Vince - post re muscle hypertrophy

[Vince B]

^^^ 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.

[dr.chimps]

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

[Alexander D]

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

[Cyttorak]

Ignore the trolls and the haters vince we want to learn more pls keep posting

[Ursus]

Train hard no more than 4x week. Eat a lot of food and rest.

Simple as that

[Vince B]

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]

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

[StanZoLOL]

^^^ 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!"

[Alexander 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.

[Vince B]

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.

[Lion666]

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.

[Lion666]

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

[Vince B]

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!!

[Lion666]

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

[Vince B]

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.

[Lion666]

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.

[Vince B]

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.

[Lion666]

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.

[Vince B]

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.

[Lion666]

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

[Vince B]

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.

[Lion666]

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

[Vince B]

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.

[NordicNerd]

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

[NordicNerd]

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