etothepii
The addition of or splitting of muscle fiber is a big debate, from what I read, its only been proven in mice. Wanna huge shocker, most studies that ive read this far, start out with, while we aren't 100% how muscle is formed/hypertrophy, this is what we.....
"Hyperplasia is the splitting of muscle fibers, resulting eventually in a greater number of fibers the same size as the originals."
What quadancer is referring too is merely the increase in volume of existing muscle fibers, not growth of new ones
"sarcomere hypertrophy, an increase in the size of the contractile portion of the muscle; and sarcoplasmic hypertrophy, an increase in the non-contractile portion of the muscle.
Joe.Muscle
<div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">Then I had this long thread about things that most likely you are not doing but you know better.
Then I thought why waste my time on this. </div>
Smart man. We have been "bench racing" from the start, from both sides. If you feel I should have practiced what I preach in order to be for something, then maybe others should have attempted this to gather a conclusion, in order to dispute it? Works both ways.
Dan Moore
Thank you, finally! You emphasize that maintaining the same exercise is more or less important, as being used as a form of meaurment of progress, would it still be a safe accumption, that to actually change all exercises totally, say and A/B cycle, isnt necessarily as bad an idea as its been made out in this thread? This brings into question deconditioning. If I do A cycle, at the end of the cycle, neural learning should have taken place, then when I switch to B cycle, again, at the end, neural learning should have taken place. Now when you go back to A, is that eight week period doing B, enough, that neural learning is required for A again, or would it be learned more quickly or would it be required at all, as Im not sure how long it takes to unlearn for lack of a better term? Make sense, I have the concept in my head, but honestly, I dont always have success putting it in print?
My thought process is this and has been from the start. The exercises on B cycle should still target the major muscle as A, while potentially incoroporating differnt muscles or target existing ones differently, as they would only be VARIATIONS of the compound movement, like squat A cycle, deadlifts B cycle, I would still suspect, the neural learning curve would be much quicker the third cycle, if not all ready present, actually Im guessing and asking, as again, I dont know hwo long it takes to "unlearn", neural learning? My only reasoning for this and my point from the start is to keep things fresh, as a happy lifter will obviously enjoy what he or she is doing, a positive outlook spills over into every aspect of ones being, it only makes sense that it would make the human machine want to operate more efficiently to achieve hypertrophy. I know people are saying but I do X, it takes a while but I enjoy what Im doing once I get to exercising, no doubt, its also a given, that when someone starts a new or varied program, they are pumped and ready to make things happen. Im just trying to see if my theoretical option is feasable, from your educated viewpoint.
LOL
<div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">Any kind of training will elicit growth in a person until the stimulus is adapted to. How much growth? It very much depends on the on the individual person and the stimulus. That's why some Tour De France riders have big legs and others smaller legs, yet they all do similar, brutal training.</div>
Exactly, its called genetic predisposition. No dispute there.
totentanz
<div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">Obviously not, since he's getting crap for results, according to his own posts.
Oh wait, no, he IS getting results because his chest is more defined (a function of bodyfat, by the way, which is what I suggested) but wait, oh no, he isn't getting results because according to his post, he hasn't gained any weight (a function of diet, by the way, which is what I suggested) so... uh, who knows.
</div>
I didnt say crap, said less than desirable. Im allowed, not all programs work the same for everyone, thats fact, so I really fail to see your point.
There really isnt much to discuss here, whether anecdotal or not, Im convinced without doubt, that I have achieved chest development using less than optimal weight. This fall under the catagory of, you can belive me or not, I could really care less but it happned, whether you like it or not.
To the original poster, what amazes me is how everyone attacked my ideas, yet didnt for a second look outside the box and offer a happy medium, I found it doing my first search, seems there is no dispute between the HST communtity that doing an A/B routine, alternating between every other workout is a bad idea, so that would be one possibility to keep things fresh and apparently, to remain HST correct, should have been what I suggested.
The addition of or splitting of muscle fiber is a big debate, from what I read, its only been proven in mice. Wanna huge shocker, most studies that ive read this far, start out with, while we aren't 100% how muscle is formed/hypertrophy, this is what we.....
"Hyperplasia is the splitting of muscle fibers, resulting eventually in a greater number of fibers the same size as the originals."
What quadancer is referring too is merely the increase in volume of existing muscle fibers, not growth of new ones
"sarcomere hypertrophy, an increase in the size of the contractile portion of the muscle; and sarcoplasmic hypertrophy, an increase in the non-contractile portion of the muscle.
Joe.Muscle
<div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">Then I had this long thread about things that most likely you are not doing but you know better.
Then I thought why waste my time on this. </div>
Smart man. We have been "bench racing" from the start, from both sides. If you feel I should have practiced what I preach in order to be for something, then maybe others should have attempted this to gather a conclusion, in order to dispute it? Works both ways.
Dan Moore
Thank you, finally! You emphasize that maintaining the same exercise is more or less important, as being used as a form of meaurment of progress, would it still be a safe accumption, that to actually change all exercises totally, say and A/B cycle, isnt necessarily as bad an idea as its been made out in this thread? This brings into question deconditioning. If I do A cycle, at the end of the cycle, neural learning should have taken place, then when I switch to B cycle, again, at the end, neural learning should have taken place. Now when you go back to A, is that eight week period doing B, enough, that neural learning is required for A again, or would it be learned more quickly or would it be required at all, as Im not sure how long it takes to unlearn for lack of a better term? Make sense, I have the concept in my head, but honestly, I dont always have success putting it in print?
My thought process is this and has been from the start. The exercises on B cycle should still target the major muscle as A, while potentially incoroporating differnt muscles or target existing ones differently, as they would only be VARIATIONS of the compound movement, like squat A cycle, deadlifts B cycle, I would still suspect, the neural learning curve would be much quicker the third cycle, if not all ready present, actually Im guessing and asking, as again, I dont know hwo long it takes to "unlearn", neural learning? My only reasoning for this and my point from the start is to keep things fresh, as a happy lifter will obviously enjoy what he or she is doing, a positive outlook spills over into every aspect of ones being, it only makes sense that it would make the human machine want to operate more efficiently to achieve hypertrophy. I know people are saying but I do X, it takes a while but I enjoy what Im doing once I get to exercising, no doubt, its also a given, that when someone starts a new or varied program, they are pumped and ready to make things happen. Im just trying to see if my theoretical option is feasable, from your educated viewpoint.
LOL
<div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">Any kind of training will elicit growth in a person until the stimulus is adapted to. How much growth? It very much depends on the on the individual person and the stimulus. That's why some Tour De France riders have big legs and others smaller legs, yet they all do similar, brutal training.</div>
Exactly, its called genetic predisposition. No dispute there.
totentanz
<div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">Obviously not, since he's getting crap for results, according to his own posts.
Oh wait, no, he IS getting results because his chest is more defined (a function of bodyfat, by the way, which is what I suggested) but wait, oh no, he isn't getting results because according to his post, he hasn't gained any weight (a function of diet, by the way, which is what I suggested) so... uh, who knows.
</div>
I didnt say crap, said less than desirable. Im allowed, not all programs work the same for everyone, thats fact, so I really fail to see your point.
There really isnt much to discuss here, whether anecdotal or not, Im convinced without doubt, that I have achieved chest development using less than optimal weight. This fall under the catagory of, you can belive me or not, I could really care less but it happned, whether you like it or not.
To the original poster, what amazes me is how everyone attacked my ideas, yet didnt for a second look outside the box and offer a happy medium, I found it doing my first search, seems there is no dispute between the HST communtity that doing an A/B routine, alternating between every other workout is a bad idea, so that would be one possibility to keep things fresh and apparently, to remain HST correct, should have been what I suggested.
