Next phase

[Spyke]

I am wrapping up my 2nd week of 5's next week. I have extended this cycle by a couple weeks (added in 2 weeks of 8's) to try to SD over the holidays. Very happy with the results in terms of gains. I have some nice new stretch marks on my arms and chest and some of my shirts are getting a bit snug in the upper body as well. One of my goals has been a 300lb 1 rep max bench. On weds when I was done lifting and kinda tired I threw 255 on the bench and pressed that pretty easy. Since I didn't have a spotter I really didn't want to push it but I know I could have done another 20lbs easy. So I hope to make my 300 bench at the end of this cycle before I sd.

I have been eating like a cow and have been putting on a pound or so per week. I am actually sick of eating and cant wait to cut! I am beginning to notice a bit more belly fat

Here is the basic plan from this point on....
1. Continue this bulking cycle, SD over the holidays and continue bulking during the 15's. Start cutting as I start the 10's.
2. When I start cutting I will bump my cardio up to 5-6 times a week and whenever possible do it 8 hours or more after I lift.

I figure I can loose 1-2 pounds a week so this cutting phase will last at least 3 months. So when I finish the next cycle do I sd or just go back to the 10s if I am still cutting? I have worked so hard for this new muscle and don't want to loose any of it when I cut so I wanna make sure this plan is solid!

 

[9to5lifter]

Hey Spyke,
The general consensus here is that you do not need to SD when you are cutting. So, if you are still cutting after finishing your cycle, go right into the next one. 3 months is a lot of time, so it will probably take you some cycles to get where you want. Anyway, just keep in mind that heavier weight tends to preserve muscle better. If you have no joint problems and feel healthy, try to extend the heavier phases of your cycles.

Best of luck,
Dimitris

 

[jvroig]

Hey,

Not to purposely refute your answer Dmitris, you pretty much nailed it,

but see below, or just the highlighted ones.

Quote[/b] ]
Body maintenance and repair: how food and exercise keep
the musculoskeletal system in good shape - by Michael J. Rennie - Jan 19, 2005, revised Mar 30, 2005
(M. J. Rennie: University of Nottingham, School of Biomedical Sciences, Graduate EntryMedical
School, Derby City GeneralHospital, Uttoxeter Road, Derby DE22 3DT, UK. )

We started by looking at the effects of immobilization in
a long leg cast and were able to show that, relative to the
uncasted leg, the rate of muscle protein synthesis fell by
about half over a period of 7 weeks (Gibson et al. 1987) and
that muscle protein breakdown appeared to fall also, in an
adaptive response which presumably had the advantage
of lessening net muscle loss. We showed, in a separate
study (Gibson et al. 1989), that stimulating quadriceps
muscle electrically at a very low rate (∼5% maximum
voluntary contraction for 1 h day−1) caused an increase
in muscle protein synthesis so that muscle wasting was
abolished over the period of the casting. We also showed
that the adaptive fall in muscle protein breakdown did
not occur with stimulation, and indeed this pattern of
increased turnover, with the synthesis exceeding breakdown,
is what is seen in other circumstances of chronic
stimulation, such as in the non-classic studies of Geoff
Laurent...

We have made some preliminary studies aimed at
delineating the dose–response relationship between the
intensity of exercise and the rates of muscle protein
synthesis and have shown that when the same total
amount of work is done, i.e. when the same total amount
of ATP is turned over, exercise at 60, 75 and 90% of
the one-repetition-maximum force results in exactly the
same stimulation of muscle protein synthesis, suggesting
that once all muscle fibres are recruited (as they were
in our study) increases in tension above 65% cause no
further stimulation in muscle protein synthesis (Bowtell
et al. 2003). As with feeding (Cuthbertson et al. 2005),
the increases in myofibrillar protein synthesis appear to
be greater than the increases in sarcoplasmic protein
synthesis, so that after exercise the rates of protein
synthesis in the two pools appear to be virtually identical
(Cuthbertson et al. 2002).

So when you said:

Quote[/b] ]Anyway, just keep in mind that heavier weight tends to preserve muscle better.

... that's not really true. As in hypertrophy, chronic stimulation is key. And when it comes to preserving muscle tissue (MPS levels more than MPD levels), once all fibers are recruited (which the study seemed to identify to be at least 65% of the 1RM; if memory serves me right, somewhere around your 8RM recruits all fibers from the first lift already), a heavier weight doesn't really seem to further stimulate protein synthesis.
From that standpoint, I would hazard that you can just keep on plugging away at your 15RM or 10RM the entire time you are cutting if that's your only goal. Of course, for strength, it would be better to go to heavier reps as well. But if it's just for preserving muscle tissue (stimulating MPS to be over MPD levels), aside from sufficient nutrition (protein), a chronic application of any load that allows you to activate all fibers is enough, no matter how heavy or light it is (as long as you manage to do the necessary reps that will result in the recruitment of all fibers).

Regards,
-JV

 

[Spyke]

so it sounds like you are saying a nice HST inspired cutting program might look like....

2 weeks 12's
2 weeks 10's
2 weeks 7's
then repeat without SD till done cutting

take in 1 gram of protein per lb of lean body weight

look ok?

 

[9to5lifter]

Hi JV,
This is an extremely interesting study, and pretty much a new one (2005).

Quote[/b] ]once all muscle fibres are recruited (as they were
in our study) increases in tension above 65% cause no
further stimulation in muscle protein synthesis

This seems to be the heart of their conclusions. Just ensure maximal fiber recruitment and you can rest assured that you've done all that's necessary to keep muscle protein synthesis rates elevated.

So, to try and apply this to a cutting phase, are you proposing that we should
1. Choose a weight just heavy enough to make sure that eventually all muscle fibers are recruited (perhaps near 10RM?)
2. Let RBE set in so that after a while there is no microtrauma to the tissue (since anyway there won't be enough nutrients for it to grow)
3. Keep at it with no SD at all until happy with the results ?

 

[jvroig]

Quote[/b] ]So, to try and apply this to a cutting phase, are you proposing that we should
1. Choose a weight just heavy enough to make sure that eventually all muscle fibers are recruited (perhaps near 10RM?)
2. Let RBE set in so that after a while there is no microtrauma to the tissue (since anyway there won't be enough nutrients for it to grow)
3. Keep at it with no SD at all until happy with the results ?

Nope. I still think it's better in the long run to just go on with the regular HST cycle ending with negs+metabollic work - like I said, for strength reasons. You may not gain more muscle, but that doesn't mean you won't improve your strength.

But if you are on a lazy phase - perhaps several limitations due to work - theoretically, yep, you can use something like your 10 RM and not increment at all. I don't suppose we actually would care about getting ahead of RBE, since we won't be in a caloric surplus anyway, so that wouldn't do us much good at all (and shouldn't be our goal at all if we are cutting). And another thought - purely just my musings - perhaps this wouldn't be too disadvantageous at all, since keeping at a certain load (instead of increasing the load and going really heavy) might help avoid too much fiber necrosis, especially since we aren't exactly in a nutrition rich setting there. Ah, but that probably isn't a matter at all.

Anyhoo, just thoughts. Like I said before, if it's just about MPS stimulation, there seems to be no need to get heavier and heavier. At a certain level, the MPS stimulation peaks already, and increasing the weight doesn't seem to make a difference at all. So that's a viable option in case of the presence of several limiting factors.

But right now, I still believe a better cutting cycle would be with the regular HST, going heavy until negs+metabollic work, and eating at maintenance or a hundred or two calories above - and most of these from protein.

Just something to think about, wasn't my intention to cause or stir trouble or confusion.

 

[Fausto]

JV

Kind of a spanner in the works hey?

Calls for some debate I'd think, have to go dig up whatever I can find to counter it or...how about agreeing if one cannot find anything

After all we all would like to work a little lighter ain't that right? If the benefit is the same?

Debate, debate.........Dan, Bryan, some opinions on this case study?

 

[9to5lifter]

Quote[/b] ]After all we all would like to work a little lighter ain't that right? If the benefit is the same?

But we can't just rely on elevated protein synthesis rates to build muscle... We still need to cause microtrauma and stay ahead of the RBE when trying to bulk, hence the heavy weights towards the end of the cycle.

Quote[/b] ]At a certain level, the MPS stimulation peaks already, and increasing the weight doesn't seem to make a difference at all.

Nevertheless, this is very interesting indeed and it could probably be applied to training under special circumstances, as JV pointed out.

Quote[/b] ]Just something to think about, wasn't my intention to cause or stir trouble or confusion.

No trouble at all, always good to learn something new, especially when there are studies to back it up. Keep up the good work!

 

[aussiemark]

What would 65% of 1-RM be? Around max for 8-RM?
Considering that people have different levels of fatigue at different RMs, couldn't 65% of 1-RM be someones max 5-RM and another persons max 8-RM?

 

[jvroig]

Quote[/b] (9to5lifter @ Nov. 29 2005,7:36)]

Quote[/b] ]After all we all would like to work a little lighter ain't that right? If the benefit is the same?

But we can't just rely on elevated protein synthesis rates to build muscle... We still need to cause microtrauma and stay ahead of the RBE when trying to bulk, hence the heavy weights towards the end of the cycle.

Yes, exactly. This is just for cutting.

And like I said (over and over), even for a cutting cycle I still believe it would be more advantageous (generally) to simply do your regular HST cycle, particularly for strength reasons. And you might still get very minimal muscle gains - unlikely and probably only minimal if you do gain something while cutting, but who'd refuse an extra half inch on chest, for example?

Quote[/b] ]Nevertheless, this is very interesting indeed and it could probably be applied to training under special circumstances, as JV pointed out.

Yep, special circumstances. Like laziness, and you really don't want to keep changing the plates (like if you workout at home and have only very few plates - if you are cutting for say 4 months, and you want to give yourself a break from the endless changing of plates), so you'd rather stick to a good weight all throughout.

Quote[/b] ]What would 65% of 1-RM be? Around max for 8-RM?
Considering that people have different levels of fatigue at different RMs, couldn't 65% of 1-RM be someones max 5-RM and another persons max 8-RM?

Yep, muscular endurance varies from person to person. Not really that critical in this aspect, though - just follow your RM to make it simpler.

 

[semajes]

As far as I understand, you still need the greatest anabolic stimulus you can muster to prevent the catabolic effects of a caloric deficit.

In terms of this particular study (and we do need to be careful when drawing conclusions from a single study), I can only note that while protein synthesis didn't increase with heavier weights, we don't know whether those heavier weights would have slowed protein degradation (probably a more important factor during a cutting cycle) while under a caloric deficit. Was this study conducted with subjects under caloric controls? experienced lifters? I think that there are a number of factors that could have influenced their results and that could change the results.

Be careful, gentlemen.