LeanGains

[HST_Rihad]

Your opinion that 540x4 wouldn't be valuable as first set seems quite misplaced to me? Why not ... ?

I imagine the reason to do it second is to mediate the effect it might have on actually accomplishing that 600x3. These are deadlifts remember, not pathetic bicep curls.

It's highly possible that 540 x4 is not the ideal set to cover TUT needs. Maybe it's 560, maybe 570, maybe 520. It obviously isn't for metabolic optimisation and partitioning.

You are also making the mistake of assuming everything you have read about HST is perfect information, . Idolatry isn't of use here. Something is working for Martin here, and TUT is certainly one of them. Could he optimise muscle gains without compromising CNS using 600 (or closer to it) for all reps ... ? Maybe, maybe he's tried it and didn't like the burn out//something else didn't work.

But dismissing the concept of TUT and work done simply because it doesn't mesh with a stringent//inflexible belief in 'HST' would be a mistake.

Sorry, I'm reluctant to use any method unless it can be somehow explained scientifically, not only pragmatically ("works for me").
Depending on when he last did 540, HST tells us that any load becomes less & less useful over time due to RBE. The bigger absolute load (as is the case), the more time he can train with it effectively but only if he hasn't tried bigger loads, because 600 goes a long way toward rendering 540 less effective more quickly. The only exception allowing the use of lower loads is as part of drop sets or higher rep separate metabolic sets.

 

[Jester]

And again, you're assuming HST is perfectly correct. And in this instance, it is the assumption that 600 quickly renders 540 useless, with regard to TUT, and also assuming that the microdamage inflicted by 600 cannot be 'added to' by 540.

I'd advise you do some research on tension forces in physics; metals are a good place to start.

 

[HST_Rihad]

And again, you're assuming HST is perfectly correct. And in this instance, it is the assumption that 600 quickly renders 540 useless, with regard to TUT, and also assuming that the microdamage inflicted by 600 cannot be 'added to' by 540.

I'd advise you do some research on tension forces in physics; metals are a good place to start.

Not that quickly. It takes days, weeks to build up resistance to a given load. My understanding is that 540 in second set can only be as useful as it could be in first set. It cannot suddenly become more useful than that after 600. Or can it, assuming some fibers (10%) were microdamaged in set one, can no longer support the load, thus in second set (-10% load) each remaining fiber sustains roughly same amount of tension on average as before?

 

[Jester]

Well it seems like you're (partially) answering your own question/doubts ...

 

[Jester]

Sorry, I'm reluctant to use any method unless it can be somehow explained scientifically, not only pragmatically ("works for me").

Furthermore, if you are going to (correctly) apply a scientific approach to understanding muscle building, you ought to similarly apply it to caloric surplus & deficit, and what is physiologically capable in those states.

Not that quickly. It takes- days, weeks to build up resistance to a given load. My understanding is that 540 in second set can only be as useful as it could be in first set. It cannot suddenly become more useful than that after 600. Or can it, assuming some fibers (10%) were microdamaged in set one, can no longer support the load, thus in second set (-10% load) each remaining fiber sustains roughly same amount of tension on average as before?

You're making the mistake of assuming that exposure to 600 renders 540 completely irrelevant. You should consider that once damaged by 600, 540 may be all that is necessary to cause further damage (tension forces physics).

Not to mention, that if Martin is not definitely & substantially in caloric surplus (not nonsensical excess, surplus), all he's going to accomplish is muscle retention.

 

[HST_Rihad]

Not to mention, that if Martin is not definitely & substantially in caloric surplus (not nonsensical excess, surplus), all he's going to accomplish is muscle retention.

Which is just what I hope for! He's able to put on muscle and stay lean at the same time. According to his own weight formula he's already pretty much at his genetic limits in terms of muscle size. He might be doing something like overeating on days with w/o, undereating on rest days, unless he trains every day, then it must be due to something else (not meaning drugs).

 

[Jester]

I'd rather over-eat post w/o, when protein synthesis rates are highest. You build/retain muscle after exposure to stimulus, not before.

You're also lacking documented proof that he isn't bulking-cutting-bulking-cutting, just on a smaller and less efficient scale, in comparison to a traditional (HST style) bulk-cut.

No one said he isn't bulking w/minimal fat gain (again, you seem to overlook this) and then cutting whatever is left over, just that he isn't bulking and cutting simultaneously.

 

[HST_Rihad]

I'd rather over-eat post w/o, when protein synthesis rates are highest. You build/retain muscle after exposure to stimulus, not before.

I do so too, but I train after first meal, and have like 2 more meals post w/o. Maybe for someone who trains in the evening, then it may be important to overeat the day after. It doesn't probably matter if we sum up what we eat in the course of a week, if we do so consistently, what you eat on w/o days may well be for good for previous w/o etc.

 

[HST_Rihad]

You're also lacking documented proof that he isn't bulking-cutting-bulking-cutting, just on a smaller and less efficient scale, in comparison to a traditional (HST style) bulk-cut.

Ok, this may be how he actually implements his "Bodyrecomposition. Simultaneous muscle gain and fat loss." (one day bulking, one day cutting), the details are irrelevant, if it practically means just that, who cares that body can't be anabolic + fat losing at the same time? I don't. It's same as for a user to care if his comp performs multitasking by emulating it on a single CPU (execute instruction from task 1, execute instruction from task 2, execute instruction from task 1, etc), or actually has 2 CPUs + true multitasking.

 

[Jester]

Ok, this may be how he actually implements his "Bodyrecomposition. Simultaneous muscle gain and fat loss." (one day bulking, one day cutting), the details are irrelevant, if it practically means just that, who cares that body can't be anabolic + fat losing at the same time? I don't. It's same as for a user to care if his comp performs multitasking by emulating it on a single CPU (execute instruction from task 1, execute instruction from task 2, execute instruction from task 1, etc), or actually has 2 CPUs + true multitasking.

No, not one day bulking, one day cutting ... one cycle bulking, one cycle cutting ... the same as HST, and not pseudo-simultaneously. Hormone levels don't vary like that under natural circumstances.

 

[HST_Rihad]

Has anyone here tried fasted intensive training?

 

[Jester]

Has anyone here tried fasted intensive training?

Not sure what you mean by 'intensive', but you if you mean regular cycle with only difference being diet (and doing it according to an IF protocol), then yes.

It will kick your a$$ the whole way through; high-reps make you hungry, high-load makes you feel 'drained' and caloric deficit is essentially the cause of that. IF training with caloric surplus/maintenance, for me, was just a question of the transition and becoming accustomed to the 15-9/16-8 structure.

I'd advise you spend an SD moving to IF protocol, getting it strict & working out the practicalities. Then start your cycle and decide whether it's surplus or deficit re: calories.

Coffee or tea is great pre-training.

 

[HST_Rihad]

Not sure what you mean by 'intensive', but you if you mean regular cycle with only difference being diet (and doing it according to an IF protocol), then yes.

Yes, I mean usual HST cycle performed in fasted state (even no BCAA, but some creatine) with the idea of breaking the fast at around 2pm post workout.

Fasted training has been shown to be beneficial in several regards. Moreover, it would be much more convenient for me to work out earlier than 4-5pm which would be after first meal at 2pm.. But as an anti-catabolic measure taking in 10 g BCAA is recommended pre-workout (not counting as first meal). From an economical perspective I want to try it without BCAAs. Can it work out completely fasted, with no BCAA, will I be able to put on some muscle? I'm also aware that hypoglycemic reactions due to intense exercise in fasted state are more likely to happen.

 

[Jester]

1. You're overstating the catabolism.

2. You're unaware//forgetting that the body will adapt; this regards both non-catabolism and blood sugar level response adaptation.

3. Replace 10gms BCAA w/10gms pure whey + water.


Thousands of muscular individuals; professional sports, amateurs (you, me, whoever), military personnel, can & do train//perform just on an empty stomach and put the food in afterwards. Take professional sports players who are Muslims, and how they don't lose muscle mass during Ramadan etc.

 

[HST_Rihad]

2. You're unaware//forgetting that the body will adapt; this regards both non-catabolism and blood sugar level response adaptation.

Alas, no amount of adaptation can beat the fact that liver glycogen is out, so gluconeogenesis must occur using muscle tissue... I'm not against it, just want to rest assured that in the long run I'll still make progress (1 step backwards, 2 steps forward etc.).

Thousands of muscular individuals; professional sports, amateurs (you, me, whoever), military personnel, can & do train//perform just on an empty stomach and put the food in afterwards. Take professional sports players who are Muslims, and how they don't lose muscle mass during Ramadan etc.

I hope so...

As for taking whey, all I got is FullForce MPM which is a mix of soy isolate, whey concentrate + milk concentrate, I don't want to spike insulin to any measurable degree, so will try without it.

 

[lako62]

I tried several weeks of Pilon's twice a week daily fasts during the time between Thanksgiving and Christmas. I fasted on non-training days. It was ok, but not something I really enjoyed. I've been doing leangains since mid-January and really enjoy it. I've gone from 222 (kinda flabby) to 206 and an getting leaner each week. My strength has increased on all lifts except db bench. That has remained the same. I don't know if I have gained actual muscle mass, but I do look bigger being a bit more cut.

 

[Jester]

Rate of gluconeogenesis will be reduced, and you're overstating or misunderstanding the time frame. This isn't 'starving in the desert wandering until you find civilisation' ... it's 45-60mins of exercise, and your body is still digesting-absorbing-processing any meat you had the night before.

Further, your muscles have glycogen stores as well.

And your bodyfat is a far easier source of energy to access than muscle (by preference, fat is chewed before muscle). That's essentially the entire basis of HIIT sprints//stairs//cycling etc.

If you're in deficit, and the net result is less fat stores are being replaced than are used, then the fat goes. If you're in surplus, ideally the fat storage levels minimally increase but the extra protein satisfies the stimulus for synthesis and muscle gets built.

 

[HST_Rihad]

And your bodyfat is a far easier source of energy to access than muscle (by preference, fat is chewed before muscle).

Interesting, thanks. The more fat someone has, the less total calories he can eat and still make progress. I think this is the basis of bodyrecomp.

 

[Jester]

You're still ignoring that you can't build muscle and have net fat loss simultaneously at 'normal' hormone levels.

For people with high bodyfat levels (Lyle gives a lower limit of 25%), 'body recomposition' is possible to a degree, as the fat stores are in excess to the point where they're literally like eating more calories.

But for someone in your shape, it isn't possible. The fat you burn when fasted will get replaced when you eat - just like 'burning' fat before muscle, you will store fat before building muscle; hence the desire for a high protein intake and ongoing stimulus; optimal muscle growth as a % of 'new' mass. If you are in deficit, then you will have a net loss over a period of time (noticeable after a week I would say, depending on the magnitude of deficit). If you are in surplus, you build muscle if your stimulus was correct.

If you are sub 25% bodyfat, you aren't doing both at once, that's just how it is.

You can't cheat or shortcut your way through it - unless you want to take the drugs. In which case, it will be a breeze by comparison.

 

[Totentanz]

Alas, no amount of adaptation can beat the fact that liver glycogen is out, so gluconeogenesis must occur using muscle tissue... I'm not against it, just want to rest assured that in the long run I'll still make progress (1 step backwards, 2 steps forward etc.)

You seem to be under the assumption that you would be completely carb depleted, that your stomach would be entirely empty. How long do you think it takes to digest all those calories you ate in that 8 hour window? Do you really think all of it will be entirely digested and out of the body completely within 16 hours of fasting? Further, that somehow all stored carbohydrates in your muscle tissue will be completely gone?
Have you ever carb depleted before? Do you know how difficult it is? Working in the profession that you do, there is no way you will be carb depleted when your workout comes around.