[b said:
Quote[/b] ]This is a very subjective topic, and some will say they see greater gains during 15s and 10s, while others will say during the 5s and negs. The glycogen-depleting high rep phases of the 15s and 10s necessitate a higher carb and calorie intake if you want to stay in a surplus to build muscle. During the lower volume, lower rep phase of 5s, you may decrease carbs if you notice fat gain. People who notice most of their gains during 5s most likely didn't eat sufficiently during 15s and 10s.
Throw in sufficient metabolic work in the 5s and negs and glycogen depletion occurs the same.
Caloric deficit (intended or otherwise) will always prevent gains, this is not phase specific.
You keep referring to the 10s as if they're special because they're "the 10s"...they aren't. They're weights that were once your 1RM and 3RM and 5RM and so on, and are now far from any of those. The point is that these weights are not sufficiently heavy (relative) anymore. You keep referring to RBE and adaptations . . . and you're right, they do occur (CT and otherwise)...and they do last...which is why you can't go back to weights as light as those in the 15s and 10s and expect to grow off them anywhere NEAR as much as those heavier, or for as long duration. Think about how many workouts you did with 100kgs as your 5RM or just lower than before it became your 10RM...you aren't sensitive to that stimulus anymore.
Will 2 or 4 weeks of lowered/no weights make you as sensitive as you were previously again to ANY load..? Still unofficial as to yes or no...if RBE is so potent and far reaching, then why is it that 2 or 4 weeks will remove adaptations without the loss of some of the muscle tissue that was gained..?
*RBE - prevents continual growth at same load
*When - you train beyond 15s and 10s for 5s and negs (4 weeks and longer), you're not only desensitising yourself to those loads, you're making your muscles forget that 15s and 10s ever caused hypertrophy. Think of RBE as a curve that's always just behind hypertrophy I guess. When you get hammering away at the top end of the curve (5s, negs) you're prevent growth from using weights @ the lighter end.
Also...as an aside, you don't(and can't/won't I believe) get full recruitment from first rep unless training ~ 85% of 1RM...which lies in the 5-8RM for nearly everyone.
[b said:
Quote[/b] ]And if you are really interested, PM Dan for references or the studies themselves related to "damage before hypertrophy". Particularly useful would be Rhea's work (or was it Rennie? But Michael Rennie's was on Food and Exercise and the Control of the Size of Muscle Mass, so I believe it was Rhea).
I'd give them to you myself, except that Dan's more organized, so he can send it to you much faster. My folders are cluttered, I don't bother organizing them after studying, so all I can find right now (near the top levels) aside from Rennie's works are mTOR kinase activation and hypertrophy, and mechanical signal transduction in skeletal muscle growth and adaptation. All these came from Dan, he's a generous guy. And I also hate searching through the forums. So Dan's your guy, he can have it to you in a second.
I'll see if I can find the references anyway, but go PM Dan if you are really interested in figuring out the science behind. It'll probably be 2010 by the time I find anything from my junk
I'm going to paraphrase Lyle here:
"If the method leads to the outcome you were already aware of, it doesn't matter if you know the mechanisms or not"
(.. in reference to someone pumping up HST because of the science behind it. I'm not belittling ANYTHING Bryan has done, just saying that the method would be as effective if he'd merely invented it this way instead of researching it.)
If it works, it works. If it doesn't, it doesn't.
[b said:
Quote[/b] ]And like Bryan said,
Quote
If you are afraid of using baby weights, check your ego at the door, or use the heaviest weights you can lift from day one and be satisfied with your results, in other words, stop looking for anything better.
Oh please.......if the most effective and efficient way to build muscle is by playing chess, then I'll do that. If it's lifting lighter, then I'll do that.
But it isn't either of them.
[b said:
Quote[/b] ]Like I just said, even Bryan said gains will be more or less consistent if you do it right. Because it does. Not just water retention and glycogen storage.
Ok, next step here is to prove it. Lets get 5 people who know how to train well (exercise choice and form) and eat accordingly. Have them do the vanilla HST - 3x fullbody per week, 8 weeks, 2 weeks of each, preceeded by a 9-14 day SD.
The gains will be as great for the first four weeks as the last two correct..? And the gains across phases will be the same (not significantly different)... so the 15s gains will be muscle, not just glycogen and fluid...and this will be reflected by the same gains in the 10s and 5s and negs.
Sound good..?
