber hyperplasia. Weights ranging from 10 to 35% of the bird's mass were attached to the right wing of 26 adult quail while the left wing served as the intra-animal control. The stretch protocol was as follows: day 1 (10% wt), days 2 and 3 (rest), day 4 (15% wt), days 5-7 (rest), day 8 (20% wt), days 9 and 10 (rest), days 11-14 (25% wt), days 15 and 16 (rest), and days 17-38 (35% wt). Birds were killed after 12, 16, 20, 24, and 28 days of stretch not including rest days. Muscle mass increased 174% (12 days), 196% (16 days), 225% (20 days), 264% (24 days), and 318% (28 days). Muscle length increased 60% (12 days), 34% (16 days), 59% (20 days), 50% (24 days), and 51% (28 days). Mean fiber area increased 111% (12 days), 142% (16 days), 75% (20 days), 90% (24 days), and 39% (28 days). Fiber number, which was measured histologically, increased significantly by 82% only in the 28 days of stretch group. The percentage of slow tonic fibers did not change for any of the time points examined.