for the guy who asked if insulin-resistance from GH-therapy is temporary

[pellius]

Excercise and loosing weight will reverse insulin resistance in anyone overnight. Keeping carb below a certain amount will not. Insulin sensitivity decreases with age though so that is impressive you are still sensitive. Fish oils improe insulin sensitivity as well What did your diet consit of all these years Pellius? Do you ever eat sweets like cake and icecream? You  look great for your age bro

I've always been kind of a health nut and watched what I eat. Always made sure to get at least a gram of protein per lb of bodyweight. Usually more. Also, I've always been a sucker since my teens using supps. Still am. Swallow tons of pills. Multi vit, green tea, fish oil, tumeric, reseveratol, arginine/glutamine, cq10, 3 grams C/day... the list goes on. I know many here shake their head. What can I say?

I've been a big user of fish oil since the late eighties taking about 3 grams/ day. That's 3000mg of the EPA/DHA because that's what counts. The amount of EPA/DHA can vary widely with a gram of the fish oil itself.

[pellius]

milos does giant sets....search it on youtube...i think its not to failure..

For me, positive failure is when I consider the beginning of the set. When the work is just getting started. After I barely crank out that last rep I often say to myself, "OK, now it begins." I don't know if it's necessary for muscle growth but I think it does help with conditioning, I mean in a physical shape kind of way not looks, and I believe it toughens you up. You learn to push yourself and endure a bit of pain. If you randomly watch others train most don't even close to their limits. When they stop at 8 reps they easily could have done 5 or 6 more. Jones use to say that below a certain threshold of intensity exercise will do little or nothing in the way of increasing size, strength and functional ability. To me it makes intuitive sense. If you are always doing something that is relatively easy how will it stimulate an adaptive response? What that intensity level is no one knows for sure. Maybe it's 75% or 90% but we really can't measure that meaningfully. How do you know when you are working at 85% of your capacity? We can measure zero, no effort, and 100%, maximum effort. But I don't know how to determine anything in between. But if say, 90% is all we need then I know that 100% will also do the trick and that I can measure.

[dj181]

Damn dude, I see that you know yo stuff I've recently read a theory that I think has alot of wisdom within it, and it goes something like this "For muscular growth, you need to use heavy resistance, and then you can improve the growth process by extending your sets". In my own experience this statement is spot on, so I will share with you an example of this with chest training. P.S. I got my best pec growth doing this cycle. Start with Incline presses 4 to 6 reps to failure plus 4 forced reps, and then immediately go to pec deck with a triple drop each set taken to failure plus 4 forced reps with each weight, and then finish off with negative-only dips taken to failure within 4 to 6 reps. Now that's hard work But yeah, I know that it ain't so partical, coz you certainly need a trainer to push you through that cycle, which I did have Now, that's a Jonesian cycle, yes?

[pellius]

Not to be argumentative, but...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insulin_sensitivity#Diagnosis

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insulin_tolerance_test

Regarding development of adult onset diabetes, I remember that it depends on "race", how much weight you can gain before going resistant. For example, IIRC, Euros can gain an enormous amount of fat whereas some South Americans can only put on a couple of pounds before developing diabetes.

I doubt nutrient timing affects total GH production throughout the day. You can get a transient elevation but there's homeostasis - it's not like you can get a zero GH by eating carbs every meal vs. having high total GH production by cutting out all carbs, or cutting them at night or pre/post workout. There are checks and balances. GH isn't released just at night and workout times, it's released in a pulsatile manner throughout the day.

BTW, did you know steroids increase GH levels? You being on Test means you have higher GH than you would otherwise.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17550998
http://www.eje-online.org/cgi/content/abstract/153/4/577
http://jcem.endojournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/90/3/1613

There's nothing in those links that I disagree with. And I think race/ethnicity determines a lot, if not everything, on how you respond or how life style effects you. I think your life style does effect GH production as it does all hormonal activity. You will stimulate more insulin production if you are constant eating sweets all day. I believe you stimulate more HGH than you normally word by engaging in high intensity exercise and getting enough sleep then if you never train and not get enough sleep.

If you get twins and one of them for their entire life is as lazy as fuck and just eats whatever and whenever and as much as he wants and the other is a health nut and engages in regular high intensity exercise since their early teens what will be the difference, if any, between the two regarding how they aged when they are, say, 48 years? And if you think there will be a difference what do you think accounts for it?

When I took that test for GH/Insulin it was prior to me being on HRT. I was already forty and these were test done by my endo to justify prescribing me with testosterone which was on the low side at the time. My GH response and level was considered high from that test done. HRT definitely increased my test levels and I felt it. But, though it is now much higher it is not out of range. Despite having a much higher test level now then I did when I was forty I don't think my GH production is higher or even equal to what it was at forty. I definitely feel much older now and fatigue and recovery, as well as my ability to perform physically, is a constant battle and I feel a steady decline. And, again, this is with a much higher test level now than 10 yrs ago. I suspect it's because of lower HGH production and all the testosterona isn't going to change that. I plan on starting 2.5ius of the Red Tops in the beginning of the new year. I'm sure, or hope, it will help with the aging process but I also know that father time waits for no one. All the hormonas in the world isn't going to keep you young forever. But at least I can still walk up a couple of flights of stairs without nearly passing out as my younger brother almost did when we were going to our car in the parking garage because the elevator seemed to be dead.

[pellius]

Damn dude, I see that you know yo stuff I've recently read a theory that I think has alot of wisdom within it, and it goes something like this "For muscular growth, you need to use heavy resistance, and then you can improve the growth process by extending your sets". In my own experience this statement is spot on, so I will share with you an example of this with chest training. P.S. I got my best pec growth doing this cycle. Start with Incline presses 4 to 6 reps to failure plus 4 forced reps, and then immediately go to pec deck with a triple drop each set taken to failure plus 4 forced reps with each weight, and then finish off with negative-only dips taken to failure within 4 to 6 reps. Now that's hard work But yeah, I know that it ain't so partical, coz you certainly need a trainer to push you through that cycle, which I did have Now, that's a Jonesian cycle, yes?

I do something similar. After warming up with some pushing and isolating exercises I pretty much always start out with an isolating movement first, virtually always the pec dec because nothing hits the pecs better for me. I have long arms and if I start out with a compound movement I always feel it in my triceps and that gives out first. I do drops sets with the pec deck and always burns at the end. Really stretching them out and pumping out the partials until they burn. Then I go to the incline. On some machines I can do force reps by pushing on the lever with my feet and force reps are always my first choice. I'll also do a couple of negatives if I am able to raise the weight completely with my legs. If I can't do force reps I'll do drop sets and rest pause. Then it's back to the pec dec or cable/dumbbell flies for another drop set then a decline compound movement such as the Hammer decline -- again for drop sets and partials/burns at the end. So I'm adding one isolating set to my routine then you are but as I mentioned, if I don't do a pre-exhaust, I feel the pressing movements only in my tris. But after a set of flies, and really burning them with the partials, as soon as I start slowing lowering the bar (and I always emphasize the negative portion of the movement) on the compound movement I can already feel my chest screaming as the muscle is being stretched out again. 

[Fatpanda]

pellius aren't you on constant hrt and gh therapy ?

[pellius]

pellius aren't you on constant hrt and gh therapy ?

I've been on HRT continuously for the last ten years beginning at age 40. No HGH but as I mentioned in the previous thread I plan on going on 2.5 ius Red Tops for the rest of my life beginning the new year. I so wish I started earlier. Kind of pointless at this stage in my life to go on a mutation cycle and though the benefits of HGH is pretty well established it can't be good for you to take this, or any hormone, at super high levels for extended periods of time. At this point in my life my main priority is health and fitness. That wouldn't have been the case 25 years ago if I knew then what I know now because I would have like to have tested my limits. But at 50 yo? Just having visible abs puts me way ahead of the game and I count my blessings. I don't want to tempt fate.

[dj181]

Well man, you train hard, and there's no doubt bout dat But, the question, and the key is... ARE YOU PROGRESSING? If you are, then you WILL gain size. Also, I think dat it's a mistake to start an extended training cycle with an isolation movement. This expert trainer of mine always told me "THE MOST IMPORTANT EXERCISE IS THIS 1ST COMPOUND MOVEMENT, AND IF YOUR WEIGHT CONTINUES TO INCREASE ON IT THEN YOU WILL HAVE BIGGER PECS" P.S. He had a 700 pound plus bench to his credit, so me thinks dat he knows something bout massive pecs

[pellius]

Well man, you train hard, and there's no doubt bout dat But, the question, and the key is... ARE YOU PROGRESSING? If you are, then you WILL gain size. Also, I think dat it's a mistake to start an extended training cycle with an isolation movement. This expert trainer of mine always told me "THE MOST IMPORTANT EXERCISE IS THIS 1ST COMPOUND MOVEMENT, AND IF YOUR WEIGHT CONTINUES TO INCREASE ON IT THEN YOU WILL HAVE BIGGER PECS" P.S. He had a 700 pound plus bench to his credit, so me thinks dat he knows something bout massive pecs

True. But there is a reason why it's so hard to put on muscle beyond normal levels. Your body doesn't like it. Muscle, even at rest, requires constant metabolic support. Given the slightest excuse it will get rid of muscle. Look what happens to your leg or arm when it is in a cast or when you stop training for a few weeks. Not so with fat. From you body's perspective fat is stored energy which it sees as a good thing and most have a virtually unlimited capacity to store fat. If a person is training hard and has everything else intact he will reach his naturally limits pretty quickly. Your body is programmed to limit it's capacity for carrying muscle. Everyone that trains seriously for some time instinctively knows this, except for Basile. Then you take drugs to exceed your natural limits. Then you again reach a plateau. So you take more drugs, then HGH, insulin, peptides.... And the reason you have to do this is that the human body is simply not design to carry that much muscle. To be 5'10" 265 at single digits. Those are the aptly name mutants and even when you reach that stage it is fleeting. You will shrink quickly just by reducing drug intact forget about going off completely.

A muscle simply contracts. Whether to facilitate movement (positive), maintain a position (static), or control the lowering portion (negative). To stimulate an adaptive response you have to over load that muscle. How it is done is of less importance then that it is actually done. In a compound movement, say the bench press, you have many muscles working in unison -- primarily the triceps, front delts and pecs. The degree in which each of these muscles are stimulated varies widely from individual to individual. Some will use more pecs, some more delts, some more tricep. I do know that of the three groups the triceps are the weakest. It's the weak link. It will fail before the much bigger and stronger pec muscles are exhausted. In my case, I feel it acutely. In virtually all compound pressing movements I feel my triceps giving out first. Even as a kid I always felt push-ups in my triceps. This is one of the reason Jones came up with the pullover machine as his first Nautilus equipment. He knew in lat exercises, pulling movements, that the biceps was the weak link and wanted to find a way to isolate the lat under a full range of motion.

And I'm sure your 700 lb bench pressing friend has tremendous pecs but are they comparable to Arnold or Lou both of whom never came remotely close to those poundages? There is a correlation between size and strength but not a direct causation. No world champion squatter in the same weight class as Jay Cutler can match the development in Jay's left quad. And Jay can't even come close to squatting what these beast do.

Are you progressing continuously? Putting on muscle from month to month, year to year? Can you post a pic today and a pic taken six months or a year ago and see any discernible difference? After five years of serious training, unless there is drastic difference in the amount of anabolics and related products taken, I have never seen anybody make much progress  in muscle gain after that. There may be slight or even dramatic differences in appearances attributed to diet but as far as lean muscle gain. Not much. I've pretty much been at my current weight for the last 20-25 years.

How long have you been training? And post a recent pic of you now. Then in six months post another pic and see if we can tell a difference. People move heavier weights all the time without any appreciable increase in muscle size. Power lifters/Olympic lifters are good examples. They can get stronger and stronger each year but still remain in the same weight class.

Correlation is not causation.
  

[dj181]

Good post man, I've been out of serious training for an extended time, and just recently I've started to get quite serious again so there isn't much to show at the moment. But, I can give you a rather good example of progressive overload=muscle size gains. 12 years ago I increase my leg press from 3 plates a side for 6 reps to 5 plates a side for 6 reps over a 5 week period training my legs once every 6 days. During this time my bodyweight went up 5 pounds and I lost 1% point of bodyfat, and I added a full 2 inches to each quad over this 5 week period. Oh, and by the way, this 700 pound bench guy is named JM Blakely, and it's quite easy to find his pics on the net, and see that he holds his own in comparison to the bodybuilders that you mentioned.

[Van_Bilderass]

When talking about powerlifting or olympic lifting you have to remember that a lifter can improve his numbers quite a bit without actually getting stronger at all really. By stronger I mean muscularly stronger. A lifter might angle his feet out by half an inch and get 40lbs more on his deadlift for example. So it's technique, improving leverage, not muscular strength per se.

The strength of a muscle is correlated with its size. But you can't say that you got stronger without gaining size unless you factor in everything, technique included. Even harder to compare one individual to another. But within one person, increasing loads with same exact technique, same tempo etc means the muscle(s) used are bigger.

Everyone instinctively believes higher load = more muscle or they would stay with the 20lb dumbells (no one does, no matter how "pumped" they get with low loads). It's the relative importance of load that people somewhat disagree upon. Some believe fatigue is more important, some believe pump is important and so on.

[dj181]

Great post van! My legs got bigger as a result of using a greater (heavier) load on the leg press. And yes, you can get stronger without getting bigger by improving the "skill" of a particular exercise.

[Fatpanda]

When talking about powerlifting or olympic lifting you have to remember that a lifter can improve his numbers quite a bit without actually getting stronger at all really. By stronger I mean muscularly stronger. A lifter might angle his feet out by half an inch and get 40lbs more on his deadlift for example. So it's technique, improving leverage, not muscular strength per se.

The strength of a muscle is correlated with its size. But you can't say that you got stronger without gaining size unless you factor in everything, technique included. Even harder to compare one individual to another. But within one person, increasing loads with same exact technique, same tempo etc means the muscle(s) used are bigger.

Everyone instinctively believes higher load = more muscle or they would stay with the 20lb dumbells (no one does, no matter how "pumped" they get with low loads). It's the relative importance of load that people somewhat disagree upon. Some believe fatigue is more important, some believe pump is important and so on.

it has been proven beyond all doubt load is far more important for hypertrophy. some may think different but they would be wrong. fatigue and volume has a limit in the amount of hypertrophy it can stimulate - load has none.

[pellius]

When talking about powerlifting or olympic lifting you have to remember that a lifter can improve his numbers quite a bit without actually getting stronger at all really. By stronger I mean muscularly stronger. A lifter might angle his feet out by half an inch and get 40lbs more on his deadlift for example. So it's technique, improving leverage, not muscular strength per se.

The strength of a muscle is correlated with its size. But you can't say that you got stronger without gaining size unless you factor in everything, technique included. Even harder to compare one individual to another. But within one person, increasing loads with same exact technique, same tempo etc means the muscle(s) used are bigger.

Everyone instinctively believes higher load = more muscle or they would stay with the 20lb dumbells (no one does, no matter how "pumped" they get with low loads). It's the relative importance of load that people somewhat disagree upon. Some believe fatigue is more important, some believe pump is important and so on.

That's why there is a correlation between size and strength not a causation. For a muscle to get bigger it has to get stronger. But that doesn't necessarily translate to getting stronger means you will get bigger. You gave some of the reasons. You can move more weight in a given movement simply because you get better and more efficient at doing that movement.

As I quoted to suckymuscle:

"In summary, the ability to exert more force after strength training is not solely the result of muscle fiber adaptations, but involves extremely important adaptations in connective tissue and the nervous system as well. Many scientists argue that the connective tissue and nervous system adaptations are probably  more important to overall strength gains than the changes in the muscle fibers. Without a doubt, it will take continued research in the areas of strength adaptations to elucidate the specific details of the current theories."

[pellius]

it has been proven beyond all doubt load is far more important for hypertrophy. some may think different but they would be wrong. fatigue and volume has a limit in the amount of hypertrophy it can stimulate - load has none.

I'm not sure about that.

http://www.foxnews.com/health/2010/08/12/new-secret-building-muscle-revealed-pump-iron/

Remember that force generated and intensity are not always the same. During the course of a set force is high in the beginning and intensity is low. As the set progresses the force generated drops as the intensity increases. And there is a concept called inroads. If you can curl 135 lbs for 6 reps failing on the 7th that just means you can no longer generate the required 135 lbs. You probably could generate 125 lbs or so. With higher reps, which necessitates lower weight, you are able to "dig deeper" in a sense -- making greater inroads into the muscle group. Certainly, no one believes that maximum one rep sets are ideal for muscle growth even if progressive. Say you pick a weight that you can only do once and then when you can do 2 reps you raise the resistance continuing on and on progressively.

[Fatpanda]

some hypertrophy - if they continued that study it would have showed drastically reduced hypertrophy after each workout until it produced none.

you dont really believe anyone could simply add a rep to a 30% rm each workout and grow forever do you ?

[pellius]

I heard about this a little while ago, no insulin=hgh production. ever since I never get snacks between meals, I eat 4 meals max everyday, 3 on non training day. but still calculate calories so i get enough to grow.. also I always get minimum 10 hours straight eating nothing, so i dont eat for 2-3 hours before going to bed. believe me or not I got so much leaner from this than when i used to eat 5-6 meals+eating before bed.. of course for people taking gh, things are completely different.. my 2 cents

Just as an aside, it's more low blood sugar=greater HGH production. Remember during my test they injected insulin into my vein. The spike in HGH occurred when my blood sugar dropped below a certain point and kept rising as blood sugar levels kept falling due to the burst of insulin pumped into me. After I was injected with dextrose and blood sugar rose that's when the HGH level dropped. That's one of the reason you produce HGH at night because during sleep, when you are not eating, blood sugar levels start to drop.

I remember asking my doctor, an endocrinologist, if one could conceivably stimulate HGH production by injecting themselves with fast acting insulin. He said of course but would recommend against it due to the potential side effects; namely, coma and death.  

[dj181]

Mike Mentzer stated that he made his greatest gains in muscular size using Rest-Pause. Let's say someone goes from 225 for 6 reps to 405 for 6 reps on the bench press. THERE IS NO FUCKING DOUBT THAT HIS PECS, DELTS, AND TRIS WILL BE MUCH, MUCH BIGGER.

[pellius]

some hypertrophy - if they continued that study it would have showed drastically reduced hypertrophy after each workout until it produced none.

you dont really believe anyone could simply add a rep to a 30% rm each workout and grow forever do you ?

No, I don't believe that. I believe that virtually any routine, though it may initially produce gains in muscle mass, will eventually cease being productive. Eventually everyone reaches their limit natural or enhanced. I doubt Jay will put on any appreciable amount muscle size at this point. It's just a matter of conditioning.

[pellius]

Mike Mentzer stated that he made his greatest gains in muscular size using Rest-Pause. Let's say someone goes from 225 for 6 reps to 405 for 6 reps on the bench press. THERE IS NO FUCKING DOUBT THAT HIS PECS, DELTS, AND TRIS WILL BE MUCH, MUCH BIGGER.

I remember quite clearly when Mentzer wrote his article in Muscle and Fitness or whatever it was called then. I believe it was in 1979. I don't recall him saying that he made his greatest gains using rest-pause. I do remember saying how much he progressed after meeting Casey Viator and training with Jones.

And, yes, going from 225 lbs to 405 lbs, will make a drastic difference in muscle size. As I said before: world class bodybuilders, though not strength athletes as such, are easily some of the strongest athletes on this planet. Jay cannot even come close to matching the numbers of a power lifter in his weight class. He's not even one of the top strongest bodybuilders on stage today. But in comparison to other athletes, forget the average man his size, he is one of the strongest humans on this planet.

[no one]

it has been proven beyond all doubt load is far more important for hypertrophy. some may think different but they would be wrong. fatigue and volume has a limit in the amount of hypertrophy it can stimulate - load has none.

yes.

pay attention and learn-

you too can achieve this level of conditioning and muscularity!

[xboxaddict]

yes.

pay attention and learn-

you too can achieve this level of conditioning and muscularity!

LMAO

[flinstones1]

Just as an aside, it's more low blood sugar=greater HGH production. Remember during my test they injected insulin into my vein. The spike in HGH occurred when my blood sugar dropped below a certain point and kept rising as blood sugar levels kept falling due to the burst of insulin pumped into me. After I was injected with dextrose and blood sugar rose that's when the HGH level dropped. That's one of the reason you produce HGH at night because during sleep, when you are not eating, blood sugar levels start to drop.

I remember asking my doctor, an endocrinologist, if one could conceivably stimulate HGH production by injecting themselves with fast acting insulin. He said of course but would recommend against it due to the potential side effects; namely, coma and death.  

Natty gh production is not something any bber should worry about. Eat icecream before you go to bed or eat nothing, your body wll still find a way to release the gh.
id much rather take 6IU's of gh and eat icecream all day so I can laugh at the twinks drinking olive oil before bed to spike their natural gh. all genetics baby!