Training on Juice  

Page 4 / 5
  RSS

GettinSwole
(@gettinswole)
Trusted Member
Joined: 11 months ago
Posts: 52
06/02/2019 11:34 am  
Posted by: Restless
Why would one train a muscle everyday if the exercise induced protein synthesis increase lasts around 48 hours?

-What you keep saying is that there is no such thing as overtraining a muscle so long as the overall volume isn't too high. So why not complete the repair/rebuild cycle 7x/week instead of 2. It's not only about exercise induced protein synthesis.

And again, how come two routines with the exact same overall volume and intensity will have different impacts on systemic recovery?

-I guess given the exact same volume and intensity it wouldn't have a substantial difference in impact. Look at it this way. Let's say someone is training on a 4 day split right now. 1-2 bodyparts per day with average volume (we'll say 9-12 total sets). If you try breaking that same routine up but keeping the same total volume/intensity and increasing the frequency you have 2 choices. Either train more times per week or make the workouts longer. Either one is going to put a greater stress on your body. What you're advocating would be reducing volume while increasing frequency.

Why will 3 sets 3 times per week be any more stressing to the neural system than 9 sets once per week? Why don't you address my questions and why do you insist in confusing frequency with volume?

-It wouldn't have to be, necessarily. But like I said in the previous response, in the big scheme of things, this case being program design. It will either increase # of days training or lengths of workouts. I'm not confusing frequency with volume, I'm quite clear on the difference. As I was trying to say from the jump was that everyone responds different to different things. What's best for one isn't the best for others. You seem to want to choose an isolated variable, like training one muscle group and proving your argument from there. I'm not wasting my time on this anymore. Everyone should just train every body part 3x/week because that's what's going to result in optimal exercise induced protein synthesis. Are you happy now? And anyone who disagrees is relegated to life imprisonment talking in a circle in this thread, or walking away and just being wrong in your eyes. I'll take the latter.

Disrespectfully,

GettinSwole


ReplyQuote
GettinSwole
(@gettinswole)
Trusted Member
Joined: 11 months ago
Posts: 52
06/02/2019 12:12 pm  
Posted by: Restless
[B]

Overtraining is a systemic condition, it affects the neural, endocrine and immune systems and has NOTHING to do with how many times you train a bodypart a week.

-Take the 9 sets you normally do for chest. And instead do chest everyday, 1 set to failure, for 7 days. And see how your chest grows. Same # of sets, only thing is frequency changes.

B]



ReplyQuote
Restless
(@restless)
Trusted Member
Joined: 11 months ago
Posts: 57
06/02/2019 12:47 pm  
Posted by: GettinSwole

-Take the 9 sets you normally do for chest. And instead do chest everyday, 1 set to failure, for 7 days. And see how your chest grows. Same # of sets, only thing is frequency changes

Why the failure? If you're changing two variables (frequency and intensity) how can you honestly conclude that the increased frequency is the culrpit?

If I do one set not to failure 7 days a week for chest I'll grow just fine. I probably won't gain anything over doing two sets every 48 hours so that aproach doesn't make much sense to me.


ReplyQuote
Restless
(@restless)
Trusted Member
Joined: 11 months ago
Posts: 57
06/02/2019 1:36 pm  
Posted by: GettinSwole
It will either increase # of days training or lengths of workouts.

Not necessarily. If there's no change in overall volume whatsoever there won't have to be an increase in # of days training or lengths of workouts.

Posted by: GettinSwole
I'm not confusing frequency with volume, I'm quite clear on the difference. As I was trying to say from the jump was that everyone responds different to different things. What's best for one isn't the best for others.

Sorry, but this is not enough of an argument for me. There will obviously be a difference in the magnitude of the hypertrophic response and possible even small variations in the timeframe between the increase in protein synthesis after the exercise boot and the return to basal levels, but the princ(KP)les will always be the same. Individual tolerance to exercise will dictate the amount of overall volume and some people will tolerate failure more often than others, but the frequency at which you train a muscle doesn't have to interfere with such things like you seem to imply.

Posted by: GettinSwole
You seem to want to choose an isolated variable, like training one muscle group and proving your argument from there. I'm not wasting my time on this anymore. Everyone should just train every body part 3x/week because that's what's going to result in optimal exercise induced protein synthesis. Are you happy now? And anyone who disagrees is relegated to life imprisonment talking in a circle in this thread, or walking away and just being wrong in your eyes. I'll take the latter.

Disrespectfully,

GettinSwole

No need to get pissed off.


ReplyQuote
JGUNS
(@jguns)
Estimable Member
Joined: 11 months ago
Posts: 138
06/02/2019 2:19 pm  

I may have jumped in late, but there is a difference between individual tolerance and "volume" needed. Volume is not necessarily what it takes to adequately provide the necessary stimulus for a hypertrophic response. Volume can mean a couple of different things in terms of conditioning, strength, and muscle type recruitment.


ReplyQuote
Restless
(@restless)
Trusted Member
Joined: 11 months ago
Posts: 57
06/02/2019 2:52 pm  
Posted by: JGUNS
I may have jumped in late, but there is a difference between individual tolerance and "volume" needed. Volume is not necessarily what it takes to adequately provide the necessary stimulus for a hypertrophic response. Volume can mean a couple of different things in terms of conditioning, strength, and muscle type recruitment.

I am using the term volume as in number of sets and intensity as in closeness to failure.


ReplyQuote
Big Cat
(@big-cat)
Reputable Member
Joined: 11 months ago
Posts: 286
06/02/2019 3:30 pm  

Maybe I'm the only one in this thread that seems to notice that protein synthesis may return to baseline after a certain time, but that the substrates for each protein synthesis remain the same, namely your caloric intake. You may train each body-part only once a week, but i assume many train 5 or even 6 days a week. You'd be hard pressed before all that returns to baseline. It means you have two or more large body area's utilizing extra nutrients for a duration of time, I don't really see the necessity to increase that, ultimately leading to poorer muscle growth because each area has less to work with.

Good things come to those who weight.

The Big Cat is a researcher and theoreticist. His advice must never be taken in the stead of proper advice from a medical professional, it is entirely intended for research purposes.


ReplyQuote
Restless
(@restless)
Trusted Member
Joined: 11 months ago
Posts: 57
06/02/2019 4:14 pm  
Posted by: Big Cat
Maybe I'm the only one in this thread that seems to notice that protein synthesis may return to baseline after a certain time, but that the substrates for each protein synthesis remain the same, namely your caloric intake.

What's your point here?


ReplyQuote
Big Cat
(@big-cat)
Reputable Member
Joined: 11 months ago
Posts: 286
06/02/2019 5:04 pm  

That training a body-part more than once a week will deliver very little extra result, and that this might explain why.

Perhaps if all you trained was one body-part, the theory may apply that since protein synthesis is back to baseline you can train it again. But I assume most of us train all our body-parts every week. It would be wrong to assume one training of one body-part as an individual event.

Good things come to those who weight.

The Big Cat is a researcher and theoreticist. His advice must never be taken in the stead of proper advice from a medical professional, it is entirely intended for research purposes.


ReplyQuote
Restless
(@restless)
Trusted Member
Joined: 11 months ago
Posts: 57
06/02/2019 5:51 pm  
Posted by: Big Cat
That training a body-part more than once a week will deliver very little extra result, and that this might explain why.

It produced noticeably better results in me and in many at the HST forum. Most people don't even bother to try this aproach so how can they judge it?

Posted by: Big Cat
Perhaps if all you trained was one body-part, the theory may apply that since protein synthesis is back to baseline you can train it again. But I assume most of us train all our body-parts every week. It would be wrong to assume one training of one body-part as an individual event. [/B]


Why? Again, why do two routines with exact same number of reps, exact same overall volume, exact same exercises can have such a different impact on systemic recovery? Why will spliting the 9-6 total sets per each bodypart in two sessions of 4-3 sets per session per each bodypart make systemic recovery such an issue?


ReplyQuote
Big Cat
(@big-cat)
Reputable Member
Joined: 11 months ago
Posts: 286
07/02/2019 8:40 am  
Posted by: Restless
It produced noticeably better results in me and in many at the HST forum. Most people don't even bother to try this aproach so how can they judge it?


I can judge it from very extensive experience as a trainer. As with all things, its not worth the argument, if it works for you then you should do it. However I know your reasoning does not apply to the majority of people.

quote:


Why? Again, why do two routines with exact same number of reps, exact same overall volume, exact same exercises can have such a different impact on systemic recovery? Why will spliting the 9-6 total sets per each bodypart in two sessions of 4-3 sets per session per each bodypart make systemic recovery such an issue?

What I'm saying is that while synthesis returns to baseline after 2 days, doing 9 sets for arms one day, and 9 sets for chest with 5 sets for abs the next day, taxes your system a lot more than just doing 9 sets for arms. Now if it is your belief that it is wiser to train arms again after that, then by all means, why not, but I have several other body-parts I would like to see grow at an equal rate.

More body-parts, over a shorter amount of time, no matter how you look at it, requires a lot more recovery than less body-parts over the same amount of time because less tissue is demanding the same amount of available nutrients.

Good things come to those who weight.

The Big Cat is a researcher and theoreticist. His advice must never be taken in the stead of proper advice from a medical professional, it is entirely intended for research purposes.


ReplyQuote
lylemcd
(@lylemcd)
Active Member
Joined: 10 months ago
Posts: 14
07/02/2019 9:33 am  
Posted by: Big Cat
More body-parts, over a shorter amount of time, no matter how you look at it, requires a lot more recovery than less body-parts over the same amount of time because less tissue is demanding the same amount of available nutrients. [/B]


What you're saying might be true for some fixed caloric intake, where there is some limiting amount of nutrients.

So..Eat more?

Lyle


ReplyQuote
Big Cat
(@big-cat)
Reputable Member
Joined: 11 months ago
Posts: 286
07/02/2019 10:05 am  

Very good point. Have you tried forcing 8000+ calories down your throat and if so, do you enjoy it ? Or do you think it may be easier to just spread out your training a little ?

If we didn't have to worry about our limits as humans, i would follow you on that thought in a heartbeat. However, It seems one of the hardest things I have to do as a trainer with young athletes is getting them to eat enough to thrive on an each-bodypart-once-a-week schedule.

The feasability of keeping that schedule is simply greater than a further increase in calories.

Good things come to those who weight.

The Big Cat is a researcher and theoreticist. His advice must never be taken in the stead of proper advice from a medical professional, it is entirely intended for research purposes.


ReplyQuote
lylemcd
(@lylemcd)
Active Member
Joined: 10 months ago
Posts: 14
07/02/2019 11:05 am  
Posted by: Big Cat
Very good point. Have you tried forcing 8000+ calories down your throat and if so, do you enjoy it ? Or do you think it may be easier to just spread out your training a little ?

If we didn't have to worry about our limits as humans, i would follow you on that thought in a heartbeat. However, It seems one of the hardest things I have to do as a trainer with young athletes is getting them to eat enough to thrive on an each-bodypart-once-a-week schedule.

The feasability of keeping that schedule is simply greater than a further increase in calories.

I don't disagree.
I don't think 8000 kcal/day is necessary either.

I still don't think that, for your average natural lifter, training a bodypart 1X/week is going to give optimal gains and people's experiences on HST (Bryan has worked with one or two pros as I recall and they report growing better on HST) would seem to back that up empirically. Studies on protein synthesis and gene expression back that up as well IMO. To get the kinds of cumulative gene expression that leads to protein accretion takes more frequent training.

I suspect that the people you have observed trying to train a bodypart more frequently than that were doing far too much volume per session; of course that's not recoverable from. These same dimwits are usually trying to mimick pro level volumes of training. Obviously doing that more than once/week is going to overtrain them.

A HST scheme is nothing like that, it's high frequency but lower volume (and generally full body) per session. So instead of 6-8 sets/bodypart once/week, you do 2-3 3X/week; same rough total volume/week just more frequently to maintain the growth stimuli more chronically. By the time you factor in bodypart overlap (i.e. compound pushing training arms), you can cut volume for smaller bodyparts further. Again, for the average natural lifter, I think that will give better growth. Again, a totally different thing than trying to do 6-10 (or more) set/bodypart that frequently.

I think it's interesting to note that, prior to the advent of steroids, most natural bodybuilders trained in a fashion not dissimilar from HST: full body, 2-3X/week, reduced volume with a focus on progressive overload overtime. The last time I looked, human genetics/physiology hadn't changed since the 50's.

Lyle


ReplyQuote
Restless
(@restless)
Trusted Member
Joined: 11 months ago
Posts: 57
07/02/2019 12:57 pm  
Posted by: Big Cat

What I'm saying is that while synthesis returns to baseline after 2 days, doing 9 sets for arms one day, and 9 sets for chest with 5 sets for abs the next day, taxes your system a lot more than just doing 9 sets for arms. Now if it is your belief that it is wiser to train arms again after that, then by all means, why not, but I have several other body-parts I would like to see grow at an equal rate. [/B]


But is there a reason you people are chosing to ignore what I'm saying and insisting that I'm advocating an increase in overall volume? It is starting to drive me crazy.

If you do two or three sets for chest and afterwards one or two for arms three times a week, all not to failure, you won't compromise arm growth at all. In fact, if you don't train arms at all you probably won't miss much either.

Posted by: Big Cat
More body-parts, over a shorter amount of time, no matter how you look at it, requires a lot more recovery than less body-parts over the same amount of time because less tissue is demanding the same amount of available nutrients. [/B]


On the other hand, each muscle get's the postworkout "window of opurtunity" for nutrient intake more frequently.

And if you're implying that training each muscle twice as frequently requires twice as musch calories, I completly disagree.

Full body workouts will increase BMR more than typical split routines, but training 3 X week doesn't mean the tr(KP)le of the calories are needed.

Why would I need 8000 calories all of sudden to grow when the total volume didn't change?


ReplyQuote
Page 4 / 5
Share:
  
Working

Please Login or Register