Notifications
Clear all
07/02/2019 1:37 pm
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.
THe difference seems to be mainly that most of Bryan's clients are chemically enhanced. I have had the opportunity to work with a variety of athletes, both natural and non-natural. In some of my chemically enhanced athletes I temporarily put them on more frequent training, usually they succeed better in hitting a higher amount of calories as well. Although even that is a rare thing.
quote:
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.
We've also covered the fact that overlapping training makes it so you can't realistically apply the recovery data for a single bout of training, to a complete workout schedule. We may only train each body-part once a week, but we do exercise every single day. I'm not a big believer in overtraining, but let's not exaggerate either.
quote:
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.
The people I observe are for the most part the people I train, the volume they train at, is the volume I give them, which is around 9-10 sets per day, 5 days a week as an average.
quote:
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.
Well, research dating back quite some while has shown that three sets per exercise delivers more result than one set (I would have to look for a while for the ref, its in a book, or I could just tell you the book so you can look it up in case you don't have this information) so that means you would be advocating 1 exercise per bout ?
Call me old fashion, but you don't deliver top class bodybuilders using only one exercise. In fact on leg training for instance there are certain muscles that simply require very specific training to be developed to a satisfactory point (again, debatable, I am a perfectionist)
quote:
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.
It hasn't. The quality of natural physiques however, has.
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.
07/02/2019 2:23 pm
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.
I don't think you are advocating an increase in volume. I do however KNOW you are advocating an increase in the area being trained for a given amount of time, smaller than the debated recovery time. That is my point and nothing else.
I hadn't even factored in volume yet. Although as I alluded to in my reply to Lyle, I am of the opinion that you need more than one exercise to develop a body maximally and symmetrically, and equally of the opinion that you don't get by with only one set per exercise. If you subscribe to that way of thinking, then you have two objections. But that's more of a quality than a size thing, which I guess doesn't matter if you don't do competitions.
But my earlier comments did not allude to any change in volume, nor did I say that you suggested such. Its merely the amount of muscle that is being taxed during the shorter time frame that I commented on.
quote:
On the other hand, each muscle get's the postworkout "window of opurtunity" for nutrient intake more frequently.
Yes, they take up more nutrients and use more nutrients. That's the problem too, there are only so many nutrients.
quote:
And if you're implying that training each muscle twice as frequently requires twice as musch calories, I completly disagree.
It does. More muscle fiber gets damaged, more muscle fiber needs repaired, so you need more nutrients. if you feel that is not the case, then your training is sub-par and does not succeed in damaging enough fiber to stimulate maximal growth.
quote:
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.
I'm a scientist, I don't think that linearly and I the thought hadn't crossed my mind that you need 3 times the calories. But you would need more. Perhaps only 50%. But for the natural athletes I train, that's an increase of 2000-2500 calories. GIve that a try.
quote:
[b]Why would I need 8000 calories all of sudden to grow when the total volume didn't change?
Ok, perhaps everyone missed the exaggerating tone of that 8000 calories. I don't know any natural that consumes more than 6000 calories, and even such amounts are hard to maintain for extended periods of time. At that point, even an increase in 500 calories is something that is difficult to achieve. And while I'm not as quick as you to suggest linear increases in nutrients needed, I do know that training with 3 times the frequency require a tad more than a 10% 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.
07/02/2019 2:59 pm
I'm a scientist, I don't think that linearly and I the thought hadn't crossed my mind that you need 3 times the calories. But you would need more. Perhaps only 50%. But for the natural athletes I train, that's an increase of 2000-2500 calories. GIve that a try.
Well, at least your argument has some logic to it. I frankly think the solution is as simple as what Lyle posted though. Just eat more.
50% sounds like an exageration to me tough.
07/02/2019 3:41 pm
Just curious as to what Restless/Big Cat/Lyle/JGUNS thought about DoggCrapp training. I'm going to start it this week.
If you don't know what it is, basically it is 3day/week split. You do every muscle group one working set to failure and beyond and you train every muscle group 3x every 10 days but at greatly reduced volume obviously. He also advocates super high protein intake and extreme stretching. The program also emphasizes continuous strength increases.
07/02/2019 4:35 pm
Well, at least your argument has some logic to it. I frankly think the solution is as simple as what Lyle posted though. Just eat more.50% sounds like an exageration to me tough.
Even 10% in most cases would be too much because most athletes are already eating up near what they can handle. That was my point, it doesn't have to be a large increase to cause problems.
Like I said, things are rarely this simple. You said it seems to work for you. And I'm sure if a few others try it, they will find the same. My only argument is that this is not true for the large majority. I can't comment on the veracity of it all either, I've never had the pleasure of training you or anyone that claims it works.
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.
07/02/2019 5:17 pm
Just curious as to what Restless/Big Cat/Lyle/JGUNS thought about DoggCrapp training. I'm going to start it this week.If you don't know what it is, basically it is 3day/week split. You do every muscle group one working set to failure and beyond and you train every muscle group 3x every 10 days but at greatly reduced volume obviously. He also advocates super high protein intake and extreme stretching. The program also emphasizes continuous strength increases.
Well, here I would partly have to side with the opposition, 3 days does seem like its not enough, from my experience. I really would like some more in depth information on this training style though, since it must have some very good elements. I've heard a lot of positive reviews. Not as ravingly positive as some make it out to be , but positive and from people who could know. I also get a lot of questions about it, and should really get to know it in order to answer those people. Is there any place I could get more detailed information ?
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.
07/02/2019 5:56 pm
You can read an entire thread about it at musclemayhem.com which is Chad's site. Go to the lifting section and there's a couple long posts on it. Also, look for a "cycles for pennies" thread at animal's board or anywhere else. I'd love to know your opinion on it Big Cat.
07/02/2019 6:53 pm
Hey swole your on to it and this threads getting old.
Yes training bodyparts more than once a week will increase that body part more IF and ONLY IF you train a different exercise for that bodypart on that day.
Example: Day 1 for Chest: bench pressing movements upper press, flat, lower to falure or what ever makes you scream.
Day 5 Flys and any variations of fly movements
You then increase that bodyparts growth periods two-fold or threefold depending on how you want to attack your parts
Do compounds on one day, then for isolations on the next workout for that part, say day after next...
I'm trying it.
"Never interrupt your enemy when he is making a mistake."
- Napoleon Bonaparte (1769-1821)
07/02/2019 7:41 pm
I basically agree with restless, I've been training many years with 1 body part every week and got good results, but once I started HST and 2xweek body part got the best results ever.
I believe that the 2xweek system can work well for everybody provided that you find the RIGHT balance for you between set nos, intensity and caloric intake (which varies from person to person due to genetics).
BTW very interesting thread.
Keep it up everybody.
Max
07/02/2019 8:31 pm
Honestly, most people will get great results following a "brawn/beyond brawn" approach, if the eating is in check. I wouldn't mind lifting for a bodypart 3 times a week, but esp. since I do heavy powerlifting training, the intensity and volume prohibits me from going above two workouts for a specific bodypart a week. I use a westside style routine btw.
Page 5 / 5 Prev