Found some good quotes from Bryan which help answer my question. Thought I'd post them again here in case anyone else is interested:
<div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">*For hypertrophy, it is more a function of time under load. So, because the signal for hypertorphy is not simply "on" or "off", the duration that the signal is "tripped" the more robust the signal and subsequent adaptation. However, this is only up to a point. An example of diminishing returns from research demonstrated that you will gain 50% of the total hypertorphy from 8 hours of loading within the first 30 minutes.
*Another option, besides simply moving really slow to get more time under tension (A.K.A. time under load or TUL), is to keep the tempo “normal” and the set length “normal” and to add more sets. This appears to be a superior choice for those who are more interested in significant muscle hypertrophy as opposed to only increasing muscular “fitness”. Once again there are going to be compromises though. If you do too many sets per muscle group per workout you increase the time required to regain your baseline voluntary strength. In other words, if you do too much and then try to train again too soon, you will actually be weaker the next workout. There is also the issue of inflammation, which can lead to overuse injuries.
So, with a goal of gaining shear muscle size, HST advocates that you start with the “minimums” and then increase things as you are able. Use the minimum effective load, the minimum effective number of exercises, and the minimum effective volume. The reason we use these minimums is to ensure the maximum effective frequency. The reason we strive for the maximum frequency of loading is to approximate the effects of mechanical overload protocols used in the research that produce incredible rates of muscular hypertrophy.
*having the liberty to train twice per day, and/or everyday opens up the possibility to significantly increase training volume.
As long as a "highly conditioned" person stays within his/her limits of exercise tolerance, doing more generally means better gains. I don't mean more fatigue, I mean more reps with a given load... Sounds like one in the same but it isn't really. To understand, consider the "effort" (A.K.A. CNS activation) it requires to do the 1st as compared to the last rep of your 10 rep max. The tension produced on the tissue doesn't change from the 1st rep to the last. The only thing that changes is the amount of CNS activiation required to contract the muscle under load.
So, more reps doesn't necessarily mean more fatigue IF you can get enough rest inbetween sets. To get more and more rest, simply do 2 workouts spread out by several hours. Hence, the value of training twice per day.
Another advantage is being able to do more volume per bodypart during one session. You can split the body up into 2 halves and train half in the AM and the other half in the PM. This essentially allows you to double the amount of volume per session per bodypart.
My comments about training twice per day, 3 times per week as optimal stem from the ability to increase the volume per bodypart, and still having edequate rest inbetween training sessions (M,W,F).
*I know this doesn't contribute much to the thread, but its important to keep in mind that the relationships between load and volume are not static. For example, given sufficient load, adding more volume after gains have stopped is a legitamate strategy. Like wise, given sufficient volume, simply increasing the load is an obvious solution to stagnation.</div>
