Volume per bout vs. per week

[Jester]

Fibre's are not "all in" or "all out". That isn't how they work, either physiologically, bio-mechanically or physically-mechanically.

You have a pronounced DOMS due to CNS fatigue. It isn't an indicator of the state of your muscles. Go walk 40km. You'll be sore and have approximately zero fibre damage.

Your set at 90kg is not going to produce hypertrophy if your muscles have accustomed to it, and/or (especially) 100kg. You feel sore due to volume. Enjoy.

 

[HST_Rihad]

That's an unfounded opinion. Drop sets or other metabolically active higher rep set coupled with lower-rep work exist for a defined physiological purpose, and Bryan even recommends doing them during 5's. We can still refer to 1 heavy set of 5's + RPT drops as HST, since the main principles of enough tension and progressive overload are there. RPT is described in practical terms here (and used apparently successfully).

 

[Jester]

Here's a hypothesis: some muscle fibers got damaged in set 1, so they could no longer be used in set 2, therefore lower absolute load still produced roughly the SAME amount of average tension for the remaining fibers.

What happened to you not editing posts after they've been responded to? This is significantly different to what was written before.

Fibre's are not "all in" or "all out". That isn't how they work, either physiologically, bio-mechanically or physically-mechanically.

You have a pronounced DOMS due to CNS fatigue. It isn't an indicator of the state of your muscles. Go walk 40km. You'll be sore and have approximately zero fibre damage.

Your set at 90kg is not going to produce hypertrophy if your muscles have accustomed to it, and/or (especially) 100kg. You feel sore due to volume. Enjoy.

That's an unfounded opinion. Drop sets or other metabolically active higher rep set coupled with lower-rep work exist for a defined physiological purpose, and Bryan even recommends doing them during 5's. We can still refer to 1 heavy set of 5's + RPT drops as HST, since the main principles of enough tension and progressive overload are there. RPT is described in practical terms here (and used apparently successfully).

Which part of the above is an "unfounded opinion" ? The reference to Repeated Bout Effect? The reference to extensive CNS use producing DOMS ?


Any reference to Lean Gains it still a reference to Martin's opinion. That isn't to say it can't work. But it doesn't hold any special authority.


Regardless, your posting behaviour and etiquette is severely lacking. Retrospective editing once you've been shown incorrect is the worst kind of hubris.


I'm out.

 

[HST_Rihad]

What happened to you not editing posts after they've been responded to? This is significantly different to what was written before.

Please do not attempt to troll me. Look at the time of edit, which was half an hour before your reply. And an untruth at that ("significantly different"). I changed hypotheses to singular hypothesis in that post.

p.s.: I now see, those were two posts of mine in succession.

Which part of the above is an "unfounded opinion" ? The reference to Repeated Bout Effect? The reference to extensive CNS use producing DOMS ?

No, the reference to lower loads/higher reps coupled with higher loads/lower reps being ineffective for growth.
See this post by Bryan on the role of higher-rep work during mid-rep heavy working for hypertrophy.

Regardless, your posting behaviour and etiquette is severely lacking. Retrospective editing once you've been shown incorrect is the worst kind of hubris.

Losing an argument, eh? Intentionally on your part or not, this is a lie.

I'm out.

It's about time...

 

[Jester]

It seems I will break my word, and delay exiting for a reply ... though God knows why, Sci & Totez both think I'm crazy for responding over the last X-months, but anyhow ...

You have my sincere apologies in reference to my remarks regarding the timing of your edit.

On the point itself, you've commented that (paraphrasing) damage to fibres from a load (say 5RM), and then therefore because they were damaged they would not contribute to further work being done by the muscle and 90% of that load would be sufficient for the remaining fibres. This is physically (mechanically) and physiologically incorrect.


To address your other comment; if you genuinely believe that people remove themselves from discussions with you because they secretly believe they're in the wrong, then there's probably little anyone can say to change your mind. If you're open to the actual truth, being that your manner is dismissive and unreasonably stubborn and your inability to successfully support your opinions with evidence then perhaps there's a chance to change your approach to discussions.

Quoting Martin, or Bryan, or Blade etc is never going to constitute supporting an argument. You need to quote scientific literature or else your argument remains a prettified case of 'because my Dad said so'.

The way you address and interact people is what has caused them to remove themselves from discussions with you. It has nothing to do with your conviction in your opinions.

Hell, you've even tried to educate me just now about drop-sets and metabolic work when I've many posts on here discussing them and responding them to your queries.


Consider this, you asked me the other day why Bryan's comments weren't enough to found a convicted belief in the conclusions of Wernbom. Why on Earth would anyone of sound mind do that when the meta-analysis is available for reading themselves? And why would anyone who is interested take the word of another party before even reading it and critically analysing the method and conclusions?

That attitude makes it unpleasant to have ongoing discussions. I'm not trolling you, not trying to make you feel bad, but just like Totez, Sci and O&G, I'm pretty much past the limit.

 

[HST_Rihad]

You seem to believe I've never read Wernbom's work myself, while I had gone through it before, and frankly, read it thoroughly only after seeing Bryan's article concerning it. just to know what all the fuss is about. I'm not sure why you're so suspicious about it.

In any case, I've lost track of this discussion. You don't think RPT or any other sort of load dropping after first main set to be in line with HST principles (even though Bryan talks about utilizing dropsets on top of 5's in HST FAQ, or using separate higher-rep sets elsewhere on this board), fine. You don't think sacrificing a bit of load for volume during heavy 5's will work for mass, fine. You don't think picking 6's instead of 5's to stay within 65-85% 1RM will get me anywhere, also fine. You're against anything I come up with, even though it's backed by science, which is also fine. You're like a dad I've never had