Page 3 of 7 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 70

Thread: Training a muscle every 48 hours really IS optimal for growth...

  1. #21

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by CDB View Post
    I see nothing in that quote that says you have to work every muscle every 48 hours. It says recovery is not hindered with loading every 48 hours and that the adaptation to the initial loading tapers off around 48s hours, not that you have to train every 48 hours. And speaking specifically if you take the 48 hours as a hard rule for some reason then you must workout every other day, not three times a week. Working out every 48 hours would result in working out 4 times a week every other week, 3 times a week on alternating weeks.

    correct

    No, it doesn't. It means the longer you leave between workouts, the longer it will take to reach your goals. It doesn't mean you won't reach them.
    Of course the frequency recommondation is not an order to do so. But it is kept in mind that the more you deviate from this recommondation the more you deviate from the principle, the more you deviate from good results.

    Otherwise, if you expand this principle as wished I could train every 3 months and I will still reach my goals-but slowly.
    I highly doubt that CDB
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote Share with Facebook

  2. #22
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    112

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by thegentleman1981 View Post
    Otherwise, if you expand this principle as wished I could train every 3 months and I will still reach my goals-but slowly.
    I highly doubt that CDB
    And I highly doubt you're truly interested in the subject and rather think you're just a well dressed troll. Or perhaps you could honestly explain how, with our current knowledge of physiology and biology and what not, anyone could be expected to predict to the hour how often everyone must train to gain optimal muscle. You're arguing irrelevencies and taking general recommendations meant to be used as guiidelines for the practical implementation of an effective training program and recasting them as hard and fast rules which allow no deviations. And there can only be two reaons for doing so: one, a massive misunderstanding of the limits of what we currently know and what Bryan was trying to do; two, a desire to troll and get people into arguments about non issues.

    I'm guessing the second. There's no need to train every 48 hours. It is not a requirement, and your training every three months example is deliberate reductio ad missing the pointum by several miles, my guess is deliberately so. Have fun wanking over non issues with people foolish enough to engage you in further discussion.
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote Share with Facebook

  3. #23

    Default

    I am 31 years old, training since 12 years and earn a master degree in psychology with the master thesis about the drive for muscularity with the main focus on discussion: I like to discuss, thats all.I am too old to troll or sth like that.

    Discussing in the net is always problematic. You donīt get the voice, mimics and so on. So there occurs often misunderstandings, especially when opinons deviate from each other it gets a hot case and often personal. Which should not be the case when leading a partial pop-scientific discussion.

    Without boiling on here :Regarding the fequency issue I wanted to express, that it is useful to have guidelines to play withIN. Especially if someone is following principles. I donīt like blurry and broad recommondations like " eat more", "train differently" thats not helpfull for anyone and typically t-nation expert vocals.
    I think we had some misunderstandings goin on:
    My example was provocating to let you see, that it is usefull to give recommondations between certain lines.
    Like train a muscle group at least 2x the week or as often as you can recupurate, is more precise than
    "No, it doesn't. It means the longer you leave between workouts, the longer it will take to reach your goals. It doesn't mean you won't reach them." --->This implies open limits to both ends which is not correct.

    Well,regarding such discussions i could get a bit nitpicki-thats not meant to be offended.

    Good night Gentleman
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote Share with Facebook

  4. #24
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Michigan, USA
    Posts
    5,714

    Default

    All your quotes and blathering on doesn't matter because it is all semantics. HST and DC both rely on increasing the load over time. HST and DC both rely on loading the muscles frequently - chronic stimuli - rather than the typical split where you hit each muscle group once a week. Both HST and DC include periods of increased activity and a period where you take a break. HST and DC are very similar, especially when you contrast them against more traditional routines. In the faq entry you kept quoting, they even stated that DC was a variation of HST and then broke down the differences of why they think that HST is better for most trainees than DC. I fail to see where you are getting confused.

    And fyi, being 31 years old doesn't mean you are too old to troll. I've known trolls in their 50s.
    PRs:

    Squat - 485 lbs
    Bench - 315 lbs
    Deadlift - 635 lbs
    Total - 1435 lbs
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote Share with Facebook

  5. #25

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Totentanz View Post
    All your quotes and blathering on doesn't matter because it is all semantics. HST and DC both rely on increasing the load over time. HST and DC both rely on loading the muscles frequently - chronic stimuli - rather than the typical split where you hit each muscle group once a week. Both HST and DC include periods of increased activity and a period where you take a break. HST and DC are very similar, especially when you contrast them against more traditional routines. In the faq entry you kept quoting, they even stated that DC was a variation of HST and then broke down the differences of why they think that HST is better for most trainees than DC. I fail to see where you are getting confused.

    And fyi, being 31 years old doesn't mean you are too old to troll. I've known trolls in their 50s.
    Really with 50? Thats sad.

    I got confused regarding raising the weight when reaching a upper range (PR) vs raising the weight independent of Prs.


    I found a good thread on the old forum which helped me out:

    http://www.hypertrophy-specific.info...6;hl=doggcrapp
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote Share with Facebook

  6. #26
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    12

    Default

    I think the biggest problem for me at least, is the balancing of nitrogen retention after 48 hours.... I have allways REALLY struggled to retain muscle mass, If i take a week off training my clothes start fitting way differently, my strength plummets and people start asking me if ive gotten sick, it sucks but that truly is how things are for my body-type. Most people on these forums probably have average to above average genetics and might not be able to relate to this and probably can hold onto their muscle mass for a week in between sessions, I know for a FACT that i cant, even when in a caloric surplus... I'm not sure why I have such a problem with this, I believe it could be due to being in a catabolic state for several hours each night during sleep...even with a casein or slow digesting protein pre bed.... I allways seem to wake up smaller and weaker.... its like my body just burns through nutrients unbelievably fast and 5 hours or so without has to start eating muscle/fat to get what it needs in order to survive.. so add up those losses over a 7 day period and the muscle tissue has degenerated back to its previous form and thus attempting to add weight or reps on a lift isnt doable. To put things in perspective as to how bad my genetics are for being muscular, when I first began bodybuilding It was with the goal of just looking like the average male my age... thats how under-muscled I was and obviously the way my body utilizes food seems to be very counterproductive for being muscular or I wouldnt have been so under-muscled in the first place.
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote Share with Facebook

  7. #27

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by anab0lic_ View Post
    I think the biggest problem for me at least, is the balancing of nitrogen retention after 48 hours.... I have allways REALLY struggled to retain muscle mass, If i take a week off training my clothes start fitting way differently, my strength plummets and people start asking me if ive gotten sick, it sucks but that truly is how things are for my body-type. Most people on these forums probably have average to above average genetics and might not be able to relate to this and probably can hold onto their muscle mass for a week in between sessions, I know for a FACT that i cant, even when in a caloric surplus... I'm not sure why I have such a problem with this, I believe it could be due to being in a catabolic state for several hours each night during sleep...even with a casein or slow digesting protein pre bed.... I allways seem to wake up smaller and weaker.... its like my body just burns through nutrients unbelievably fast and 5 hours or so without has to start eating muscle/fat to get what it needs in order to survive.. so add up those losses over a 7 day period and the muscle tissue has degenerated back to its previous form and thus attempting to add weight or reps on a lift isnt doable. To put things in perspective as to how bad my genetics are for being muscular, when I first began bodybuilding It was with the goal of just looking like the average male my age... thats how under-muscled I was and obviously the way my body utilizes food seems to be very counterproductive for being muscular or I wouldnt have been so under-muscled in the first place.
    Hi anabolic. I am not aware of the fact, that muscle loss already sets in after a break of one week.
    I think its mainly fluid/water you loose in that time.
    What is your age, height,Bodyfat,weight and strength stats and routine looks like?
    Not to read the fortune out of this numbers, but to get a sharper picture here.
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote Share with Facebook

  8. #28
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    430

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by anab0lic_ View Post
    I think the biggest problem for me at least, is the balancing of nitrogen retention after 48 hours.... I have allways REALLY struggled to retain muscle mass, If i take a week off training my clothes start fitting way differently, my strength plummets and people start asking me if ive gotten sick, it sucks but that truly is how things are for my body-type. Most people on these forums probably have average to above average genetics and might not be able to relate to this and probably can hold onto their muscle mass for a week in between sessions, I know for a FACT that i cant, even when in a caloric surplus... I'm not sure why I have such a problem with this, I believe it could be due to being in a catabolic state for several hours each night during sleep...even with a casein or slow digesting protein pre bed.... I allways seem to wake up smaller and weaker.... its like my body just burns through nutrients unbelievably fast and 5 hours or so without has to start eating muscle/fat to get what it needs in order to survive.. so add up those losses over a 7 day period and the muscle tissue has degenerated back to its previous form and thus attempting to add weight or reps on a lift isnt doable. To put things in perspective as to how bad my genetics are for being muscular, when I first began bodybuilding It was with the goal of just looking like the average male my age... thats how under-muscled I was and obviously the way my body utilizes food seems to be very counterproductive for being muscular or I wouldnt have been so under-muscled in the first place.
    Not discrediting your issue, but I think it's psychological rather than physiological. If you actually want to see if you're losing all the muscle mass you claim, do a fat % : lean body mass % before you SD/take time off/whatever and then the morning you start training again.

    Unless you have a physical disease or are eating like absolute garbage/taking in no calories, I doubt you're muscles are severely atrophying after only a week.
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote Share with Facebook

  9. #29
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    12

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by TangoDown View Post
    Not discrediting your issue, but I think it's psychological rather than physiological. If you actually want to see if you're losing all the muscle mass you claim, do a fat % : lean body mass % before you SD/take time off/whatever and then the morning you start training again.

    Unless you have a physical disease or are eating like absolute garbage/taking in no calories, I doubt you're muscles are severely atrophying after only a week.
    I would actually consider my condition (extreme ectomorph) akin to having a physical disease. Thats the whole reason i got into and have been so obsessed with bodybuilding for so long - to improve the bad hand I was dealt. When you've been at this stuff for long enough you know without needing to be submerged underwater tank for an accurate body comp reading whats going on.

    Its not like i lose 20lbs of muscle in a week, i do tend to somewhat under eat during those rare weeks off that I have, which no doubt contributes to more muscle lost.... BUT even when i do eat well, I will over a 7 day period lose muscle to where the muscle trained has returned to its previous state. I believe this possibly happens over night where each night a larger amount of catabolism takes place for me than the average person due to my abnormally fast metabolic rate basic/nutritional demands during the fasted period.
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote Share with Facebook

  10. #30
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    430

    Default

    So if that's what you think, then your solution would be to bump up the food/shake you eat before you go to bed - would it not?
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote Share with Facebook

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •