duration of soreness

[pumpster]

Some other thoughts..

DOMS can be increased and repeated bout can be mitigated by training less often, say each muscle trained once a week or less often than that, as some do now. What that tells me is that DOMS may be important but isn't soley responsible for growth, given that the majority of great BBs hit the muscle twice weekly for size during the last 4 decades or so. That amounted to greater repeated bout and lesser DOMS after each workout, as the muscle aclimated to greater frequency. That also meant that full recuperation happened more quickly due to repeated bout. Recuperation which most think as i do is as or more important than DOMS.

With no clear answers i think anecdotally DOMS is likely a key ingredient, thus it's smarter to play the odds and shoot for DOMS as often as possible in the absence of conclusive evidence. However, if DOMS were the only critical element, as opposed to say recuperation, less frequent training would always prevail and be considered superior, which it isn't. DOMS is important, within a context of other factors that includes more frequent training of the muscle after recovery, and the use of moderately heavy weights, moderate reps and high training intensity.

[pumpster]

I tried HIT and that wasn't adequate, either. Big muscles are required for muscular endurance with heavy resistance.

It's quite possible that it would have worked with proper execution of HIT, which absolutely  requires a training partner to force someone beyond limits they would normally go to, using both positive and negative failure as well as assorted intensity techniques like negatives, rest-pause reps, partials, etc. If done properly HIT is gruelling to the extreme, which is why most don't use it, it's not the effectiveness or lackthereof.

Most people who try HIT don't execute it properly, and fall short of what is actually required-it takes a certain mindset to go as deep in to the pain zone for such a sustained amount of time as is required of true HIT.

Bottom line it's a continuum involving a work quotient: how many sets does one prefer in order to expend the same amount of effort? The same amount of work can be done in 2 extreme sets or spread out over greater numbers of sets using less extreme but still challenging intensity.

[Vince B]

We are hardly approaching rigour here either scientifically or philosophically.

HIT supporters can always beg the question and insist the lack of a result is because it wasn't performed correctly. How come such a simple method is so hard to practice? Answer: there is something wrong with the method. It just doesn't keep working.

The fact that most champions train each muscle twice a week is important. All that suggests is that it might be sufficient but might not be necessary or optimum. There is no study that reveals how much hypertrophy occurred over the years from workouts of the champions. Even they do not know.

Instead of using what the pros do as a test of truth how about considering what constitutes the best method for rapid sustained hypertrophy and drug free? That is what I am interested in. What is the maximum rate of growth possible and how do we sustain growth? When we can answer those questions we can decide whether it is practical or not and then modify programs to suit individuals.

Suppose someone has been hitting the weights hard for a couple of months. Something new is tried and a target muscle gets sore. Why does that happen? What is happening inside the muscle? Is growth happening? If it is then shouldn't those who want rapid results keep the target muscles sore? That seems obvious to me. I have no idea why this is debated on muscle forums. Maybe it is because it goes against common sense and years of practice. If I am right then here is the explanation why so many are training hard and consistently but not growing. It isn't because people overtrain as Stuart McRobert claims. Talk about speculation and nonsense.

What has recuperation got to do with growth? HST supporters such as Haycock insist that retraining a muscle should occur every 48 hours and perhaps even every 36 hours. He bases his opinion on studies that show when protein synthesis occurs. Isn't it odd that my experience agrees with this time frame? I think something is foul in hypertrophy studies and we should take notice of what happened in the fowl studies of Antonio and others.

[Redwingenator]

We are hardly approaching rigour here either scientifically or philosophically.

HIT supporters can always beg the question and insist the lack of a result is because it wasn't performed correctly. How come such a simple method is so hard to practice? Answer: there is something wrong with the method. It just doesn't keep working.

The fact that most champions train each muscle twice a week is important. All that suggests is that it might be sufficient but might not be necessary or optimum. There is no study that reveals how much hypertrophy occurred over the years from workouts of the champions. Even they do not know.

Instead of using what the pros do as a test of truth how about considering what constitutes the best method for rapid sustained hypertrophy and drug free? That is what I am interested in. What is the maximum rate of growth possible and how do we sustain growth? When we can answer those questions we can decide whether it is practical or not and then modify programs to suit individuals.

Suppose someone has been hitting the weights hard for a couple of months. Something new is tried and a target muscle gets sore. Why does that happen? What is happening inside the muscle? Is growth happening? If it is then shouldn't those who want rapid results keep the target muscles sore? That seems obvious to me. I have no idea why this is debated on muscle forums. Maybe it is because it goes against common sense and years of practice. If I am right then here is the explanation why so many are training hard and consistently but not growing. It isn't because people overtrain as Stuart McRobert claims. Talk about speculation and nonsense.

What has recuperation got to do with growth? HST supporters such as Haycock insist that retraining a muscle should occur every 48 hours and perhaps even every 36 hours. He bases his opinion on studies that show when protein synthesis occurs. Isn't it odd that my experience agrees with this time frame? I think something is foul in hypertrophy studies and we should take notice of what happened in the fowl studies of Antonio and others.

This is beginning to be a great thread    It is posing some great questions generating good insight.

[ozman]

The fact that most champions train each muscle twice a week is important. All that suggests is that it might be sufficient but might not be necessary or optimum. There is no study that reveals how much hypertrophy occurred over the years from workouts of the champions. Even they do not know.

Instead of using what the pros do as a test of truth how about considering what constitutes the best method for rapid sustained hypertrophy and drug free? That is what I am interested in. What is the maximum rate of growth possible and how do we sustain growth? When we can answer those questions we can decide whether it is practical or not and then modify programs to suit individuals.

this is what interests me

[Vince B]

DOMS can be increased and repeated bout can be mitigated by training less often, say each muscle trained once a week or less often than that, as some do now. What that tells me is that DOMS may be important but isn't soley responsible for growth, given that the majority of great BBs hit the muscle twice weekly for size during the last 4 decades or so. That amounted to greater repeated bout and lesser DOMS after each workout, as the muscle aclimated to greater frequency. That also meant that full recuperation happened more quickly due to repeated bout. Recuperation which most think as i do is as or more important than DOMS.

With no clear answers i think anecdotally DOMS is likely a key ingredient, thus it's smarter to play the odds and shoot for DOMS as often as possible in the absence of conclusive evidence. However, if DOMS were the only critical element, as opposed to say recuperation, less frequent training would always prevail and be considered superior, which it isn't. DOMS is important, within a context of other factors that includes more frequent training of the muscle after recovery, and the use of moderately heavy weights, moderate reps and high training intensity.

DOMS isn't responsible for growth but is an indicator that growth is possible as long as the nutrition is adequate. It is not a necessary sign re growth but it may be a sufficient one.

The repeated bout effect isn't diminished by training less frequently. The whole point of trying to avoid the RBE is to not 'recuperate'.

Now, what if Pumpster is wrong about 'recuperation'? Will he abandon his theory? This is a huge point and if he has any respect for science and philosophy then he has to reject false theories.

[gymrat01]

After you do a set stretch out your calves for about 20-30 sec. that works for me.