Author Topic: The Reason Why Muscles Don't Grow With Low Volume.  (Read 48449 times)

Eisenherz

  • Getbig IV
  • ****
  • Posts: 1312
  • Uber oder unter?
Re: The Reason Why Muscles Don't Grow With Low Volume.
« Reply #175 on: June 20, 2009, 05:15:54 AM »
please provide some peer reviewed literature to support this

oh shit, you got me, I take it back.
The more advanced you get the more you need to train.




No wonder they look like shit.

PJim

  • Getbig IV
  • ****
  • Posts: 3951
  • Strike another match, go start anew
Re: The Reason Why Muscles Don't Grow With Low Volume.
« Reply #176 on: June 20, 2009, 05:58:25 AM »
You're right, the bigger/stronger a muscle becomes the more energy it takes out of the recovery capability e.g a 20 inch is a bigger stress to curl than a 12 inch arm.

Matterhorn

  • Competitors
  • Getbig III
  • *****
  • Posts: 412
Re: The Reason Why Muscles Don't Grow With Low Volume.
« Reply #177 on: June 20, 2009, 06:08:52 AM »
  I was thinking the other day about why powerlifters, despite their greater strengh, as well as those who do one-set-to-failure protocols, do not grow muscles like bodybuilders who do a greater volume of work. These are my conclusions: hypertrophy of muscle fibers is but one mechanism through which muscles increase in strengh. Increasing strengh with few reps cause an increase in nervous as well as metabolic muscular efficiency without, necessarily, concomitant increases in the cross-sectional area of muscle. Strengh can be increased via increased ATP expedenture by increased mitochondrial density, creatine phosphate synthesis, increased motor neural number and/or activation via increased receptor sensitivity to Calcium ions, efficiency of lactic acid clearance ratio, etc. Only when muscular and neuromuscular metabolic function is maximized does the muscle increase it's cross-sectional area to increase strengh, because increasing strengh via improved metabolic function is less straining and a more efficient use of bodily resources than building more muscular tissue. The workload imposed by powerlifting style training doesen't strain the muscle fiber's ability to increase it's contractile force beyond what it can by becoming more efficient.

  The problem is that there are limits to which muscle efficiency can be maximized. Following this point, only increases in the cross sectional area of muscle will result in strengh increases. Suppose you load a bar with 200 lbs and you have enough motor neuronal efficiency, ATP reserves and mucle fibers to bench it once for 300 lbs. If you bench it once, 100% of your motor neurons will fire and all ATP will be used. Now, imagine that instead of benching it once for 300 lbs, you load the bar with 200 lbs and do 10 reps. You will use the same amount of stored ATP for those 10 reps that you'd use for benching 300 lbs for one and you'll be demanding as much from your nervous system and all muscle fibers will need to contract for you to complete your tenth rep. Now you rest for a minute, and go again. Only 50% of your fibers will have recovered from the first set, and ATP will have been depleted significantly as well as the lactic acid won't have been completely removed from sites. The demand you put on the muscles will indicate that the further strengh increases with this work load exceeds what the current muscle fibers can accomplish with it's size. Since it is impossible to increase strengh by increasing the density of actin/myosin bridges that compose muscular fibers and are responsble for their contractive ability, the only way to increase the muscle's strengh is to increase the proteinaceous volume of actin and myoson itself. Result: hypertrophy. This explains why a powerlifter has similar muscular efficiency to a bodybuilder but less muscular volume.

  Conclusion: muscular hypertrophy is only one of the mechanisms skeletal muscle have to become stronger and it is secondary in activation to several others. To achieve muscular hypertrophy, huge weights with low work load is ineffective because there is enormous room for your muscles to grow in strengh before growing in size. You'll need to use gigantic weights to achieve only a moderate degree of hypertrophy with a few contractions.

  Conclusion II: To maximize hypertrophy, increase strengh enormously first via powerlifting or one-set-to-failure protocols, then stagnate the weight you're using and work on increasind the amount of work you can perform with that weight. Huge gains in the cross sectional area of muscle will follow. Once volume has increased to the point where you have observed that your gains have stagnated, work on increasing your strengh agains via powerlifting type training. Repeat ad infinitum.

SUCKMYMUSCLE

Post is way too long. Bored to read. I will wait for the movie to come out.

gh15

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 16991
  • angels
Re: The Reason Why Muscles Don't Grow With Low Volume.
« Reply #178 on: June 20, 2009, 06:26:45 AM »
i swear you are bunch of i dotn know what to call you anymore,,

MUSCLE IS FIBERS OF MEAT AND H20 ,,YOUR MISSION IS TO PUT AS MUCH WATER IN THE MUSCLE WHILE LEAST WATER OUTSIDE THE MUSCLE

THAT IS IT FRIENDS,,THAT IS IT ,,THATS THE WHOLE SECRET BEHIND BODYBUILDING,,

HORMONES ALWAYS WILL INCREASE WATER IN THE MUSCLE THUS THICKEN YOU AND GROW YOU ,,,BUT ALSO IN MOST INDIVIDUALS WILL INCREASE WATER BETWEEN SKIN AND MUSCLE,,THATS WHY MOST INDIVIDUALS WHEN GROW REMAIN SAME BODY FAT% TO THE EYE WHILE ACTUALLY GROWING ,,THE SUCESFUL BODYBUILDERS USE COMPOUNDS THAT AT THE FINAL END WILL DECREASSE THE WATER BETWEEN SKIN AND MUSCLE SO AND MAINTAIN WATERE IN THE MUSCLE SO NEW SIZE AND NEW LOWER BODYFAT % ACHIVED IN THE EYE OF THE SPECTATOR!

THAT IS IT THIS IS BODYBUILDING FRIENDS ,,,BODYBUILDERS CANT BE FAT UNLESS THEY DONT KNOW WHAT THEY DO OR NATURAL ,,AND THAT FAT KID  TREY NEVER KNEW WHAT HE DOES THATS WHY I CALL IT GENERATION NOTHINGNESS BECAUSE THEY EAT SHIT NONE STOP IN HUGE AMOUNT OF SHIT AND FORGET THAT BODYBUILDING IS A GAME OF WATER ,,

MOST SERIOUS BODYBUILDERSD NEVER GO OVER 10% BODYFAT AND ONLY THE WATER BLOAT MAKES THEM LOOK 15%,,WATER WIL BE THE DETERMINED FACTOR IN YOUR ABUILITY TO GROW YOUR MUSCLES,,,THE ABILITY TO PLAY WITH THIS WATER WILL DETERMINE YOUR CONDITION ,,

THATS IT


THE ONLY WAY TO CHANGE THIS EQUATION IS TO USE HUMAN GROWTH HORMONE,,THEN ITS A WHOLE NEW BALL GAME BECAUSE THEN YOU TALKIN ABOUT MORE FIBERS NEW MEAT THATS WHY HGH AND INSULIN CREATED BEASTS SUCH AS RON COLMAN

MUSCLE CAN GROW BOTH FROM LOW REPS AND HIGH REPS DEPENDING ON THE INDIVIDUAL BONE AND TENDOIN STRUCTURE AND RESPOND TO TRAINING

GH15 APPROVED
fallen angel

pumpster

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 18890
  • If you're reading this you have too much free time
Re: The Reason Why Muscles Don't Grow With Low Volume.
« Reply #179 on: June 20, 2009, 06:30:49 AM »
You're right, the bigger/stronger a muscle becomes the more energy it takes out of the recovery capability e.g a 20 inch is a bigger stress to curl than a 12 inch arm.

Nice theory but in reality i'm not any more exhausted now working with more muscle. It's in fact the opposite, that if you pay attention, you become more efficient in training over time due to greater knowledge and mind-muscle connection.

pumpster

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 18890
  • If you're reading this you have too much free time
Re: The Reason Why Muscles Don't Grow With Low Volume.
« Reply #180 on: June 20, 2009, 06:31:47 AM »
Post is way too long. Bored to read. I will wait for the movie to come out.

You haven't realized that sucky likes the soapbox and blather in lieu of common sense?

JOCKTHEGLIDE

  • Getbig IV
  • ****
  • Posts: 2573
Re: The Reason Why Muscles Don't Grow With Low Volume.
« Reply #181 on: June 20, 2009, 06:32:16 AM »
THANK YOU GOD FINALLY A VOICE IN THE STUPID MASSSSES OF 9 PAGES OF GARBLE,,,

i swear you are bunch of i dotn know what to call you anymore,,

MUSCLE IS FIBERS OF MEAT AND H20 ,,YOUR MISSION IS TO PUT AS MUCH WATER IN THE MUSCLE WHILE LEAST WATER OUTSIDE THE MUSCLE

THAT IS IT FRIENDS,,THAT IS IT ,,THATS THE WHOLE SECRET BEHIND BODYBUILDING,,

HORMONES ALWAYS WILL INCREASE WATER IN THE MUSCLE THUS THICKEN YOU AND GROW YOU ,,,BUT ALSO IN MOST INDIVIDUALS WILL INCREASE WATER BETWEEN SKIN AND MUSCLE,,THATS WHY MOST INDIVIDUALS WHEN GROW REMAIN SAME BODY FAT% TO THE EYE WHILE ACTUALLY GROWING ,,THE SUCESFUL BODYBUILDERS USE COMPOUNDS THAT AT THE FINAL END WILL DECREASSE THE WATER BETWEEN SKIN AND MUSCLE SO AND MAINTAIN WATERE IN THE MUSCLE SO NEW SIZE AND NEW LOWER BODYFAT % ACHIVED IN THE EYE OF THE SPECTATOR!

THAT IS IT THIS IS BODYBUILDING FRIENDS ,,,BODYBUILDERS CANT BE FAT UNLESS THEY DONT KNOW WHAT THEY DO OR NATURAL ,,AND THAT FAT KID  TREY NEVER KNEW WHAT HE DOES THATS WHY I CALL IT GENERATION NOTHINGNESS BECAUSE THEY EAT SHIT NONE STOP IN HUGE AMOUNT OF SHIT AND FORGET THAT BODYBUILDING IS A GAME OF WATER ,,

MOST SERIOUS BODYBUILDERSD NEVER GO OVER 10% BODYFAT AND ONLY THE WATER BLOAT MAKES THEM LOOK 15%,,WATER WIL BE THE DETERMINED FACTOR IN YOUR ABUILITY TO GROW YOUR MUSCLES,,,THE ABILITY TO PLAY WITH THIS WATER WILL DETERMINE YOUR CONDITION ,,

THATS IT


THE ONLY WAY TO CHANGE THIS EQUATION IS TO USE HUMAN GROWTH HORMONE,,THEN ITS A WHOLE NEW BALL GAME BECAUSE THEN YOU TALKIN ABOUT MORE FIBERS NEW MEAT THATS WHY HGH AND INSULIN CREATED BEASTS SUCH AS RON COLMAN

MUSCLE CAN GROW BOTH FROM LOW REPS AND HIGH REPS DEPENDING ON THE INDIVIDUAL BONE AND TENDOIN STRUCTURE AND RESPOND TO TRAINING

GH15 APPROVED


io856

  • Guest
Re: The Reason Why Muscles Don't Grow With Low Volume.
« Reply #182 on: June 20, 2009, 06:32:30 AM »
haha you got no idea what I lift but I'm not naive to think that strength training is the optimal method to achieve hypertrophy even though I really enjoy improving and getting stronger and performing it...

I find it very hard to believe that the 3D "popping" bodybuilder look you see in the pros is created through strength training... shit most of the pros like Victor don't even seem to go to failure and seem half asleep... although there is not much rest and plenty of volume... but are fuccking huge...
Thanks for addressing this gh15

...but seriously I don't have this 3D volume huge muscle NO water between skin and muscle look that I see in Victor Martinez and Dennis James... You see the triceps on these individuals and you see a chunk of muscle with veins all running through it and they haven't started training yet! WTF... now I'm no sub200lb bodybuilder here... my muscles don't have this quality

What leads to this look gh15? That is one I would surely like to replicate and something not seen in 1985...  ;)

pumpster

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 18890
  • If you're reading this you have too much free time
Re: The Reason Why Muscles Don't Grow With Low Volume.
« Reply #183 on: June 20, 2009, 06:38:14 AM »
I hope all my competitors immediatelly train with high volume. Ok, I'm just having fun with this. But some grow better with one or at most two sets an exercise. Dorian , Mentzer, Mastorakis, Cardillo all were like this. Others, like Arnold, Sergio or Cutler thrived on high volume. Others did better somewhere in the middle. There's a whole constellation of genetic and psychological factors that factor into this. Anything less is an oversimplification.

You don't know what would've happened to Schwarzenegger on lower or low volume, because he was convinced that there was only one way to skin a cat. Even in his case though, his off-season size-building routine involved less frequent training and more rest-not the extremes of HIT and once weekly or less sessions but twice a week per muscle instead of the intensive pre-contest marathon double-splits he's known for.

Oliva was more open-minded, tried upping the intensity with less sets and ended up in his best shape and size, said later he should've continued it. Didn't due to locale and quite honestly, the fact that HIT if done properly is gruelling and necessitates a training partner to push you far beyond the norm. IMO Yates modified it and added more sets in order to spread the work out just a little more, because like most he wasn't willing to take less sets to the extremes required of true HIT. Which is understandable; most BBs can't stomach HIT nor is that extreme necessary.

The best is in between volume and HIT IMO. It's the most efficient and isn't so over the top gruellng as HIT. What matters is accomplishing a certain amount of work, how many sets you want to use to do that and your willingess to push the envelope on each set. The harder the work on each set the less is needed, there's an inverse relationship.


PJim

  • Getbig IV
  • ****
  • Posts: 3951
  • Strike another match, go start anew
Re: The Reason Why Muscles Don't Grow With Low Volume.
« Reply #184 on: June 20, 2009, 07:00:21 AM »
Thanks gh15, however I refer to natural bodybuilding, drugs are another equation, they give you the ability to train like a superhuman.

PJim

  • Getbig IV
  • ****
  • Posts: 3951
  • Strike another match, go start anew
Re: The Reason Why Muscles Don't Grow With Low Volume.
« Reply #185 on: June 20, 2009, 07:04:05 AM »
Nice theory but in reality i'm not any more exhausted now working with more muscle. It's in fact the opposite, that if you pay attention, you become more efficient in training over time due to greater knowledge and mind-muscle connection.
so you think a 10 inch arm would take the same amount of time to compensate from training than a 18 inch arm?

big L dawg

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 5729
  • i always tell the truth even when i lie...
Re: The Reason Why Muscles Don't Grow With Low Volume.
« Reply #186 on: June 20, 2009, 09:57:24 AM »
You should be in and out of the gym in 10 minutes anything more and you risk going carbolic.
DAWG

suckmymuscle

  • Guest
Re: The Reason Why Muscles Don't Grow With Low Volume.
« Reply #187 on: June 20, 2009, 11:46:56 AM »
You are so caught up on the quads of a sprinter - look at their arms, shoulders, chests, and abs.  Sure, some of this muscle is attributed to sprinting and technique work, but much of it can also be attributed to their weight training and high levels of fast twitch fibers which are further developed by power and olympic lifting.  You make these blanket statements like bodybuilders have more massive quads than powerlifters, etc. -- this is a total generalization.  I guarantee there are powerlifters with larger quads than some bodybuilders. 

Where did I ever claim sprinters have larger quads than bodybuilders?  Jesus, you are desperate - see you are adding arguments that I never made and then trying to disprove them while claiming I am stupid.  Clearly you are stupid.  I have used sprinters as an example of athletes who maintain solid muscle mass while performing lower volume/heavier weight lifting.

Low volume encompasses more protocols than just one working set; for fucksake, training arms for 6 sets over 3 weeks is low volume by just about every standard.  Are you seriously this dense?  That is only 2 sets of arms per week.  How is this high volume? 



 

  Ha ha ha...ok, Royal Ass. Whatever you say. I'm still laughing at you bringing up sprinters as an example to prove your point that low volume with heavy weights works better for mass, even though you acknowledge yourself they have less muscular development than bodybuilders who do multiple sets. Even impartial posters have told you that your example was counterproductive to prove your point and you continue to insist on it. That takes the Dumby awards right.;D

SUCKMYMUSCLE

suckmymuscle

  • Guest
Re: The Reason Why Muscles Don't Grow With Low Volume.
« Reply #188 on: June 20, 2009, 11:57:46 AM »
Just to conclude to clear up confusion. I train once a week; low volume. I train a bodypart once every three weeks; low volume. When I say arms I include shoulders, my bad. So two sets to failure on biceps, nautilus single arm biceps curl and palms up close grip pulldowns performed one after the other. Triceps, overhead French press with dumbbell or machine followed by dips and finally lateral raises straight into seated shoulder press; all in all low volume.

  Two sets to failure on biceps is a lot compared to what HIT advocates and powerlifters would do - the groups that trains in ways that I assert that is counterproductive to growth. And 4 to 8 resps per set is more than what powerlifters do. Depending on the time you rest between sets, your training is not llow volume as defined by the schools of training that I'm criticizing.

  And I never claimed that powerlifting training doesen't give you mass; my point is that it works less effectively for hypertrophy than multiple sets. Powerlifters and other streng athletes who do doubles and triples on the bench, squat, deads, etc whilst resting over 6 minutes per set do have more mass than average people, although not nearly as much as bodybuilders who increase their strengh in the 6-12 rep range with short intervals between sets. This is my whole point. As for you, you'd probably achieve better gains if you did more sets and reps.

SUCKMYMUSCLE

suckmymuscle

  • Guest
Re: The Reason Why Muscles Don't Grow With Low Volume.
« Reply #189 on: June 20, 2009, 12:07:14 PM »
dorian is by no means a high volume trainer......... 2 or 3 warm ups and one work set isnt volume

  Dorian did forced reps, negatives, etc, which are not like powerlifters train. He also trained with 3 working sets per exercise for 9 years, ad most of his muscular development came from that time. If you read my first post in this thread, I claim that powerlifting training doesen't work as well for mass as multiple sets. Dorian also had superior genetics and took drugs, which conuses results.

Quote
coleman, preist etcetc,,, 20 to 30 sets per bodypart.. even if you counted his warm ups he's still fall eay short

  Oh man, you're delusional if you think that 20-30 sets per bodypart is not high volume. This is exactly how Arnold trained in the 1960 and 1970s.

Quote
how do u define low volume... walk into a gym and do one set, no warm ups, one cold set with maximum weight?????

  Ok, the confusion is in the definition of low volume. I said low volume as it relates to powerlifting and one-set-to-failure protocols. Read my first post. It is how powerlifters train, doing doubles and triples with maximum poundage and then resting for as much as 6 minutes between sets, or like HIT advocates train doing 3-5 sets for the entire body every 5-10 days, like Mentzer advocates in Heavy Duty II. A guy who does two sets for biceps for as much as 8 reps would be definitely overtraining according to Arthur Jones' and Mentzer's definition of low volume training. I wasn't even criticizing these kinds of training in my first post. Learn to read, guys. Seriously.

SUCKMYMUSCLE

suckmymuscle

  • Guest
Re: The Reason Why Muscles Don't Grow With Low Volume.
« Reply #190 on: June 20, 2009, 12:32:00 PM »
You are so caught up on the quads of a sprinter - look at their arms, shoulders, chests, and abs.

  I agree that sprinters have large muscles, but they are still smaller than that of bodybuilders who train with multiple sets. This would suggest that low volume weight training with heavy weights is not as effective to increase muscle mass as multiple sets. Furthermore, you have no way of knowing whether the large muscles of sprinters is the result of their low volume weight training or their sprinting. The only way to know would be to make them stop sprinting and do only the weight training. If their mass maintains, then it is the result of low volume training. If it withers away, then it was the sprinting. We simply can't know.

Quote
Where did I ever claim sprinters have larger quads than bodybuilders?  Jesus, you are desperate - see you are adding arguments that I never made and then trying to disprove them while claiming I am stupid.  Clearly you are stupid.  I have used sprinters as an example of athletes who maintain solid muscle mass while performing lower volume/heavier weight lifting.

  Then why did you bring them up as an example, dumbass? I thought what you were trying to do was prove that low volume training works better for mass than multiple sets, then why the fuck did you bring up athletes who have less muscle than bodybuilders who train with multiple sets to prove your point? You tried to prove me wrong that low volume works better for mass by bringing up as examples athletes who have less muscle than bodybuilders who train with multiple sets. See how stupid you seem? :-\ To be successful in your argument, you'd have to demonstrate that they have more muscle than bodybuilders who train with multiple sets. Understand now, dumby? ;) I don't care that they have some muscular dvelopment because I never claimed that low volume training doesen't increase mass; I claimed it is less effective at increasing mass than multiple set training. I am being honest with you when I tell you that you're a stupid person. Continuing to insist on this only makes you look more stupid. ;)

Quote
Low volume encompasses more protocols than just one working set; for fucksake, training arms for 6 sets over 3 weeks is low volume by just about every standard.  Are you seriously this dense?  That is only 2 sets of arms per week.  How is this high volume? 


  Again, learn to read dumby. In my original post I was highly specific about the systems of training I was criticizing. I said that powerlifting training and one-set-to-failure doesen't work for mass as well as multiple sets. Doing 6 sets for arms in 3 weeks is more than what the groups I criticized in my original post do. Furthermore, I never claimed that doing low volume doesen't result in a muscle mass gain. It does. It just doesen't result in as much gains as multiple sets.

SUCKMYMUSCLE


 

evandatp

  • Getbig IV
  • ****
  • Posts: 2517
  • Haunted4Pay
Re: The Reason Why Muscles Don't Grow With Low Volume.
« Reply #191 on: June 20, 2009, 01:08:39 PM »
Great to see the average getbigger's level of reading comprehension revealed.

Thanks sucky!

From a post by Glenn Pendelay.
http://www.bodybuilding.com/fun/core_march_1.htm:
Glenn Pendlay is a guy you've probably never heard of. Unless you're into hanging out with Exercise Physiology or Kinesiology professors...He's also one of the best Olympic Weightlifting coaches in the nation...Glenn is a big scary bastard. He runs about 6'2" and 330 these days, down from 370 at his peak in Olympic strength...


(Note the actual post below is from some forum that has since disappeared)

DIFFERENT KINDS OF HYPERTROPHY

Hypertrophy: guys, i wrote this in responce to a question on the think muscle board... i thought it might be of interest to some of you here. if not, well no harm done i guess. there are basically 3 trainable factors involved in size and strength.

 sarcoplasmic hypertrophy... does not directly increase strength but can effect it by increasing tendon angle at the attachment. but of course increases size.

sarcomere hypertrophy... increases contractile proteins in muscle thereby increasing strength directly and also size.

neural effeciency... increase in the percentage of motor units that can be activated at any given time. no effect on size but increases strength.

the training for each quality exists on sort of a continuim.

training for sarcoplasmic hypertrophy is high volume and low intensity... like 10 sets of 10 for a muscle.

training for sarcomere hypertrophy is med intensity and med volume... like 5 sets of 5 for a muscle.

training for increased neural effeciency is high intensity and low volume... like 5 max effort singles for a given muscle.

now, each style of training effects each muscle quality, but in different quantities. for example, 10 sets of 10 will result in a high degree of sarcoplasmic hypertrophy, some sarcomere hypertrophy, and little or no increase in neural effeciency. 5 sets of 5 will increase all 3 qualities, but will effect sarcomere hypertrophy the most. max effort singles will increase neural effeciency a great deal, but will have only a small effect on hypertrophy of the sarcomere, and little or no effect on sarcoplasmic hypertrophy. so no matter how you train, you are likely to get both bigger and stronger... but the degree to which each quality is increased depends on the training.

as you get more advanced, the picture changes somewhat. for example, if a highly trained explosive athlete, like a shot-putter, did only workouts of 10 sets of 10 for a month, he would get hypertrophy of the sarcoplasm... but likely NO hypertrophy of the sarcomere and would likely LOSE neural effeciency, simply because he was so highly trainind in this quality beforehand that 10 sets of 10 would not be sufficient stimulus to even keep what neural effeciency he had. also... for a beginner, doing multiple singles would likely lead to some size increases. but for an advanced bodybuilder it would not be sufficient stimulus to keep the sarcoplamic hypertrophy already present. now, as far as whether training for one quality helps subsequent training for another quality, the answer is yes. for instance, an athlete who is only concerned with explosive strength will still train at times with higher reps and experience some sarcoplamic hypertrophy... this "supports" later gains in sarcomere hypertrophy and neural effeciency by building work capacity (sarcoplasmic hypertrophy adds the neccessary ingredients such as cappillaries to the muscle to support high work capacity later in the training cycle, so the athlete can do a higher volume of work). also, a bodybuilder who is only concerned with size will do most of his work with volumes and intensities of training which favor hypertrophy of both the sarcomere and the sarcoplasm. but heavy work done to increase neural effeciency will also help... the ability to activate more motor units during an all out effort will make the rest of his training more result producing and effecient. as far as how to "cycle" these different types of work during a training cycle... well at almost all times during a training cycle you should do at least SOME work on each quality... if you totally neglect some portion of the muscle you will lose performance in that quality. however, you should shift your concentration of work from the least important quality for your sport over time to the most important. in other words... a bodybuilder might begin training for a contest 6 months away with more high intensity work, and gradually shift the emphasis over the months to more med. and low intensity work. a strength athlete would do the opposite. hope this helped in some way.

suckmymuscle

  • Guest
Re: The Reason Why Muscles Don't Grow With Low Volume.
« Reply #192 on: June 20, 2009, 01:20:38 PM »
Great to see the average getbigger's level of reading comprehension revealed. Thanks sucky!

  No problem. With the exception of Royal Ass, who is truly an idiot, the problem with most guys in this thread is not that they lack intelligence, but that they read at the third grade level. :)

SUCKMYMUSCLE

PJim

  • Getbig IV
  • ****
  • Posts: 3951
  • Strike another match, go start anew
Re: The Reason Why Muscles Don't Grow With Low Volume.
« Reply #193 on: June 20, 2009, 07:50:45 PM »
  No problem. With the exception of Royal Ass, who is truly an idiot, the problem with most guys in this thread is not that they lack intelligence, but that they read at the third grade level. :)

SUCKMYMUSCLE


Okay, so Im merely referring to your statement "I'm not saying powerlifting doesn't build mass just not as effectively...etc"  my point is that the title of this thread makes a very bold statement. If you don't mean it literally that's fair enough. I do think 2 sets is low volume, I have Mentzer's final book and I follow pretty much to the letter what he outlines. He only says to go on to the consolidated routine consisting of the things you speak of if you reach a plateau, which I haven't, so I interpret my type of training as low volume.

Royal Lion

  • Getbig IV
  • ****
  • Posts: 1347
Re: The Reason Why Muscles Don't Grow With Low Volume.
« Reply #194 on: June 20, 2009, 10:26:15 PM »
  No problem. With the exception of Royal Ass, who is truly an idiot, the problem with most guys in this thread is not that they lack intelligence, but that they read at the third grade level. :)

SUCKMYMUSCLE

Look at the pattern of your thread.  You have been on the defensive this entire time trying to re-assert you position against just about every other poster. The funny thing is you are so delusional and insecure that you just point the finger at all of us and start blabbering insults left and right.

I mean look at the title of your thread "The Reason Why Muscles Don't Grow With Low Volume."  Just in your last post you stated muscles do grow with volume, just not as much as with high volume.  Well which is it flip flopper - do muscles grow with low volume or not?

My whole argument is that muscles do grow with low volume.  Evidence of this is the size of many powerlifter, sprinters, and even bodybuilders who train with low #s of sets/reps and heavier weights and still build muscle.  Is this so difficult to comprehend?

   

Immortal_Technique

  • Getbig IV
  • ****
  • Posts: 2196
  • "It's all a bunch of shit, I say fuck it" - DF
Re: The Reason Why Muscles Don't Grow With Low Volume.
« Reply #195 on: June 21, 2009, 08:03:11 AM »
Here here.

Matt C

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 12752
  • The White Vince Goodrum
Re: The Reason Why Muscles Don't Grow With Low Volume.
« Reply #196 on: June 21, 2009, 12:24:05 PM »
- Sarcoplasmic Hypertrophy

Woten observes: when betraying one's ignorance, why use two words when an entire word salad will do?

Of course, only the most hardened of cynics would ever suppose the spewer of said salad to have been devoid of the aforementioned two words heretofore [and thus hence] said spewing.

I couldn't possibly comment.
Bodybuilding Pro.com

Earl1972

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 22154
  • #EarlToo
Re: The Reason Why Muscles Don't Grow With Low Volume.
« Reply #197 on: June 21, 2009, 01:19:14 PM »
8 pages of sucky melting down like a little girl

E
E

Kegdrainer

  • Getbig IV
  • ****
  • Posts: 1996
  • team yeah buddy
Re: The Reason Why Muscles Don't Grow With Low Volume.
« Reply #198 on: June 22, 2009, 04:55:35 PM »
gh15 needs to smack u all again, and remind you all that it's DRUGS not TRAINING that really matter in the long run.

dyslexic

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 7676
  • baddoggy
Re: The Reason Why Muscles Don't Grow With Low Volume.
« Reply #199 on: June 22, 2009, 09:03:18 PM »
8 pages of sucky melting down like a little girl

E


Being observant and stating the obvious... is that an asset?