There is so much negativity among members of this board and in fact just about everyone with some muscular development considers that they know how to build muscle. They assume it is just a matter of training harder and they can get bigger. The unvarnished truth is that it is extremely difficult to make muscles quite large. There might be many, many ways to explain why maximum size is so difficult but there is no way to know which explanations are true.
It is possible to account for maximum size without referring to DOMS or any other phenomenon. I used DOMS as a likely feedback mechanism and speculated what it might be like to grow continuously and at a marked rate. I had to dismiss much of what I thought I knew about physiology to construct my theory. It was forced upon me by the facts.
Can one build up huge size by doing pushups? Obviously, no. Why do thinkers suggest the absurd? The ultimate hypertrophy theory will be consistent with all the facts already known about muscles and growth. Philosophically, it is possible to grow at a maximum rate. Suppose we do a thought experiment. Assume that someone has managed to train in a fashion that led to obtaining maximum muscle size in the shortest time possible. It would be a simple process to reverse engineer everything and know what to do on each workout right back to the first session. It is clear that there have been some men who have developed huge size. We need look no further than the top Olympians. However, they have cheated by using agents for a shortcut. It may be that we cannot obtain such size naturally, although I see no reason, in principle, why this might be so. Women are another matter and it is unlikely anyone can replicate Ms Olympia size naturally.
Many are wondering why I didn't get huge in the past. I obviously didn't have the right theory about training. There were also problems about equipment deficiencies that are no longer a shortcoming. I am no longer motivated to get huge. Also, I have many injuries from past training that do not make training enjoyable. However, it is also part of my theory that significant size can be developed at just about any age. That goes against what most of us have been told. However, hypertrophy is easy to trigger so it is just a matter of application to continue the process.
Is intensity an important factor in hypertrophy? Well, I prefer to think about thresholds and as long as sufficient tension is placed on a muscle for a sufficient length of time and then repeated at the optimal frequency then there is no reason one shouldn't keep growing. The actual application of this process is complicated because in moving systems there are just too many slight differences. In other words, it is difficult to test training among individuals because there is no way to know if they are doing things in precisely the same fashion.
It is likely that size is related to effort in training and that as one grows larger the amount of effort increases exponentially. This might help to explain why so few obain huge size. Again, how are we supposed to discover how much effort is required when no one is studying such things?
I have found it is dangerous to merely think about this process. Arthur Jones was mistaken in some of his thinking about how muscles contract. It is clear no one knew what we now know at the molecular level in the muscles. The maximum size theory must be consistent with all known and future reseach. So far no one has managed to falsify my theory. Some armchair speculators dismiss various ideas I have written about but the research agrees with what I have found. At least that is encouraging. I welcome considered criticism because the true theory will survive all such criticism. Just make sure you know what you are talking about as well.
Please remember that I cannot respond while I am at work or asleep. Eventually I will reply to various questions.
