We seem to use similar words but have different meanings for them. There seems to be some incommensurability re various bodybuilding methods and theories. They all cannot be right. At best, most are partly true and mostly false. It seems we are arguing about which method is the best. Pray tell what criterion is used to sort out the methods? It surely cannot be a matter of opinion.
There are many factors in moving systems and they can be notorious to control. That is why scientific studies try to control all the factors relating to experiments. That may be very difficult to do. People vary considerably when doing exercises.
Let us consider a statement made by daddywaddy. Ah, what a noble thing the internet is with all this anonymity. He wrote: "to avoid the repeated bout effect you MUST increase volume."
There are many things one can change re exercises. Resistance, range of movement, concentric or eccentric, speed, form, exercise selection, repetitions, rest, etc. Volume is just one factor out of many that can affect results.
Does increasing volume always lead to more hypertrophy? I wonder. If it did then workouts over a long period of time would take longer and longer to do and eventually one would be working out all day. That is clearly not practical. We can conclude that this factor is not sufficient to generate continuous hypertrophy.
Intensity is a trickier factor. Since it has been defined as the percentage of what one can lift for one maximum rep then it is clear this factor can always be attempted. It appears that doing 1 rep is a very dangerous enterprize for large muscles. Strength might be gained but hypertrophy does not always accompany strength increases. What seems to be important here are thresholds above which hypertrophy is stimulated and below which nothing additional occurs.
We always default to experience when considering various methods. If some advocate extreme conditions we have to assess whether that method is both safe and practical. Clearly getting injured ends the hypertrophy quest. Whatever the ultimate method is it had better be safe. We can conclude that we cannot do just anything that might lead to more hypertrophy. We have to keep our muscles from tearing and being injured. There seems to be some anecdotal reports that high intensity training with very heavy weights and low reps can be dangerous and some bodybuilders have torn muscles. Biceps, pecs, quads, lats, etc. Once you tear a biceps your bodybuilding career will virtually be over. Dorian Yates was given gifts when he competed with a torn biceps. Well, that is my opinion, anyway. The bottom line is no one wants to tear pecs or biceps because they are more or less permanent injuries.
Do some of you fellas comprehend what I have been writing here? Either what I say is right or it is wrong. I am making some controversial statements. From the responses it seems some just don't get it. Someone posted research supporting that DOMS is an indication of hypertrophy. At least severe training using eccentric movements led to hypertrophy in that one study. We need more research to confirm this result.
I am suggesting that we abandon conventional theory about rest and recovery and try to keep the window of growth open by additional training while the muscle has not completely recovered. You see, we have to conjecture here when it should be known what happens in growing muscles. If we knew exactly what was going on and when we would know when to re-stimulate the muscle.
Muscles are part of living systems. If we go back millions of years to when we evolved then perhaps we can speculate about what conditions existed for our ancestors. Suppose someone was starving and got into a bad fight with some animal and lost. Our hungry ancestor would go to bed hungry and wake up sore the next day. Would he be unable to seek food and fight for it because of that soreness? If so then such individuals would surely have died. So it seems that natural selection would have favoured those who could fight even though sore. That means we can function even though our muscles are sore. We can perform at near optimal levels with sore muscles. I conclude, then, that we do have the capacity to grow and adapt in such extreme conditions. What bodybuilding is about is harvesting those extreme conditions and utilizing and controlling them to achieve maximum growth. If I am wrong then we will have to resort to conventional training and argue about sets and reps forever.
Someone suggested that my theories were refuted because I was not as big as those who trained differently. Since I wasn't as big my methods must be inferior. Well, even Mike Mentzer argued against that idea when he debated Arnold. He argued that Arnold didn't know how to train properly even though Arnold was larger. The test of the truth of a bodybuilding theory is in the results. Since 1950s all of this is contaminated because of the use of agents that can be taken to assist or enhance growth. Today, we have no idea how much growth is natural and how much is attributed to drug use. That is really sad for bodybuilding. Nowadays the reckless seem to be rewarded.
I would put my theories up against Mike Mentzer and they can be tested and compared. Let us take a group of identical twins who are bodybuilders. Suppose they all train naturally and all have 17 inch arms. Does anyone here believe you can get one group to gain 1 inch on their arms in a month? That is what DOMS training predicts. I doubt HIT can effect that much hypertrophy in a group in a month. I could be wrong. Where the heck are the experiments to settle these questions?
