Max-Stim questions

Arms do get pretty well conditioned from all the indirect work they get during a cycle (although from chins, say, they get some pretty direct work) so I tend to only add in arm work at the end of a cycle when I can use some heavy loading to continue to increase strain and through a greater ROM (pick an iso that is good for stretch). A Max Stim set for bis and tris seems like an ideal way to do this.

If you finished up a cycle doing negative dips and chins you might find that that would be enough to keep your arms growing for a while longer without the need for any direct arm work. However, eventually, I'm pretty much convinced that you would need to do some direct work to maximise gains.
(MasterCFI @ Jan. 27 2009,8:58)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">I was always a powerlifter or &quot;extreme athlete&quot;, in that I would hump 12 miles with a 100 pound rucksack on my back. After having done a physical fitness test, then doing cross country land navigation through the woods, etc. Being a former infantry officer assigned to the Green Beret, I am used to pounding my body.

When you look at the legs of Rangers and Special Forces, they tend to be beefy and built. They got that way walking and running moderate distances with heavy loads. My legs are the same way.</div>
I much preferred to leave my 100 pound rucksack in a net attached to a helicopter. I'd get it back that evening when they brought out our hot chow (life was good in the First Cavalry Division).

I may have been &quot;straight leg&quot; infantry, but I knew enough to get somebody else to carry my pack for me.

Maybe that accounts for my weeny legs...

You had vehicles, and hot chow? Wow! Haha

Seriously, fellow soldier- thanks for serving! Hooah.

Yeah, I owe my legs to uncle Sam. The mushy brain is all mine though...

Tunnel, do you have any experience with NOT working arms directly?
Hello, I don't know if this thread is still alive or not but I came across MS recently and am interested in knowing more.

I've read through the whole 8 pages and the ebook but I must be stupid because there are some things I don't understand

I'll try to be as clear as possible!

1) 1rep per M-time right? Up to 20 reps in total, yes?

2) 1 set per exercise?

3) Once your eccentric time slows down significantly, add 10secs and keep going?

4) Once your M-time is 30secs, do you quit even though you haven't reached your 20reps?

5) Let's say I reach my 20th rep and I feel like I can do more and my M-time is only 15secs and not the 30sec. mark. Should I keep going until I reach M-time of 30secs. or stop. Should I add more weights next time?

because I just experimented with my left arm on hammer curls. I can do 6RM of 40lbs. and 75% of that is 30lbs. I used M-time of 3secs and it eventually went up to M-time of 15 on my 20th rep. I could've went a lot longer if I had to stop at the 30sec. mark.

6) I've noticed on the ebook that the phase caters to a 4day workout per week. I don't really have time to do that so I use the 3x per week program. Should I still be increasing my weights 5% like the 4day per wk program?

7) Each phase is 4weeks, correct?

Truly sorry for bothering anyone that takes the time to answer these. I would greatly appreciate your answers though. Thank you sooo much!
1) 1rep per M-time right? Up to 20 reps in total, yes?
Yes but you can group some reps together if the load is light, up to you

2) 1 set per exercise?
There really aren't sets, you just set a rep number and work to it

3) Once your eccentric time slows down significantly, add 10secs and keep going?
Concentric not eccentric

4) Once your M-time is 30secs, do you quit even though you haven't reached your 20reps?

5) Let's say I reach my 20th rep and I feel like I can do more and my M-time is only 15secs and not the 30sec. mark. Should I keep going until I reach M-time of 30secs. or stop. Should I add more weights next time?

Depends on where you are at in your loading. You can quit at 20 or keep going.

Yes add more load. Remeber the whole idea is to be able to get enough total work (TUL) and a high enough recruitment level, so if you feel it too light add weight. If need be groups reps together to add in a little fatigue then use MS  from there.

6) I've noticed on the ebook that the phase caters to a 4day workout per week. I don't really have time to do that so I use the 3x per week program. Should I still be increasing my weights 5% like the 4day per wk program?

7) Each phase is 4weeks, correct?

Schedule it how you can but try to work each muscle group at least 2X week. Go as long as you can and if need be take a few days off here or there.
Let me chime in with my xperience. First, I thoroughly enjoy doing MS. I alternate between MS and HST (proper) each cycle.

But, I found, for me, that 3 workouts a week is too much on my body and I ended up losing muscle by overtraining - on either HST or MS. I am 50 years old.

To compensate, when doing MS or HST, I now workout every 4 days. IE: Workout, then two days off, workout, 2 days off, etc. If something comes up which makes me miss a scheduled workout day, then I simply workout the next day.

Doing my rotation in this manner has allowed me to complete two cycles without ANY joint or body pain. And, I have gained more size than I did any of my previous cycles.

When I started HST a little over a year ago I weighed 198 and couldn't put weight on to save my butt. I now weigh 216.

So, for me, more rest between workouts has been a key for gaining size and enjoying less aches and pains.

Happy lifting all!
You got great results doing HST &quot;proper&quot; . . . . go figure!!

I have also (I normally use MS to extend), I've never understood why so many guys wanna alter it BEFORE they've even done a few HST cycles. Fine change it once you know how it's working for you, little by little, or adopt sensible options like &quot;simplfy and win&quot; if you're a vet and already know what likely works for you.
(MasterCFI @ Dec. 13 2009,7:20)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">
So, for me, more rest between workouts has been a key for gaining size and enjoying less aches and pains.
Ditto here. Reducing the frequency was the best approach for me in dealing with the injuries, as well as managing CNS fatigue (I'm 45). I've been doing a 2-day split with rest on the 3rd day. I'm now midway through the cycle, and seeing a return to size and strength gains after about a year of stalling.
A little HST tweaking might be in order for the over-the-hill gang  
hey dan,

long time, no speak! hope you and family are well and happy holidays to all.

i enjoy experimentation, and i just completed a 2 month experiment using dr. mcguff's big 5 workout, training 1 time a week for 12 minutes.

no hypertrophy results to speak of, just strength gains. physique wise, i look flat! this is especially so in the arms.

my 53 year old joints, despite the very slow reps, are a bit tender.

now, the real reason for my butting in.

dan, over at t-nation, thibideau has quite the discussion going on (18 pages and counting) on the perfect rep. there is video of nate green and another BB fellow performing the perfect rep on the bench press.
quick synopsis--
thibs recommends total domination of the weight.
i.e.- explode (compensatory acceleration) the concentric and also a fast eccentric.
2-3 reps for about 8 or so sets.
when that &quot;feeling&quot; of domination diminishes (the positive rep speed starts to diminish) the set ends.

dan, i'm no scientist, but to me, thibs' writings appear quite similar to the max-stim workout. that's not a knock on christian. he walks the walk.

for anyone else who has some time to check out the article and the 10 minute video, i'd be most interested in your comments regarding the similarities between maxstim and thibs' theories.

hey dan,

dan, i'm no scientist, but to me, thibs' writings appear quite similar to the max-stim workout. that's not a knock on christian. he walks the walk.


Yup long time no speak, my self imposed restraint from the BB writing community has left me out of touch but in all honesty I didn't invent singles, or doubles or triples. These were invented by the caveman who first had to move that heavy ass rock out of their veggie garden LOL. So it's no wonder others have capitalized on the idea and all the more power to them, seriously.

What chinched the idea for me was when I tried my own self experimentation. Further research is still needed to see if it (intra set rest) indeed may prove beneficial or not and I am hoping that one day some young graduate student picks up on the idea and runs with it. I would love to see the results (good or bad).
Monkey Island

Dan Moore said:
Yes, I have seen the thread and the criticisms. This is typical and is expected. Obviously there are many who feel I should go there and address these and I considered doing so. But in the end what will decide whether this method has any value is not an endless debate on the choice of scientific references but what is seen after people apply it for a prolonged period.

With that said, I will comment on a few criticisms that have been made, only because I feel those who might be interested are being swayed by the comments being made which in realty are misleading and are not taking into account the program as a whole.

So let’s start with the obvious, the Goldspink study from the 70’s did show us a great deal, namely that chronic overload is a necessity when it comes to hypertrophy. In my mind I do not think this is even disputable and in Max-Stimulation it is pretty apparent that this is a primary goal. If it were not then the progressive increases in load as described would not be included. Now the model I chose as representative is a model that was used in rats and also a very similar model was used in humans and according to many researchers is far more representative of what would be achieved in a real world condition than ablation as used in the Goldspink and subsequent research. To accept the Goldspink model and yet refute a model more indicative of human response in my opinion is simply ludicrous.

Now even though this has not been brought up, yet, I am sure it will. Yes, there are periods of submax loading and this is intentional, as I cannot ascertain the training status of every individual who reads this I made it as generic as possible. I have commented on my forum that a trained person should skip the submax loading and begin at a much heavier load so I do recognize there is a difference in response from a trained and non trained subject. Secondly since the fatigue response to loading is being minimized the system then allows for progressively heavier loading than what is normally achieved through conventional rep/set structures. Now being that the Goldspink study has laid the foundation of mechanical work and tension being predominant players and since Max-Stimulation satisfies both of these I do not understand why there is such a debate.

Secondly what appears to be taking place is, there is either a misunderstanding, misinterpretation or some have not read what it is I am saying, namely about how fatigue itself not only limits the amount of work we can subject our muscles too but also may hamper the elevation of protein synthesis through one molecular chain that has been proven to be very important.

In light of this it appears that some believe I am saying there is no relationship between the metabolic cost of contraction and hypertrophy. This is not so, there is more than a casual relationship and you simply cannot take the cost of contraction out of the mix in any mechanical human movement, they are intrinsically intertwined. Now I do believe someone posted the study by Rutherford, as an affirmation that a fatigue response is necessary yet, the EL and CL both produced significant hypertrophy now if the metabolic cost is the only answer to hypertrophy shouldn’t the CL have produced more than the less metabolically taxing EL? No, because as I have stated many times in my Hypertrophy-Research forum it is a concerted effort and I state nothing different in Max-Stimulation. Anyone can also take that study and do a citation search and find several other stuides which do not draw the same conclusion.

When looking at the endocrine response with differing levels of fatigue it is NOT clear that fatigue itself is critical to hypertrophy, I believe someone made this distinction, so should we discount the hormonal impact? No, and I don't. There are studies showing that the IGF response, AR response and many other factors in the hormonal aspect of growth are intensity and work responsive along with metabolically activated. Since Max-Stimulation is based on a relationship between increases in the intensity of load and therefore increasing work (since we keep the reps constant) and since the amount of work, not the frequency of contractions, also dictates ATP consumption, it is apparent that Max-Stimulation has accounted for this.

Even though I had thought I had explained my reasoning’s quite clear in the book, maybe I had not. If that is the case then let me apologize. So let me make this clear, I am not saying that the metabolic cost of contraction is the culprit, again this is unavoidable, it is the effect of metabolic fatigue that increases the inhibitory mechanisms, force production, and the amount of work that can be achieved. There are, naturally, other mechanisms involved in fatigue, neural, EC failure, and others and even though I do not go into these aspects in the book I do recognize their existence but the end result is, as stated above, fatigue does cause obvious changes, this and progressive loading are the two main focal points of Max-Stimulation.

Much has been said on how I relate diminished hypertrophy to increases in inhibitory mechanisms; mostly revolving around molecular mechanisms, and how important is this to overall growth. Let me ask anyone who is reading this, if it wasn't important and if there is no way we can successfully manipulate these, why is it being researched with such vigor? Simply for something to analyze, I think not. Science does understand there is a need to combat wasting disease, sarcopenia, and other muscle specific molecular occurrences that contribute to muscle loss and like it or not this will be the means to variations in resistance training protocols that can contribute to overall results. It appears I am being chastised for referencing scientific work and then postulating a program designed to circumvent some of the inhibitory mechanisms and I should simply succumb to the mentally that as long as one eats, lifts, sleeps then they will grow with no difficulty. Now what I find incredibly hypocritical is the fact that some who are saying this have used this same approach in their own literary works. Citing reference after reference of molecular, metabolic and hormonal scientific studies that, even though may be relevant, do not change the fact that in order to lose weight one simply needs to eat less and move more. A very simplistic answer to a very complicated process, but the end result is the same.

Now let me address the comments made about this program and Scott Abel’s Innervation Training. Yes there are two areas that are common, the limiting nature of fatigue and the impact of blood flow other than that they are completely on opposing ends of the spectrum. Scott is a firm advocator of achieving a pump. I am not. Scott’s program consists of clustering to failure with very brief rest periods then going beyond that by using rest/pause. I am not. There are also other differences but you would need to read his "Innervation Training" to see.

In line with this it appears I am being chastised for supposedly reiterating something that has already been done, something I do not agree with but even so this is very common and holds true for many who have simply taken the work of predecessors and expanded upon it, not only in bodybuilding and strength training but also in works on diet. Does this make the newer work any less credible? Many have made a living off of doing just this, researching previous work done by others, expanding on it or simply explaining the process better yet this doesn't make the work more or less valuable it just presents the basic hypothesis in a new light.

I have made no pretense that this is superior or inferior to any of the other systems out there I simply do not have the data to back up such a claim. I do feel it can be an effective tool that can be added to any training but that is a personal view and I realize not all will see it this way.

In time as science illuminates the enire path that is involved I am sure some peoples views will change (I am sure mine as well), this is to be expected and can be seen happening already. If it comes about that I am wrong in my interpretations of the science currently available, I will have no reluctance in admitting it, without the stance that is commonly seen today, "you can't hold me to what I said 2 years ago". It's more honest to just say, "How about that, I guess I was wrong".

I am sure many will say, why don't you post this at the boards where the criticism is occurring. Well very simply put, I already know this will circumnavigate the internet and appear at many sites without any direct intervention on my part. Secondly, I am responding to questions posed on my forum, to address questions raised here. I have no desire to try and be a gunslinger shooting down anyone who disagrees with me, therfore I am not going to go to every board or website who holds critical comments for this method, it would be futile. And finally, we all have the right to decide for ourselves what it is we wish to do, I have given ample justification for the method and at this point endless debating back and forth is not going to change anything, so now it is strictly up to each individual and whether or not they see value in this, if they do they will try it, if they do not they won't, it's that simple.
I still read the literature but probably won't write much anymore

Great to see you still around - Nice to be back. It's been too long. Took off 8 months from training. Diet is still pretty tight, just lost some size. Starting all over with HST and in a while will look at max-sStim. Nice to see the board still strong and some of the regulars.

lol, it's been a while. It was nice to find you, Bryan and HST again. Last program was of course max-Stim and as you know I thoroughly enjoyed it and made good progress especially helping joints etc. Life kind of got in the way and a nagging right shoulder which ended my serious training.
Had it checked last month and I can do weights but nothing very heavy until I have an MRI this Oct. Kinda like a frozen shoulder. If I had to re do my 30 years in gym, it would entail less real heavy weight. Unfortunately I did the 2-3 hour gym stuff for over 20 years when natural bodybuilding didn't exist and being small boned it caught up. Depending on the MRI and more likely operation this may be the end of competing and I'm OK with that. Anyways good to be back with you and Bryan. 'm also over at Lyles; it doesn't get better than these 2 sites.
Max Stim spreadsheet

Does anyone have a copy of the Max Stim spreadsheet they could attach/link/email me please? The link referred to earlier in this thread no longer works. Many thanks -- ZAK