Are we sure HST isn't best suited for AS users?

[soflsun]

Thanks guys.  I did read all of that info from the FAQ's and such, but was starting to feel that maybe it was geared toward people using "super vitamins," who have better recuperative ability.  I'm not going to get anyone here to believe this MAY not have to do with my diet unless I crank up the calories, which I will start on Monday 9/23.  The thing is, my diet, which has been pretty much the same for the last 7 months allowed me to gain muscle on a traditional split, but seems to have been halted on the HST program.  Furthermore, and this is what REALLY bothers me, even though my muscles look smaller to me I feel like I have gained abdominal fat.  If I have enough calories o gain fat, I should have enough to gain muscle?  Maybe some type of dysmorphia I am developing?  I'll have to start doing proper measurements to be sure I'm not crazy.

Here is another point worth mentioning...In HST I do shoulders after chest, so my poundages for shoulders will never be as high as they COULD be if they were done by themselves or before chest.  In HST full-body workouts, it seems like we are sacraficing certain parts in favor of other by virtue of the order of our exercises.  I don't think there is any way around this, but it is true.  This is another reason why many don't utilize full-body...as fatigue sets in, you will not be able to work each muscle group to their full ability.

 

[Totentanz]

<div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">
The thing is, my diet, which has been pretty much the same for the last 7 months...
</div>

Well there is another potential problem. Your diet can not stay the same for months at a time. Your calorie needs change as your weight changes. If you are bulking, the amount of calories you are consuming should be increasing each week. Otherwise... not really any way to continue gaining weight once you put some weight on and your metabolism goes up.

About this part:
<div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">
Furthermore, and this is what REALLY bothers me, even though my muscles look smaller to me I feel like I have gained abdominal fat. If I have enough calories o gain fat, I should have enough to gain muscle? Maybe some type of dysmorphia I am developing? I'll have to start doing proper measurements to be sure I'm not crazy.
</div>

Many people like to go by what they see in the mirror, but I think we should all know better than this by now. You aren't going to see a realistic view of yourself. If you must go by look, then use pictures instead. Take a before picture when you start a diet/workout program, then take progress pictures and compare. Taking measurements can help too.
But the biggest thing you can do is to stop thinking acutely. You have to look at the long view. Start a diet and a routine, go through it for the entire thing. Don't second guess yourself throughout. Wait until you are done to judge whether you gained only fat, lost muscle, whatever. Too many guys I know start bulking, two weeks in decide they are getting to fat and are going to cut, then start cutting and after a couple weeks decide they are shrinking too much and start bulking again, etc etc, ending up being fat and soft in the end because they can't stick to one thing long enough. Now if your diet was the same for 7 months, this probably isn't a huge problem for you, but regardless... think macroscopically, not microscopically.

Eat enough to gain 1-2 lbs a week on average, this will usually be 18 times your bodyweight in pounds but can take up to 20 times your bodyweight in pounds. Remember to increase calories by the same formula as you gain weight. Keep at it for the whole 8 weeks of the program. Take a before picture, before measurements and take after pictures/measurements. Compare them. Compare your RMs before and after as well.

<div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">
In HST I do shoulders after chest, so my poundages for shoulders will never be as high as they COULD be if they were done by themselves or before chest. In HST full-body workouts, it seems like we are sacraficing certain parts in favor of other by virtue of the order of our exercises.
</div>

Since you are finding your RMs before you start your cycle, I don't see how this could be a problem.
Your entire cycle should be laid out before you even begin doing it. I know what weight I am going to use before I do a workout, so whatever weight I am using for a certain lift should not be effecting what weight I will use for the next lift. Unless I am sick or something, or maybe not resting long enough between sets. There isn't any valid reason to minimize rest between sets.
But... there isn't any reason you can't change the order of your exercises either.
The only reason I could see that fatigue would be such a huge issue is if you are doing too many sets or using too many exercises. Yes, you need enough stimuli &quot;in the right now&quot; but you also don't want too much.

 

[Lol]

I agree with Tot about all the diet stuff but, as I like to eat fairly clean foods (I don't have a problem with occasional junk, I just don't like it much), I am now aiming for a lower bodyweight increase per week - more like 1/2lb.

At my current bw I now find it hard to eat enough to gain a pound a week and I also think that adding 40/50 pounds this year will not actually get me looking much like a pro bber. Having made good gains during the first year of HST (and being a natty lifter) I am not expecting to make similar lean tissue gains over the second year. So, gaining more gradually makes more sense to me now, plus it's cheaper (less food &amp; fewer clothes to buy).

At my current rate of bodyweight increase I will hit +220lb in about 5/6 months. Then it'll be time to cut off some fat for the summer.

We all have to realise as natty lifters that we aren't going to just keep on gaining lean mass just because we eat and train right; at any rate the process of gaining lean mass will become more and more difficult. How much testosterone we have floating around our systems and our genetic predisposition to be muscular will play a large part in how we eventually turn out, assuming we get all the other factors more right than wrong.

soflsun, I really think it's much better to start on HST if you want to gain mass and not cut fat. However, you have by your own recognition actually gained some strength. This will hold you in good stead for future mass gains. I look forward to seeing how you get on once you are providing your body with an excess of calories to work with.

 

[Timmur]

<div>
(Martin Levac @ Sep. 23 2007,08:19)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">

In other words, if you were applying the principles properly, you would grow. On the other hand, if you are eating less to cut fat, you will shrink. It would be unreasonable to expect to grow when you eat to shrink. Training is not a magical phenomenon that allows us to grow even in a caloric deficit.

Food is what allows us to grow. It's also what allows us to shrink. It all depends on how much of it we eat. The training will determine how this food will be used in our growth. With proper training, more muscle will be built from the food we eat as long as there is sufficient protein to do so. This is why I advised to check your diet.</div>
Actually Martin, training is exactly the kind of magic that can cause growth in the face of a caloric deficit. This was first shown in an animal study by Goldberg in 1971. More recently, Donnelly et al demonstrated work-induced muscular hypertrophy in women who were on a hypocaloric diet. The women lost weight, but muscular hypertrophy was still seen. They were also able to increase strength under these conditions. Of course, this doesn’t mean that optimal hypertrophy occurs under these conditions. I would be surprised if it did, but the results make sense from an evolutionary standpoint. The hypertrophy response in skeletal muscle is a protective mechanism meant to limit the amount of damage that can occur due to extreme loads and should be expected to work even in the face of very low energy intake. Some other important and surprising things that Goldberg discovered is that growth hormone, thyroid hormones, and insulin are not necessary for work induced muscular hypertrophy, although they sure can help

.

I looked but was unable to find any studies where hypertrophy was studied in conjunction with a high calorie (500-1000 above maintenance) diet. Of course we have anecdotal evidence from the pro bodybuilders that a high calorie diet is indeed very effective for maximum hypertrophy. I doubt that this translates well for non AAS recreational bodybuilders, though this is just speculation on my part. AAS, Hgh, IGF1, T-3, and other partioning agents cause the accrual of lean mass at the expense of fat storage, allowing the AAS user to take in an excess of calories.

 

[Martin Levac]

<div>
(Timmur @ Sep. 25 2007,20:51)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE"><div>
(Martin Levac @ Sep. 23 2007,08:19)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">

In other words, if you were applying the principles properly, you would grow. On the other hand, if you are eating less to cut fat, you will shrink. It would be unreasonable to expect to grow when you eat to shrink. Training is not a magical phenomenon that allows us to grow even in a caloric deficit.

Food is what allows us to grow. It's also what allows us to shrink. It all depends on how much of it we eat. The training will determine how this food will be used in our growth. With proper training, more muscle will be built from the food we eat as long as there is sufficient protein to do so. This is why I advised to check your diet.</div>
Actually Martin, training is exactly the kind of magic that can cause growth in the face of a caloric deficit. This was first shown in an animal study by Goldberg in 1971. More recently, Donnelly et al demonstrated work-induced muscular hypertrophy in women who were on a hypocaloric diet. The women lost weight, but muscular hypertrophy was still seen. They were also able to increase strength under these conditions. Of course, this doesn’t mean that optimal hypertrophy occurs under these conditions. I would be surprised if it did, but the results make sense from an evolutionary standpoint. The hypertrophy response in skeletal muscle is a protective mechanism meant to limit the amount of damage that can occur due to extreme loads and should be expected to work even in the face of very low energy intake. Some other important and surprising things that Goldberg discovered is that growth hormone, thyroid hormones, and insulin are not necessary for work induced muscular hypertrophy, although they sure can help

.

I looked but was unable to find any studies where hypertrophy was studied in conjunction with a high calorie (500-1000 above maintenance) diet. Of course we have anecdotal evidence from the pro bodybuilders that a high calorie diet is indeed very effective for maximum hypertrophy. I doubt that this translates well for non AAS recreational bodybuilders, though this is just speculation on my part. AAS, Hgh, IGF1, T-3, and other partioning agents cause the accrual of lean mass at the expense of fat storage, allowing the AAS user to take in an excess of calories.</div>
Context.

Growth is not possible when in caloric deficit.

The contrary is:

Growth is possible when in caloric deficit.

Only one statement can be true. Within the context of this discussion, the first statement is true. Indeed, within the context of the subject being discussed on this forum and a multitude of other forums dedicated to hypertrophy training, the second statement can never be true. Training is not some magic phenomenon that allows us to grow even in a caloric deficit. No amount of research will make the laws of thermodynamics disappear.

 

[Kazzin]

The one thing that truly shocks me about this community is that thus far I've only seen a single person in this entire thread post about dual factor theory! It's true that HST wasn't built around load/deload principles, but it matches it perfectly anyway!

Regardless, in response to the original poster, the entire BB'ing philosophy one workout per muscle per week is built around principles of supercompensation (1-factor theory). Unfortunately, these principles are absolute garbage. 99.9% of all the world's elite athletes do NOT train this way, but rather in accordance with 2-factor theory. In fact, only BB'ers still subscribe to supercompensation, which typically only works for newbies/intermediates, and those on steroids (even a terrible stimulus works when on drugs). How the BB'ing world got left so far behind on general training theory is beyond me.

 

[soflsun]

I didn't do enough homework before starting this thread.  Any program will have better results if the participant is on AAS.  As far as recovery goes, there is no reason to believe that this program doesn't allow sufficient time for tissue repair or any other repair process.  I think the main problem here is with MY program...I simply have too many exercises to maintain a fresh CNS when the weights get heavy during the 5's any beyond.  My program needs to be readjusted in this latter portion of the cycle.  Thanks for everyone's input.

 

[Timmur]

<div>
(Martin Levac @ Sep. 25 2007,22:55)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">[/quote]
Context.

Growth is not possible when in caloric deficit.

The contrary is:

Growth is possible when in caloric deficit.

Only one statement can be true. Within the context of this discussion, the first statement is true. Indeed, within the context of the subject being discussed on this forum and a multitude of other forums dedicated to hypertrophy training, the second statement can never be true. Training is not some magic phenomenon that allows us to grow even in a caloric deficit. No amount of research will make the laws of thermodynamics disappear.</div>
No amount of assertions make the statement &quot;growth is not possible while in a caloric deficit&quot; true. If you want to toss out research, then there is no basis for discussion; we can each make any assertions we'd like. What I said is based on scientific research, but your claim is based on what precisely?

 

[Lol]

Timmur, I am no dietician but I am well aware that a person who has plenty of stored excess calories (ie. fat) can go into calorie deficit (diet wise) and still gain lean mass. Quite a few folks here have testified to this very fact. However, I'm not so sure that a natural, trained individual with reasonably low body fat can expect to gain lean tissue if on a caloric deficit. Even holding on to existing lean mass is not easy when on a caloric deficit. But that, perhaps, is where the 'magic' of training comes in. The body is much more likely to retain muscle mass in the face of repeated bouts of training at a high enough intensity as long as the caloric deficit is not too great.

A lot of studies don't actually paint a very useful picture of what will happen in a well trained individual. The Donnelly study would seem to be based on non-trained individuals who are likely to have a higher percentage of bodyfat than the average male trainee. Maybe this isn't the case, I don't know as I haven't read it. Logic tells me that it likely is though.

For most trained folks, eating a caloric excess along with a sound training program will go a long way towards ensuring that the body has what it needs to build lean muscle tissue. If the same folks go on a hypocaloric diet while sticking with their training program they will be very unlikely to gain any muscle mass but will, again hopefully, lose mainly body fat. AAS can change this but, even then, if you have too great a caloric deficit your body just isn't going to be able to build lean tissue. It has to get the building blocks and energy required from somewhere.

 

[Totentanz]

<div>
(Timmur @ Sep. 26 2007,05:17)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">No amount of assertions make the statement &quot;growth is not possible while in a caloric deficit&quot; true. If you want to toss out research, then there is no basis for discussion; we can each make any assertions we'd like. What I said is based on scientific research, but your claim is based on what precisely?</div>
You are speaking of recomposition. That's different. Are they gaining weight on a calorie deficit? No, they are not. That is impossible.
Gaining muscle on a calorie deficit IS possible under certain special circumstances. I think we all know to accept that. But they are still experiencing a net loss of body mass.
These special circumstances aren't something that any sane trainee would plan for. Planning on something like that is asking for paltry results. If it happens, then great, but don't plan on it.

 

[Timmur]

LOL, I don't have time to post right now, but let me just say that I have done body recomposition after a long layoff and was able to easily build muscle and lose fat at the same time.

Cut and paste from the web:
Bryner RW et al.
Effects of resistance vs. aerobic training combined with an 800 calorie liquid diet on lean body mass and resting metabolic rate.
J Am Coll Nutr. 1999 Apr; 18(2):115-21.

This was a significant finding.
The authors split the subjects into two groups: an aerobic training group and a resistance training group. The aerobic group performed 4 hours per week of aerobic exercise. The resistance training group performed 2-4 sets of 8-15 reps. 10 exercises, three times per week (the resistance program was very basic, but began with 2 sets of each exercise and progressed to 4 sets of each exercise).

The findings showed that V02 max increased equally in both groups. Both groups lost weight, however the resistance training group lost significantly more fat and did not lose ANY lean body mass, even at only 800 calories per day. This is significant as this type of extreme diet, one would assume, would result in a loss of lean tissue.

Additionally, the resistance training group actually increased resting metabolism compared to the aerobic group which decreased metabolism.

A second study that also supports this:

Donnelly JE, Sharp T, Houmard J, Carlson MG, Hill JO, Whatley J,E Israel RG
Muscle hypertrophy with large-scale weight loss and resistance training.
Am J Clin Nutr. 1993 Oct;58(4):561-5.

This study gave also put the participants on an 800 calorie per day liquid diet for 90 days.

The average weight loss over the 90 day period was 35lbs. Yet all subjects increased the cross sectional area of their muscle fibers significantly.

It appears that weight training can produce hypertrophy in skeletal muscle (and therefore increases in metabolism) during severe energy restriction and large-scale weight loss.

And one more to really hammer home my point:

Demling RH, DeSanti L.
Effect of a hypocaloric diet, increased protein intake and resistance training on lean mass gains and fat mass loss in overweight police officers.
Ann Nutr Metab. 2000;44(1):21-9.

This study compared three groups following a hypocaloric diet for 12 weeks.

Group one was a diet only group. Group two was diet, plus resistance exercise plus a whey supplement. Group three was identical to group two although they used a casein protein supplement.

After 12 weeks the diet only group had a loss of 5.5lbs of fat with no change in lean mass. The resistance plus whey group had a total fat loss of 9.2lbs and a lean mass gain of 4.4lbs. The resistance plus casein group showed a total fat loss of 15.4lbs and a lean muscle gain of 8.8lbs.

Read that again - they lost more fat, and actually gained muscle despite only consuming 800 calories per day.

Now granted all of these studies were with either beginners, or overweight individuals. And I don't recommend eating only 800 calories per day. But I have to say -- I just haven't seen anything in my years as a trainer to support this idea that there are large amounts of muscle being lost during fat loss phases when decent training programs are involved.

I think the &quot;muscle loss&quot; myth came from this type of scenario:

Typical bodybuilder - eating 3000 calories per day with moderate carbs, fats and protein. Weight training consists of working in the 6-8 rep range doing 12-18 work sets per workout.

Starts his pre contest diet.

Goes to 1500 calories with very little carbs or fat.
Starts taking thyroid meds, ephedrine and/or clenbuterol etc
Starts cardio at an hour per day (or more)
Switches training to supersets of 15-20 reps and does 36 sets per workout.

In other words his caloric deficit goes to more than 2500 per day!
Now that's a recipe for disaster and I can definitely see muscle loss under that type of scenario.

But as long as you are sensible I don't really see it being a concern. Sure there is some water loss, which could be recorded as a loss in lean mass, but I've seen too many clients over the years drop significant amounts of fat without losing significant amounts of muscle.

Incidentally, Dan John set a state record in the snatch after completing Afterburn II. No muscle loss there.

 

[Martin Levac]

<div>
(Timmur @ Sep. 26 2007,05:17)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE"><div>
(Martin Levac @ Sep. 25 2007,22:55)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">[/quote]
Context.

Growth is not possible when in caloric deficit.

The contrary is:

Growth is possible when in caloric deficit.

Only one statement can be true. Within the context of this discussion, the first statement is true. Indeed, within the context of the subject being discussed on this forum and a multitude of other forums dedicated to hypertrophy training, the second statement can never be true. Training is not some magic phenomenon that allows us to grow even in a caloric deficit. No amount of research will make the laws of thermodynamics disappear.</div>
No amount of assertions make the statement &quot;growth is not possible while in a caloric deficit&quot; true. If you want to toss out research, then there is no basis for discussion; we can each make any assertions we'd like. What I said is based on scientific research, but your claim is based on what precisely?</div>
Relevance.

No, it's you who must demonstrate the relevance of your arguments. While it may look like your arguments hold some credibility, they lack the essential link to the subject being discussed.

Growth is not possible when in caloric deficit.

 

[Timmur]

<div>
(Totentanz @ Sep. 26 2007,08:42)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE"><div>
(Timmur @ Sep. 26 2007,05:17)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">No amount of assertions make the statement &quot;growth is not possible while in a caloric deficit&quot; true. If you want to toss out research, then there is no basis for discussion; we can each make any assertions we'd like. What I said is based on scientific research, but your claim is based on what precisely?</div>
You are speaking of recomposition. That's different. Are they gaining weight on a calorie deficit? No, they are not. That is impossible.
Gaining muscle on a calorie deficit IS possible under certain special circumstances. I think we all know to accept that. But they are still experiencing a net loss of body mass.
These special circumstances aren't something that any sane trainee would plan for. Planning on something like that is asking for paltry results. If it happens, then great, but don't plan on it.</div>
It's always recomp. If you add lean mass and body fat, that's recomp. If you lose fat and add lean tissue, that's recomp too! I never made the ridiculous claim that people were gaining weight while under a caloric deficit. I said that they could experience muscular hypertrophy in the face of a caloric deficit and I stand by that.

 

[Timmur]

<div>
(Martin Levac @ Sep. 26 2007,09:08)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE"><div>
(Timmur @ Sep. 26 2007,05:17)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE"><div>
(Martin Levac @ Sep. 25 2007,22:55)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE"></div>
Context.

Growth is not possible when in caloric deficit.

The contrary is:

Growth is possible when in caloric deficit.

Only one statement can be true. Within the context of this discussion, the first statement is true. Indeed, within the context of the subject being discussed on this forum and a multitude of other forums dedicated to hypertrophy training, the second statement can never be true. Training is not some magic phenomenon that allows us to grow even in a caloric deficit. No amount of research will make the laws of thermodynamics disappear.</div>
No amount of assertions make the statement &quot;growth is not possible while in a caloric deficit&quot; true. If you want to toss out research, then there is no basis for discussion; we can each make any assertions we'd like. What I said is based on scientific research, but your claim is based on what precisely?</div>
Relevance.

No, it's you who must demonstrate the relevance of your arguments. While it may look like your arguments hold some credibility, they lack the essential link to the subject being discussed.

Growth is not possible when in caloric deficit.[/quote]
Empty assertion. Repeating it doesn't make it true. What evidence do you offer to support your bald assertion that &quot;Growth is not possible when in caloric deficit&quot;? So far, none. I, on the other hand, have cited research that may be interpreted as backing up my claim. You could argue that the studies cited don't support the claim, or something like that, but instead you reply with the same assertion that started the debate. I guess I'm not even sure what you mean by growth, by I know what I meant and it was simple: work-induced skeletal muscular hypertrophy is possible in humans while undergoing a caloric deficit.

 

[Martin Levac]

<div>
(Timmur @ Sep. 26 2007,11:42)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE"><div>
(Martin Levac @ Sep. 26 2007,09:08)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE"><div>
(Timmur @ Sep. 26 2007,05:17)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE"><div>
(Martin Levac @ Sep. 25 2007,22:55)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE"></div>
Context.

Growth is not possible when in caloric deficit.

The contrary is:

Growth is possible when in caloric deficit.

Only one statement can be true. Within the context of this discussion, the first statement is true. Indeed, within the context of the subject being discussed on this forum and a multitude of other forums dedicated to hypertrophy training, the second statement can never be true. Training is not some magic phenomenon that allows us to grow even in a caloric deficit. No amount of research will make the laws of thermodynamics disappear.</div>
No amount of assertions make the statement &quot;growth is not possible while in a caloric deficit&quot; true. If you want to toss out research, then there is no basis for discussion; we can each make any assertions we'd like. What I said is based on scientific research, but your claim is based on what precisely?</div>
Relevance.

No, it's you who must demonstrate the relevance of your arguments. While it may look like your arguments hold some credibility, they lack the essential link to the subject being discussed.

Growth is not possible when in caloric deficit.[/quote]
Empty assertion. Repeating it doesn't make it true. What evidence do you offer to support your bald assertion that &quot;Growth is not possible when in caloric deficit&quot;? So far, none. I, on the other hand, have cited research that may be interpreted as backing up my claim. You could argue that the studies cited don't support the claim, or something like that, but instead you reply with the same assertion that started the debate. I guess I'm not even sure what you mean by growth, by I know what I meant and it was simple: work-induced skeletal muscular hypertrophy is possible in humans while undergoing a caloric deficit.</div>
In plain english.

I are relevant.

You is not.

Read the manual.

Come back when brain works.

 

[Timmur]

<div>
(Martin Levac @ Sep. 26 2007,11:53)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE"><div>
(Martin Levac @ Sep. 25 2007,22:55)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">

In plain english.

I are relevant.

You is not.

Read the manual.

Come back when brain works.
</div></div>
I are [sic] relevant. You is [sic] not. Examples of plain English?

 

[Martin Levac]

<div>
(Timmur @ Sep. 26 2007,12:35)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE"><div>
(Martin Levac @ Sep. 26 2007,11:53)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE"><div>
(Martin Levac @ Sep. 25 2007,22:55)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">

In plain english.

I are relevant.

You is not.

Read the manual.

Come back when brain works.
</div></div>
I are [sic] relevant. You is [sic] not. Examples of plain English?

</div>
No, of sarcasm.

I tried the high level road first by explaining that your arguments don't fit the context. Then I tried by explaining that your arguments were irrelevant. All very polite with the expectation that you would understand. I failed. Perhaps I was expecting too much from you. So my last hope was to try the low level road, go with the simplest common denominator that I could muster. And that failed too.

I give up.

 

[soflsun]

<div>
(Martin Levac @ Sep. 26 2007,11:53)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">Read the manual.</div>
Martin,

I think it's important to remember that the manual isn't the &quot;Holy Grail&quot; of bobybuilding or hypertrophy.  It's a compilation of opinions based on reserach, which there are many in the &quot;iron game,&quot; and most aren't synchronous.

 

[Timmur]

<div>
(Martin Levac @ Sep. 26 2007,15:37)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE"><div>
(Timmur @ Sep. 26 2007,12:35)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE"><div>
(Martin Levac @ Sep. 26 2007,11:53)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE"><div>
(Martin Levac @ Sep. 25 2007,22:55)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">

In plain english.

I are relevant.

You is not.

Read the manual.

Come back when brain works.
</div></div>
I are [sic] relevant. You is [sic] not. Examples of plain English?

</div>
No, of sarcasm.

I tried the high level road first by explaining that your arguments don't fit the context. Then I tried by explaining that your arguments were irrelevant. All very polite with the expectation that you would understand. I failed. Perhaps I was expecting too much from you. So my last hope was to try the low level road, go with the simplest common denominator that I could muster. And that failed too.

I give up.</div>
Martin,
I'm not sure where you tried anything useful, high or low level aside. You made a claim and then never offered any proof for your claim. You never explained how my arguments were irrelevant, you merely claimed that they were. I'd really love to hear why you think they are. Yes, you've been polite and so have I. No need for anything else. I have read the manual, but I'm not sure what that has to do with this debate.

Maybe it's because Brian had this to say on this issue:

&quot;At the simplest level, an excess of calories is required for the body to increase its fat-free/water-free mass. By excess we mean calories in excess of the body's daily caloric needs. Now, there are some of you who might have heard of people experiencing a simultaneous increase in muscle mass and loss of body fat. This DOES frequently happen while using HST, but it should not be your only measure of success. You will experience much more success by focusing your efforts either on gaining muscle, or losing body fat, rather than both at the same time. Trust me on this.&quot;

And elsewhere, this:

&quot;I'm sorry for any confusion I may have caused by my previous comments about amino acids a mechanical load.
Maybe this will help clarify. If you starve a guy, and surgically remove his gastrocnemius, his soleus will double in size to compensate, even though he is not eating.
Now this does not mean that this is something you want to do. It only shows that the body is able to increase the size of a muscle when nutrients are next to nil. Nor does this mean that he would grow all over from simply training with weights. More than likely he would not grow unless he was fed&quot;.

The second comment is probably based on an animal study and is really the point I was trying to make: hypertrophy is possible while undergoing a caloric deficit. I would clarify this by saying that a mild deficit is almost certainly not going to interfere with muscle growth, while an extreme deficit along with malnutrition would interfere.

 

[Martin Levac]

<div>
(Timmur @ Sep. 26 2007,16:32)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE"><div>
(Martin Levac @ Sep. 26 2007,15:37)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE"><div>
(Timmur @ Sep. 26 2007,12:35)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE"><div>
(Martin Levac @ Sep. 26 2007,11:53)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE"><div>
(Martin Levac @ Sep. 25 2007,22:55)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">

In plain english.

I are relevant.

You is not.

Read the manual.

Come back when brain works.
</div></div>
I are [sic] relevant. You is [sic] not. Examples of plain English?

</div>
No, of sarcasm.

I tried the high level road first by explaining that your arguments don't fit the context. Then I tried by explaining that your arguments were irrelevant. All very polite with the expectation that you would understand. I failed. Perhaps I was expecting too much from you. So my last hope was to try the low level road, go with the simplest common denominator that I could muster. And that failed too.

I give up.</div>
Martin,
I'm not sure where you tried anything useful, high or low level aside. You made a claim and then never offered any proof for your claim. You never explained how my arguments were irrelevant, you merely claimed that they were. I'd really love to hear why you think they are. Yes, you've been polite and so have I. No need for anything else. I have read the manual, but I'm not sure what that has to do with this debate.

Maybe it's because Brian had this to say on this issue:

&quot;At the simplest level, an excess of calories is required for the body to increase its fat-free/water-free mass. By excess we mean calories in excess of the body's daily caloric needs. Now, there are some of you who might have heard of people experiencing a simultaneous increase in muscle mass and loss of body fat. This DOES frequently happen while using HST, but it should not be your only measure of success. You will experience much more success by focusing your efforts either on gaining muscle, or losing body fat, rather than both at the same time. Trust me on this.&quot;

And elsewhere, this:

&quot;I'm sorry for any confusion I may have caused by my previous comments about amino acids a mechanical load.
Maybe this will help clarify. If you starve a guy, and surgically remove his gastrocnemius, his soleus will double in size to compensate, even though he is not eating.
Now this does not mean that this is something you want to do. It only shows that the body is able to increase the size of a muscle when nutrients are next to nil. Nor does this mean that he would grow all over from simply training with weights. More than likely he would not grow unless he was fed&quot;.

The second comment is probably based on an animal study and is really the point I was trying to make: hypertrophy is possible while undergoing a caloric deficit. I would clarify this by saying that a mild deficit is almost certainly not going to interfere with muscle growth, while an extreme deficit along with malnutrition would interfere.</div>
Nah, I gave up.