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

[anab0lic_]

Problem is, the article you cited is crap. The vast amount of literature now supporting intermittent fasting easily debunks the idea that you will basically die if you don't eat every x hours.

Also, calipers are horrible? Really? What do you recommend then? Calipers are pretty much the most accurate method of measuring body composition available to people at home. It's not like everyone has the ability to do underwater weighing or has a dexa machine at home. If you are relying on a bodyfat scale then that explains a lot.

Dude, all your problems are in your head. Really.

The problem with those studies is they arnt actually perfomed on bodybuilders looking to maximize muscle mass.... Trying to grow manintain above what you natural levels of muscle mass are is a whole different ball game. I never had the problems I do now with weight/strength fluctuations prior to lifting.... your nutrition requirements become very different...

No serious bodybuilders eat in the way martin beckham (sp?) of leangains etc prescribes, because it ISNT optimal. I notice he also seems to be very endomophic by nature if you look at his before pics he was a very fat kid... and that bodytype seems to be very efficient when it comes to nitrogen retention, thats alot of variance when it comes to how well you can retain muscle and I'm at the oposite end of the spectrum. I tried that way of eating out of curiosity a while back, it was a trainwreck for me, I dont need any studies to say otherwise, my own studys proved it to be a terrible way of eating for my goals.

 

[Totentanz]

Contrary to popular belief about half way through sleep is when we are at our most catabolic, you may find this an intresting read:

http://www.t-nation.com/free_online...rformance_science/stop_the_catabolic_insanity

Alot of pro bodybuilders wake up mid sleep to top up the amino acid pool, trainers have actors do it who need to get in shape fast for movie roles - Hugh Jackman did it every night to put on muscle for his role as wolverine. If it wasnt beneficial they wouldnt do it.

Your logic that these guys do it, so you should do is a huge flaw. Because if that is the logic that you are going to use, then how come you aren't doing things the way some of us on here are doing them? It it wasn't beneficial to do the things we do, we wouldn't be doing it, would we? You can use that kind of logic to justify all kinds of stuff. Ronnie Coleman wears his lifting belt throughout his entire routine in order to try to shrink his gut. If it wasn't beneficial, he wouldn't do it.
That statement means nothing. People do stuff because they are told to. Unfortunately, the actual evidence often shows otherwise. The article you posted can't change the way the body works. Regardless of what that guy said, you will still have food in your body during sleep unless you fasted prior to sleep, or are sleeping for 18 hours or more.

My diet various depending on how active I am that day, I tend to get around 30-50gs of protein every 3 hours per day from quality protein sources, beef, chicken, cassein etc and the bulk of my calories come from fat sources as I have through trial and error and research concluded carbs are not required for muscle growth.

Ok, you have stated that you have bad genetics and that you don't have very much muscle mass. So... I'm confused. Exactly how much trial and error could you have done?

You know, I used to think carbs weren't very important either. And it wasn't until I got over that idea that I started to make decent progress. My most successful bulking cycles were when I added in a lot carbs.

 

[Totentanz]

I tried that way of eating out of curiosity a while back, it was a trainwreck for me, I dont need any studies to say otherwise, my own studys proved it to be a terrible way of eating for my goals.

Again... how exactly have you come to this determination? When you have stated time and again that you immediately lose muscle mass if you do not lift constantly, and immediately gain bodyfat if you add in more calories? That would seem to suggest that whatever you are doing in your diet is wrong for you. If your diet truly was on point, you wouldn't be having these kinds of problems. Considering that none of us have the problems you speak of, and we apparently eat way differently than you do... doesn't that seem to suggest that you need to reevaluate your diet strategy?

 

[anab0lic_]

40 grams of carbs only? That's like a fruit, if that.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rabbit_starvation

Humans are not carnivorous for a reason.

Actually theres a **** load of evidence saying we were carnivorous for millions of years.... infact during the ice age there wasnt even any plant for us to eat...

There are no essential carbs, only essential proteins and fats. Whats your link supposed to prove? Thats rabbit meat, which doesnt have sufficient fat for survivial I eat meats that are very fatty by nature.

And if you are worried about glycogen depletion, you really shouldnt be, the amount of glycogen depletion from weight training is tiny and massively exaggerated by supplement companys to sell their sugared protein magic formulas.

 

[Totentanz]

Actually theres a **** load of evidence saying we were carnivorous for millions of years.... infact during the ice age there wasnt even any plant for us to eat...

I guess that explains why we have the teeth of a carnivorous animal.

Oh wait, we don't. We have teeth consistent with an omnivore.

And if you are worried about glycogen depletion, you really shouldnt be, the amount of glycogen depletion from weight training is tiny and massively exaggerated by supplement companys to sell their sugared protein magic formulas.

Evidence for this statement? Considering that an intense enough workout can push you into ketosis, not really sure how you've determined that weight training only depletes a tiny bit of glycogen.

 

[anab0lic_]

Again... how exactly have you come to this determination? When you have stated time and again that you immediately lose muscle mass if you do not lift constantly, and immediately gain bodyfat if you add in more calories? That would seem to suggest that whatever you are doing in your diet is wrong for you. If your diet truly was on point, you wouldn't be having these kinds of problems. Considering that none of us have the problems you speak of, and we apparently eat way differently than you do... doesn't that seem to suggest that you need to reevaluate your diet strategy?

I tried eating the convential bodybuilding diet, infact i did it for years it made no difference with regards to muscle loss at night, infact I actually did worse on those diets, I gained a far worse bodyfat to muscle ratio. And high carb intake is also extremely unhealthy.

I do make and have made considerable progress with my physique relative to where I started, but for the longest time it was 2 steps forward 1.8 steps back...but i was a determined mofo and just kept going.... wasnt untill i upped the frequency did the progress get quicker, as I could progressively overload more often when I was retaining more size/strength between sessions...

I came to my nutritional conclusions much in the same way as i came to my training conclusions, due to so much conflicting info I had to try it all and monitor progress closely and see what really was working and what wasnt....I experimented with carbs pre/post workout low carb rest of the time for a while, experimented with carb loading... eventually I just cut them out all together and my physique and progress was so much better...Are you not familiar with how old school bodybuilders in the 70's era ate?... it was very low carb high fat high protein.... look into diets of gurus like Vince Gironda.... The only reason why pro bodybuilders can get away with eating so many carbs today is because they goto extremes like injecting insulin before every meal.

 

[thegentleman1981]

And I am a troll...

No anabolic really. I have to vote in favour of Totentanz here that I also think its up in your head/and the fluid stuff we talked about.
We can give you help regarding training and diet, this is for what the forum stands up for and what the replies contained.

If you really think there is sth wrong with your metabolism or sth similar, than go to the doctor-he is the qualified person in this case, not the members here.

 

[anab0lic_]

I guess that explains why we have the teeth of a carnivorous animal.

Oh wait, we don't. We have teeth consistent with an omnivore.






Evidence for this statement? Considering that an intense enough workout can push you into ketosis, not really sure how you've determined that weight training only depletes a tiny bit of glycogen.

We have the gut and other organs of a carnivore. Do you know how long the ice age lasted?

There is a study floating about I can dig it up if you like but I have to go work now and dont have time to look for it, google glycogen depletion leg training workout think you may be quite surprised. High volume high intensity leg workout glycogen depletion was like 18 % or something I forget the exact number but its far less than most bodybuilders have been brainwashed to believe. And this is in people who arnt eating low carb high fat who use glycogen stores more sparingly....

 

[Totentanz]

We have the gut and other organs of a carnivore. Do you know how long the ice age lasted?

Depends on which ice age you're talking about. There were several. You do realize that homo sapiens were living in Africa at the time of the great ice age, right? The leading theories suggest that humans lived in a place with plenty of vegetation that was near the sea, and that is why we managed to survive.
And yes, anyone with European ancestry does have some Neanderthal DNA but that doesn't change the fact that as a species, we are omnivores.

There is a study floating about I can dig it up if you like but I have to go work now and dont have time to look for it, google glycogen depletion leg training workout think you may be quite surprised. High volume high intensity leg workout glycogen depletion was like 18 % or something I forget the exact number but its far less than most bodybuilders have been brainwashed to believe. And this is in people who arnt eating low carb high fat who use glycogen stores more sparingly....

You really seem hung up on this whole conspiracy to brainwash bodybuilders. I'm also not really sure what you consider the "standard bodybuilder diet" to be. I'm not one who has ever subscribed to the idealogy that "you gotta eat clean bro" and all that crap.

 

[T-man]

Anabolic, post your physical stats - height, weight, bf%. Post your typical diet, including what and how much of everything. And post your workout, including weights and reps. Without basic, detailed information, the experts on this forum can't make an evaluation in order to offer advise to help you make gains. This does feel like a troll, however...

 

[HST_Rihad]

Come on, guys, the recommendation to train each MG *at least* three times a week is all throughout the HST FAQ, Brian has mentioned it several times.

T: What's the advantage of whole-body workouts? Those are really out of style these days, so to
speak.
BH: The advantage doesn't lie in the fact that you're training your whole body all at once. The
important thing is to be able to train each muscle group every 48 hours. This generally means
three evenly spaced sessions per week. Training each muscle group every 48 hours necessitates
training more muscle groups at a time, or going back to the gym more often. Either way works.

Now, considering that training only elevates protein synthesis for about 36 hours, and muscle is
able to be trained again within 48 hours without negatively effecting recovery, training a
muscle every 48 hours becomes a viable and desirable method to maximize the rate of muscle
growth.

HST uses this evidence and calls for repeated loading (training) every 48 hours or so to keep
the anabolic activity of the muscle high, while trying to stay slightly ahead of the structural
recovery curve by constantly increasing the load each workout. Staying ahead of the structural
recovery curve is really key in eliciting growth in a person who's lifted for quite some time.

In summary, to apply the principles of hypertrophy just explained, you're going to:
• Train each body part every 48 hours, or basically three times per week.
• Increase the weight each and every workout.
• Decrease the reps every two weeks.
• Decondition the muscle before you do it all over again.

(are these the four principles Totentanz talked about?)

 

[CDB]

Come on, guys, the recommendation to train each MG *at least* three times a week is all throughout the HST FAQ, Brian has mentioned it several times.

He said it's 'advisable' and desirable. Not necessary at the cost of the universe and all possible muscle gains. And as I mentioned before, if the 48 hour rule is inviolable then why exercise three times a week when you would have to exercise four times one week, three the next, four the next, etc. to respect the all powerful 48 hour rule? So if he's already recommending a practical compromise in three times a week (leaving a 72 hour period where, gasp!, you don't workout...), then I guess it wasn't that hard of a 'rule' to begin with, was it?

 

[T-man]

More guideline than rule for the sake of consistency, IMO.

 

[Totentanz]

HST PRINCIPLES

1) Mechanical Load
Mechanical Load is necessary to induce muscle hypertrophy. This mechanism involves but isn't limited to, MAPk/ERK, satellite cells, growth factors, calcium, and number of other fairly understood factors. It is incorrect to say "we don't know how muscle grows in response to training". The whole point of the HST book is not to discuss HST, but to present the body of research explaining how hypertrophy occurs. Then HST becomes a relatively obvious conclusion if your goal is hypertrophy.

2) Acute vs. Chronic Stimuli
In order for the loading to result in significant hypertrophy, the stimulus must be applied with sufficient frequency to create a new "environment", as opposed to seemingly random and acute assaults on the mechanical integrity of the tissue. The downside of taking a week of rest every time you load a muscle is that many of the acute responses to training like increased protein synthesis, prostaglandins, IGF-1 levels, and mRNA levels all return to normal in about 36 hours. So, you spend 2 days growing and half a week in a semi-anticatabolic state returning to normal (some people call this recovery), when research shows us that recovery can take place unabated even if a the muscle is loaded again in 48 hours. So true anabolism from loading only lasts 2 days at best once the load is removed. The rest of the time you are simply balancing nitrogen retention without adding to it.

3) Progressive Load
Over time, the tissue adapts and becomes resistant to the damaging effects of mechanical load. This adaptation (resistance to the stimulus) can happen in as little as 48 hours (Repeated Bout Effect or Rapid Training Effect). As this happens, hypertrophy will stop, though neural and metabolic adaptations can and may continue. As opposed to hypertrophy, the foundation for the development of strength is neuromuscular in nature. Increases in strength from resistance exercise have been attributed to several neural adaptations including altered recruitment patterns, rate coding, motor unit synchronization, reflex potentiation, prime mover antagonist activity, and prime mover agonist activity. So, aside from incremental changes in the number of contractile filaments (hypertrophy), voluntary force production (i.e. strength) is largely a matter of "activating" motor units.

4) Strategic Deconditioning
At this point, it is necessary to either increase the load (Progressive load), or decrease the degree of conditioning to the load (Strategic Deconditioning). The muscle is sensitive not only to the absolute load, but also to the change in load (up or down). Therefore, you can get a hypertrophic effect from increasing the load from a previous load, even if the absolute load is not maximum, assuming conditioning (resistance to exercise induced micro-damage) is not to extensive. There is a limit to the number of increments you can add to increase the load. You simply reach your maximum voluntary strength eventually. This is why Strategic Deconditioning is required for continued growth once growth has stopped (all things remaining equal).

These are the four principles. Notice in #2 how he states that taking a week break for a muscle group is suboptimal. Stated as thus "So, you spend 2 days growing and half a week in a semi-anticatabolic state returning to normal (some people call this recovery), when research shows us that recovery can take place unabated even if a the muscle is loaded again in 48 hours" So he doesn't say "must train every 48 hours" but says that a muscle that has already been worked can be loaded again in 48 hours. And in the example HST setup, he has you working out Monday, Weds and Friday - as CDB pointed out, this would not have you lifting every 48 hours. That would require four days one week, three the next and that is not how Bryan set up the example HST routine. If it were a hard and fast rule, don't you think he would have stuck by the rule? Notice how in the quote that you posted, Rihad, Bryan even states the following - emphasis is mine:

HST uses this evidence and calls for repeated loading (training) every 48 hours or so to keep
the anabolic activity of the muscle high, while trying to stay slightly ahead of the structural
recovery curve by constantly increasing the load each workout. Staying ahead of the structural
recovery curve is really key in eliciting growth in a person who's lifted for quite some time.

Every 48 hours or so. Or so.
The whole point of Bryan's words in the FAQs and the articles was to illustrate that higher frequency than the standard bodypart split is better. In the standard bodypart split, you lift 4-5 times a week and only hit one muscle group each workout, so you are only hitting muscle groups once a week. That means that any routine that has you hitting a muscle group twice or more a week would satisfy the "acute vs chronic stimuli" principle.

 

[Jester]

Somewhat begs the qn about why do ppl force themselves into a M-W-F (for example) split rather than just accepting 'every 48hrs'; think in terms of actual frequency and not frequency using 'per week' as the unit.

 

[T-man]

Convenience, work, family obligations, wanting a balanced life, etc.

 

[CDB]

Since I may have over stepped on the troll thing, it boils down to this: any program that produces muscle growth is technically 'an HST' workout, or at least in adherence to the guidelines because they are broad enough to encompass damn near anything that isn't completely retarded. And for good reason, because any workout that isn't completely retarded will generally produce results. The point of HST is to pull apart the fundamentals of why these programs work, and what might be compromised in them, and give people a framework to optimize according to their needs.

Think of it in terms of an iPhone or Android app. The top portion of the screen is the output, where the workout program comes out. The bottom part has sliders and what not to adjust to alter the outputted program. HST principles would be the four major controls that you slide up and down from 1 to 10 to adjust their relative importance to you and the context in which you are currently working. The point really is now we know what it is we're adjusting instead of just randomly jumbling things around with reps and volume and sets and load.

 

[Totentanz]

Well said.

I think it is also worth noting that when Bryan came up with the standard HST routine (which is meant to be just an example...) in the HST articles, that really was meant to just be a one-size-fits-all type of thing that would work for the majority of people. Of course there are other things you could do that would still work just as well. As CDB pointed out, HST is about the fundamentals. We are talking about the science of muscle growth. Any routine that causes growth is going to be meeting at least some of the criteria, because the rules of what causes growth are going to be the same for everyone. Some variables will change from person to person but not radically so.
This is why you will see people doing routines that include a lot of different things but still calling it HST. Or why you will see people saying that a certain routine (such as DC, or 5x5, or some others) are variations of HST - because if a certain system or routine is a good one and actually works, then it pretty much has to be following the principles of HST. Remember, these principles are based on actual scientific research.

 

[Jester]

Convenience, work, family obligations, wanting a balanced life, etc.

Oh for sure. I'm not suggesting anyone detail their lives around their workouts.

The conundrum, I think, is that people start confusing 'optimal' rest periods between work-outs with organising their workouts into the (v.strange) 7-day week structure the world uses. The body doesn't 'think' in terms of M-T-W-T-F-S-S.

 

[CDB]

Oh for sure. I'm not suggesting anyone detail their lives around their workouts.

The conundrum, I think, is that people start confusing 'optimal' rest periods between work-outs with organising their workouts into the (v.strange) 7-day week structure the world uses. The body doesn't 'think' in terms of M-T-W-T-F-S-S.

People do indeed do that. People also do a lot of other stupid stuff. It's missng the forest for one pine needle. The most important principle of them all is chronic vs accute stimulus. It trumps everything, because even if your workout is ridiculous, if you stick with it for the long term you'll probably see some sort of gains. The research behind HST and other workouts like Max Stim actually belies their purpose: simplicity. They're trying to get down to the fundamentals so people like us can see things more clearly thanks to their work. And while the biomechanics of muscle growth are complex as hell, the practical application to achieve it is as simple as can be: lift progressively heavier stuff over time, do it as frequently as you can manage, and eat.