Yes, I have seen the thread and the criticisms. This is typical and is expected. Obviously there are many who feel I should go there and address these and I considered doing so. But in the end what will decide whether this method has any value is not an endless debate on the choice of scientific references but what is seen after people apply it for a prolonged period.
With that said, I will comment on a few criticisms that have been made, only because I feel those who might be interested are being swayed by the comments being made which in realty are misleading and are not taking into account the program as a whole.
So let’s start with the obvious, the Goldspink study from the 70’s did show us a great deal, namely that chronic overload is a necessity when it comes to hypertrophy. In my mind I do not think this is even disputable and in Max-Stimulation it is pretty apparent that this is a primary goal. If it were not then the progressive increases in load as described would not be included. Now the model I chose as representative is a model that was used in rats and also a very similar model was used in humans and according to many researchers is far more representative of what would be achieved in a real world condition than ablation as used in the Goldspink and subsequent research. To accept the Goldspink model and yet refute a model more indicative of human response in my opinion is simply ludicrous.
Now even though this has not been brought up, yet, I am sure it will. Yes, there are periods of submax loading and this is intentional, as I cannot ascertain the training status of every individual who reads this I made it as generic as possible. I have commented on my forum that a trained person should skip the submax loading and begin at a much heavier load so I do recognize there is a difference in response from a trained and non trained subject. Secondly since the fatigue response to loading is being minimized the system then allows for progressively heavier loading than what is normally achieved through conventional rep/set structures. Now being that the Goldspink study has laid the foundation of mechanical work and tension being predominant players and since Max-Stimulation satisfies both of these I do not understand why there is such a debate.
Secondly what appears to be taking place is, there is either a misunderstanding, misinterpretation or some have not read what it is I am saying, namely about how fatigue itself not only limits the amount of work we can subject our muscles too but also may hamper the elevation of protein synthesis through one molecular chain that has been proven to be very important.
In light of this it appears that some believe I am saying there is no relationship between the metabolic cost of contraction and hypertrophy. This is not so, there is more than a casual relationship and you simply cannot take the cost of contraction out of the mix in any mechanical human movement, they are intrinsically intertwined. Now I do believe someone posted the study by Rutherford, as an affirmation that a fatigue response is necessary yet, the EL and CL both produced significant hypertrophy now if the metabolic cost is the only answer to hypertrophy shouldn’t the CL have produced more than the less metabolically taxing EL? No, because as I have stated many times in my Hypertrophy-Research forum it is a concerted effort and I state nothing different in Max-Stimulation. Anyone can also take that study and do a citation search and find several other stuides which do not draw the same conclusion.
When looking at the endocrine response with differing levels of fatigue it is NOT clear that fatigue itself is critical to hypertrophy, I believe someone made this distinction, so should we discount the hormonal impact? No, and I don't. There are studies showing that the IGF response, AR response and many other factors in the hormonal aspect of growth are intensity and work responsive along with metabolically activated. Since Max-Stimulation is based on a relationship between increases in the intensity of load and therefore increasing work (since we keep the reps constant) and since the amount of work, not the frequency of contractions, also dictates ATP consumption, it is apparent that Max-Stimulation has accounted for this.
Even though I had thought I had explained my reasoning’s quite clear in the book, maybe I had not. If that is the case then let me apologize. So let me make this clear, I am not saying that the metabolic cost of contraction is the culprit, again this is unavoidable, it is the effect of metabolic fatigue that increases the inhibitory mechanisms, force production, and the amount of work that can be achieved. There are, naturally, other mechanisms involved in fatigue, neural, EC failure, and others and even though I do not go into these aspects in the book I do recognize their existence but the end result is, as stated above, fatigue does cause obvious changes, this and progressive loading are the two main focal points of Max-Stimulation.
Much has been said on how I relate diminished hypertrophy to increases in inhibitory mechanisms; mostly revolving around molecular mechanisms, and how important is this to overall growth. Let me ask anyone who is reading this, if it wasn't important and if there is no way we can successfully manipulate these, why is it being researched with such vigor? Simply for something to analyze, I think not. Science does understand there is a need to combat wasting disease, sarcopenia, and other muscle specific molecular occurrences that contribute to muscle loss and like it or not this will be the means to variations in resistance training protocols that can contribute to overall results. It appears I am being chastised for referencing scientific work and then postulating a program designed to circumvent some of the inhibitory mechanisms and I should simply succumb to the mentally that as long as one eats, lifts, sleeps then they will grow with no difficulty. Now what I find incredibly hypocritical is the fact that some who are saying this have used this same approach in their own literary works. Citing reference after reference of molecular, metabolic and hormonal scientific studies that, even though may be relevant, do not change the fact that in order to lose weight one simply needs to eat less and move more. A very simplistic answer to a very complicated process, but the end result is the same.
Now let me address the comments made about this program and Scott Abel’s Innervation Training. Yes there are two areas that are common, the limiting nature of fatigue and the impact of blood flow other than that they are completely on opposing ends of the spectrum. Scott is a firm advocator of achieving a pump. I am not. Scott’s program consists of clustering to failure with very brief rest periods then going beyond that by using rest/pause. I am not. There are also other differences but you would need to read his "Innervation Training" to see.
In line with this it appears I am being chastised for supposedly reiterating something that has already been done, something I do not agree with but even so this is very common and holds true for many who have simply taken the work of predecessors and expanded upon it, not only in bodybuilding and strength training but also in works on diet. Does this make the newer work any less credible? Many have made a living off of doing just this, researching previous work done by others, expanding on it or simply explaining the process better yet this doesn't make the work more or less valuable it just presents the basic hypothesis in a new light.
I have made no pretense that this is superior or inferior to any of the other systems out there I simply do not have the data to back up such a claim. I do feel it can be an effective tool that can be added to any training but that is a personal view and I realize not all will see it this way.
In time as science illuminates the enire path that is involved I am sure some peoples views will change (I am sure mine as well), this is to be expected and can be seen happening already. If it comes about that I am wrong in my interpretations of the science currently available, I will have no reluctance in admitting it, without the stance that is commonly seen today, "you can't hold me to what I said 2 years ago". It's more honest to just say, "How about that, I guess I was wrong".
I am sure many will say, why don't you post this at the boards where the criticism is occurring. Well very simply put, I already know this will circumnavigate the internet and appear at many sites without any direct intervention on my part. Secondly, I am responding to questions posed on my forum, to address questions raised here. I have no desire to try and be a gunslinger shooting down anyone who disagrees with me, therfore I am not going to go to every board or website who holds critical comments for this method, it would be futile. And finally, we all have the right to decide for ourselves what it is we wish to do, I have given ample justification for the method and at this point endless debating back and forth is not going to change anything, so now it is strictly up to each individual and whether or not they see value in this, if they do they will try it, if they do not they won't, it's that simple.
.