The Five Biggest Contradictions in Fitness
Latest Article

The Five Biggest Contradictions in Fitness

It’s no secret that when people contradict themselves, it has the effect of making the flaws in their actions or statements seem glaringly obvious. But what about when WE ourselves get caught contradicting ourselves by someone else?

By: Nick Tumminello Added: January 6th, 2014
More Recent Articles
Contrast Training for Size
By: Lee Boyce
An Interview with Marianne Kane of Girls Gone Strong
By: Jordan Syatt
What Supplements Should I be Taking? By: Jay Wainwright
Bench Like a Girl By: Julia Ladewski
Some Thoughts on Building a Big Pull By: Christopher Mason

Facebook Join Facebook Group       Twitter Follow on Twitter       rss Subscribe via RSS
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 26 to 50 of 54
  1. #26
    Bodybuilding Mythbuster
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Location
    Yeongsan. South Korea
    Posts
    5,907
    Quote Originally Posted by restless


    AH!! What a bunch of crap. Bryan never did any studies, Just goes to show how much you are willing to distort things in order to prove your unfundamented point. The studies were all done by independant researchers in Japan, US, etc... and were all published in peer review journals. But hey, remember, science has nothing to do with it. I have posted a lot of these studies before here and in other places.



    The HST studies. Hilarious. There was never such thing. Bryan always used his interpretation of independant research in order to support his training method.




    For the recod, YOU brought HST in here, not me.

    I never said anything about Bryan what are you talking about? Where are the links to these studies and what journals were they published in?

    As for the "HST studies" I clearly said that was what I called them, not that there was any such thing as the HST studies.

    As for who brought HST up that was you, not me. You said and I quote "They may be in the HST FAQ" Up until then I had never mentioned HST.
    Last edited by Songsangnim; 08-08-2004 at 05:41 AM.

  2. #27
    Bodybuilding Mythbuster
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Location
    Yeongsan. South Korea
    Posts
    5,907
    Quote Originally Posted by restless
    The abstracts I may post later if I actually have time to search for them otherwise you'll have to search yourself. They may be in the HST FAQ, I don't know.

    .

    Here is your quote. Go and look back. You will see that I never mentioned HST until YOU brought it up. Just for the record....

  3. #28
    Bodybuilding Mythbuster
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Location
    Yeongsan. South Korea
    Posts
    5,907
    Quote Originally Posted by ExtremeAnabolic

    Oh you mean (what I call) the HST studies? The studies that were done with the goal of proving HST is superior? :


    This needs a bit of background. I've had this discussion with other people on other bodybuilding boards. These people were die-hard HST fanatics. They claimed that HST was the best method for gaining strength and size ever. When I asked for proof they claimed that studies had been done that proved this. Unfortunately they were never able to produce these studies. I was thinking maybe this was the same thing. Hence my label "HST studies".

  4. #29
    Gen_chat worst nightmare
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    Europe
    Posts
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by ExtremeAnabolic
    Here is your quote. Go and look back. You will see that I never mentioned HST until YOU brought it up. Just for the record....

    I mentioned a place were you can have a look of some of the research. You can probably find them here also if you bother to do a search.

  5. #30
    Bodybuilding Mythbuster
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Location
    Yeongsan. South Korea
    Posts
    5,907
    Quote Originally Posted by restless
    I mentioned a place were you can have a look of some of the research. You can probably find them here also if you bother to do a search.
    I did a search in the FAQ. Nothing came up. Then I hit the search button and came up with 36 pages. I don't have the time or inclination to wade though 36 pages. I believe that you said that you had studies in peer-reviewed journals, or knew of them? How about letting me have a peek?
    Last edited by Songsangnim; 08-08-2004 at 07:24 AM.

  6. #31
    Tartan Muscle Crew IRN-BRU's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Scotland
    Posts
    44
    Hi, I've been hitting each muscle group twice a week, with 4 days a week in the gym.

    Chest/Tri/Legs
    Back/Shoulders/Bi

    Was Mon-Tue Thu-Fri. After a while, I felt I needed more rest, so I'd take an extra day rest here and there. Roughly with the same muscle group having 3-4 days rest, rather than just 2-3. Although this was probably caused by breaking my routine, and doing extra intensity and extra volume, because I wanted to have a blast! Not a good idea I think.

    I think as people get more experienced in the gym and bigger muscles, the more "damage" they can do, needing increased recovery times. Of course, people can balance this two ways, with increased rest, or decreased volume. I actually agree with HST, and believe that a balance of volume that can let you hit each muscle every 48 hours without overtraining, would be best for growth.

    As for the other argument... Restless what are you on about? You go on about studies, and how people need proof, yet you show none either. Science has a lot to do with it true, but a scientific study done on a different type of person (or rats) is less relavent than carefully monitored personal progress.

    [QUOTE=restless]Alright. This is something I can understand. The accepted time frame during which protein synthesis remains elevated is 48 hours, you probably heard that before when we had this same discussion. There's is certainly some individual variation but we're still all humans so the variation won't be spomething like +5 days. Now the tolerance part is something a bit more relevant to overall volume and intensity (as in closeness to failure) used, but not frequency itself.
    QUOTE]

    The length of time protein synthesis is elevated has nothing to do with the individuals rate of protein synthesis.

    I think recovery, defined as the time it takes for the muscle to repair sufficiently before re-training it, is based on the individuals muscle size, fibre damage and individual protein synthesis rate. So in my mind, keeping in mind the elevated protein synthesis rate, it's best to balance fibre damage (work volume/intensity) around the 48 hour recovery period.

    Although, does anyone know if this elevated 48 hour protein synthesis is specific to the trained muscle? Or will working out on a 5 day split, with a work-out at least every 48 hours, give the person an elevated protein synthesis rate in ALL muscles ALL week?

    This dude is great. ----> LOL
    Age 29 | Height: 5'11 | Weight: 176 lbs (a while ago) | Weight: 180 lbs (2-Nov-05) | Weight: 181 lbs (8-Nov-05)

  7. #32
    Gen_chat worst nightmare
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    Europe
    Posts
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by ExtremeAnabolic
    This needs a bit of background. I've had this discussion with other people on other bodybuilding boards. These people were die-hard HST fanatics. They claimed that HST was the best method for gaining strength and size ever. When I asked for proof they claimed that studies had been done that proved this. Unfortunately they were never able to produce these studies. I was thinking maybe this was the same thing. Hence my label "HST studies".

    I have no ideia what you mean with HST studies but this is what I could gather from a quick web search:

    This is the reference to the one that showed better muscle gains from the routine with higher frequency as compared to the once a week training, both same exact volume and exercise choice. I can't find the abstract anymore.

    McLester JR., Bishop P., & Guilliams M. Comparison of 1 and 3 day per week of equal volume resistance training in experienced subjects. Med. Sci. Sports Exrc. 31(5 Supp) pp.S117 1999


    Here are the ones on muscle recovery:

    Muscle damage following repeated bouts of high force eccentric exercise.

    Nosaka K, Clarkson PM.

    Department of Science, Yokohama City University, Japan.

    This study was designed to test the hypothesis that performing repeated bouts of eccentric exercise when muscles were not recovered from previous exercise would exacerbate muscle damage. Twelve nonweight-trained males (21.7 +/- 2.4 yr) performed three sets of 10 eccentric actions of the elbow flexors (ECC) using a dumbbell that was set at 80% of the preexercise maximal isometric force level. This same exercise was repeated 3 and 6 d after the first exercise. Maximal isometric force, relaxed and flexed elbow joint angle, muscle soreness, plasma creatine kinase, and glutamic-oxaloacetic transaminase activities were assessed. Ultrasound images were taken from the upper arm. These measures (except soreness) were assessed immediately before and after each eccentric exercise bout (ECC1, ECC2, and ECC3) and 3 d after ECC3. Soreness was assessed prior to ECC1 and once a day for 9 d thereafter. All criterion measures changed significantly (P < 0.01) after ECC1. ECC2 and ECC3 performed 3 and 6 d after ECC1 did not exacerbate damage and did not appear to slow the recovery rate. Increased echointensity in ultrasound images was demonstrated following ECC1, but no indication of increased damage was found after ECC2 and ECC3. Strenuous exercise performed with "damaged" muscles did not exacerbate damage or affect the repair process.

    Repeated eccentric exercise bouts do not exacerbate muscle damage and repair.

    Nosaka K, Newton M.

    Exercise and Sports Science, Graduate School of Integrated Science, Yokohama City University, Yokohama, Japan. nosaka@vc-net.ne.jp.

    This study examined whether performing repeated bouts of eccentric exercise 2 and 4 days after an initial damaging bout would exacerbate muscle damage. One arm performed 3 sets of 10 eccentric actions of the elbow flexors (ECC1) using a dumbbell set at 50% of the maximal isometric force at 90 degrees (SINGLE). Two weeks later the same exercise was performed by the opposite arm with the exception that subsequent bouts were performed 2 (ECC2) and 4 (ECC3) days after ECC1 (REPEATED). In the REPEATED condition, maximal isometric force (MIF) decreased to the same level immediately after ECC1-3, and the decreases in range of motion (ROM) and increases in upper arm circumference immediately postexercise were similar among the bouts. However, no significant differences in changes in MIF, ROM, muscle soreness, and plasma creatine kinase activity were evident between the SINGLE and REPEATED conditions when excluding the changes immediately after ECC2 and ECC3. These results suggest that ECC2 and ECC3 did not exacerbate muscle damage or affect the recovery process.

    Some more interesting stuff.


    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...m_uid=12169383

    http://www.wannabebigforums.com/show...ight=frequency

  8. #33
    Wannabebig Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Posts
    55
    surely each individual muscle shud be trained after it has recovered from the immediately previous workout,so as i am led to beleive by posts and articles here bigger muscles take longer to recover then the likes of legs will be trained less than shoulders and traps in say a given 7 day period

  9. #34
    Wannabebig Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Posts
    55
    these tests above are only one off experiments . a bodybuilder works out most days and so any negative implications may well be cumulative

  10. #35
    Bodybuilding Mythbuster
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Location
    Yeongsan. South Korea
    Posts
    5,907
    Quote Originally Posted by restless
    I have no ideia what you mean with HST studies but this is what I could gather from a quick web search:

    This is the reference to the one that showed better muscle gains from the routine with higher frequency as compared to the once a week training, both same exact volume and exercise choice. I can't find the abstract anymore.

    McLester JR., Bishop P., & Guilliams M. Comparison of 1 and 3 day per week of equal volume resistance training in experienced subjects. Med. Sci. Sports Exrc. 31(5 Supp) pp.S117 1999


    Here are the ones on muscle recovery:

    Muscle damage following repeated bouts of high force eccentric exercise.

    Nosaka K, Clarkson PM.

    Department of Science, Yokohama City University, Japan.

    This study was designed to test the hypothesis that performing repeated bouts of eccentric exercise when muscles were not recovered from previous exercise would exacerbate muscle damage. Twelve nonweight-trained males (21.7 +/- 2.4 yr) performed three sets of 10 eccentric actions of the elbow flexors (ECC) using a dumbbell that was set at 80% of the preexercise maximal isometric force level. This same exercise was repeated 3 and 6 d after the first exercise. Maximal isometric force, relaxed and flexed elbow joint angle, muscle soreness, plasma creatine kinase, and glutamic-oxaloacetic transaminase activities were assessed. Ultrasound images were taken from the upper arm. These measures (except soreness) were assessed immediately before and after each eccentric exercise bout (ECC1, ECC2, and ECC3) and 3 d after ECC3. Soreness was assessed prior to ECC1 and once a day for 9 d thereafter. All criterion measures changed significantly (P < 0.01) after ECC1. ECC2 and ECC3 performed 3 and 6 d after ECC1 did not exacerbate damage and did not appear to slow the recovery rate. Increased echointensity in ultrasound images was demonstrated following ECC1, but no indication of increased damage was found after ECC2 and ECC3. Strenuous exercise performed with "damaged" muscles did not exacerbate damage or affect the repair process.

    Repeated eccentric exercise bouts do not exacerbate muscle damage and repair.

    Nosaka K, Newton M.

    Exercise and Sports Science, Graduate School of Integrated Science, Yokohama City University, Yokohama, Japan. nosaka@vc-net.ne.jp.

    This study examined whether performing repeated bouts of eccentric exercise 2 and 4 days after an initial damaging bout would exacerbate muscle damage. One arm performed 3 sets of 10 eccentric actions of the elbow flexors (ECC1) using a dumbbell set at 50% of the maximal isometric force at 90 degrees (SINGLE). Two weeks later the same exercise was performed by the opposite arm with the exception that subsequent bouts were performed 2 (ECC2) and 4 (ECC3) days after ECC1 (REPEATED). In the REPEATED condition, maximal isometric force (MIF) decreased to the same level immediately after ECC1-3, and the decreases in range of motion (ROM) and increases in upper arm circumference immediately postexercise were similar among the bouts. However, no significant differences in changes in MIF, ROM, muscle soreness, and plasma creatine kinase activity were evident between the SINGLE and REPEATED conditions when excluding the changes immediately after ECC2 and ECC3. These results suggest that ECC2 and ECC3 did not exacerbate muscle damage or affect the recovery process.

    Some more interesting stuff.


    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...m_uid=12169383

    http://www.wannabebigforums.com/show...ight=frequency

    Interesting stuff. However "exacerbating muscle damage" was not what I was going on about. I skimmed through a bunch of the sites you provided in your link and again I saw nothing which addressed my questions. Anyway I will run McLester JR through a Google site and see what turns up.

  11. #36
    Bodybuilding Mythbuster
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Location
    Yeongsan. South Korea
    Posts
    5,907
    I found the site. I also saw the conditions under which both groups trained.

    The three times a week trained with one set to failure per session. The once a week group trained with three sets to failure.

    How many people do you know (on this board) who train exactly like this though? Moreover it is easier to recover from one set to failure than from three sets to failure, particularly if you are not used to going to failure. The subjects in this study were "recreational bodybuilders" (weekend warriors?) We do not know if they ever went to failure regularly before training this way (likely not if they are "recreational"). There are still a number of variables to take into account here. And one study no matter how scientifically it was conducted, means very little. It needs to be re-created and further tested in order to make a valid hypothesis.

  12. #37
    Gen_chat worst nightmare
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    Europe
    Posts
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by ExtremeAnabolic
    I found the site. I also saw the conditions under which both groups trained.

    The three times a week trained with one set to failure per session. The once a week group trained with three sets to failure.

    How many people do you know (on this board) who train exactly like this though? Moreover it is easier to recover from one set to failure than from three sets to failure, particularly if you are not used to going to failure. The subjects in this study were "recreational bodybuilders" (weekend warriors?) We do not know if they ever went to failure regularly before training this way (likely not if they are "recreational"). There are still a number of variables to take into account here. And one study no matter how scientifically it was conducted, means very little. It needs to be re-created and further tested in order to make a valid hypothesis.
    Sure, this study wasn't perfect and one could say that with a higher overall volume of 9 sets per session/week the scenario would be different but it still serves to at least chalenge this once a week concept. I don't think the failure bit, given the very low overall volume used, is relevant.

    And most people on this site would fall into the "recreational bodybuilders" category, as would anyone who doesn't do it on a professional level.

    As far as I'm concerned it is fairly safe to extrapolate that spliting one's volume into three sessions will provide better gains, as long as caloric intake is suficientand all other things being equal (overall volume, intensity,etc...).

  13. #38
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Posts
    108
    The frequency at which you train each muscle has nothing to do with recovery or neural fatigue? First time I've heard this. Care to expand?

    I don't think he was saying that. I think what he was suggesting is that, within reason, muscle can be more or less continually loaded without adversely affecting its ability to hypertrophy.

    Proof for this can be found in stretch overload studies, if you believe inferences made from animal models apply to humans.

    Oh you mean (what I call) the HST studies? The studies that were done with the goal of proving HST is superior?

    No such studies exist.

    I was talking about studies that were done by an independent research group and published in a peer-review journal.

    Every single study posted on Bryan's articles are from peer reviewed sources.

    If you have links to such studies please post them. Don't just claim something along the lines of 'they are out there somewhere' Not a terribly convincing argument I am afraid. Again with the "more data" please show us where this "data" is and what peer-reviewed journals it has been posted in.

    The studies are all fully referenced at the HST site. It'd take you approximately 5 minutes to gather a number of them that support Bryan's assertions.

    As for my empirical observations and conclusions well yes they are probably more accurate regarding myself and how I should train. Who is likely to be more correct? Some study saying how I should train (when I followed such recommendations and made little gains) Or should I trust my experience and judgment and follow the training methods that actually produced significant gains? As a side note how many people do you know (on here) that follow strict "scientific" recommendations to as how they should train? HST is NOT the only valid training method.

    There's a variety of issues here.

    Firstly, the reliability of a sample of n=1 is going to be small. What I mean by this is that it is hard for a given individual to discern cause from correlate amongst the very large number of variables that pertain to one's training. From how much you're lifting, how often, with what volume, your diet, etc. The problem with anecdote is that it is uncontrolled, so, while it is certainly valuable, 'science' aims to remove some of the shortcomings of relying on mere anecdote in determining how **** happens.

    Secondly, your own personal experience is hard to evaluate. While research does imply partitioning up weekly volume into more frequent sessions is a good thing, it's hard to abstractly judge whether it's better to do so without looking at exactly what you did. For example, training frequently requires one to pay a LOT of attention to overtraining, and avoiding central fatigue and even injury. Training to failure three times a week is more likely to lead to 'overtraining' of the CNS than training to failure once a week. If you trained with 'full intensity' in both scenarios, it's possible once a week WILL be better because the once a week will then provide something that the thrice a week will not: progressive tension overload over time. Meaning you lift heavier stuff over time.

    As for the "science has nothing to do with it" that was not the sum total of my argument in that post. Your response "Of course not" was. I made a valid point in that post about what is optimal for the individual. You choose not to respond to that. But hey it's all good. I just like debates to which the replies are a wee bit more elaborate

    What you seem dangerously close to advocating here is what's known as the 'myth of biochemical individuality.'

    Yes, people are individuals, and respond in different ways, to some degree, to different things. However, what makes your muscles grow is the same thing that makes any other person's muscles grow. The same principles apply regardless of the individual. Individual factors simply serve as a context, and when it comes down to doing what's 'best,' it must be examined at an individual level. However, the principles apply to everybody. Assuming they're true and all.
    __________________
    Intensity caps duration...every time

  14. #39
    Bodybuilding Mythbuster
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Location
    Yeongsan. South Korea
    Posts
    5,907
    Quote Originally Posted by blowdpanis
    [b]Proof for this can be found in stretch overload studies, if you believe inferences made from animal models apply to humans.

    [
    No such studies exist.

    [
    Every single study posted on Bryan's articles are from peer reviewed sources.

    [The studies are all fully referenced at the HST site. It'd take you approximately 5 minutes to gather a number of them that support Bryan's assertions.

    [Secondly, your own personal experience is hard to evaluate. While research does imply partitioning up weekly volume into more frequent sessions is a good thing, it's hard to abstractly judge whether it's better to do so without looking at exactly what you did. For example, training frequently requires one to pay a LOT of attention to overtraining, and avoiding central fatigue and even injury. Training to failure three times a week is more likely to lead to 'overtraining' of the CNS than training to failure once a week. If you trained with 'full intensity' in both scenarios, it's possible once a week WILL be better because the once a week will then provide something that the thrice a week will not: progressive tension overload over time. Meaning you lift heavier stuff over time.

    What you seem dangerously close to advocating here is what's known as the 'myth of biochemical individuality.'

    Yes, people are individuals, and respond in different ways, to some degree, to different things. However, what makes your muscles grow is the same thing that makes any other person's muscles grow. The same principles apply regardless of the individual. Individual factors simply serve as a context, and when it comes down to doing what's 'best,' it must be examined at an individual level. However, the principles apply to everybody. Assuming they're true and all.
    __________________
    Intensity caps duration...every time

    Inferences made from animal models do not always apply to humans though. So not quite sure what your point was here.

    "No such studies exist" I never claimed they do. I said (please read before posting) that it was what "I labeled them as such" NOT that they were called that, or in fact even existed. This was in response to a couple of diehards on another board. They insisted that there were indeed such studies done and I started referring to them as these "HST studies" in as much the same way as people talk about 'upper chest'. I thought Mr. restless was on about the same thing.


    Who was talking about Bryan? I never mentioned him in regards to what you are talking about. I was talking about studies that prove HST is the best training method ever. I was asking to see studies that scientifically prove training 3 days a week is better than one.


    You state that "when it comes down to doing what's 'best' it must be examined at a individual level". Exactly my point. Go back and read my posts again.
    Last edited by Songsangnim; 08-12-2004 at 07:48 AM.

  15. #40
    I want some crack! TBone4Eva's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Washington, DC/Greenbelt, MD
    Posts
    986
    I have to agree with EA. You guys could go on and on. All things being equal restless you would be correct, but all things are not equal. The human body is complex. There are so many variables that will effect how benefical a particular routine will be to an individual. Nutrition, the different ratios of muscle fiber types, hormonal levels, supplementation, etc., they all play a role and none of them are the same between two human beings. You have to figure out what works best for you and stick with it.

    Personally, I gain really well doing a full body routine 3 days a week.
    The half-million citizens of the District of Columbia, like citizens of the fifty states, bear all of the obligations of American citizenship: they are required to obey the laws passed by Congress; they pay federal taxes; they serve in the military; and they fight and die in our wars. Yet they lack the most basic right that should accompany American citizenship—the right to full voting representation in Congress. This makes the United States the only nation in the world with a representative, democratic constitution that denies citizens of its capital representation in the national legislature. In fact, no fewer than 183 nations provide their citizens the type of representation citizens of Washington, DC are denied.

  16. #41
    Bodybuilding Mythbuster
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Location
    Yeongsan. South Korea
    Posts
    5,907
    Quote Originally Posted by TBone4Eva
    . You have to figure out what works best for you and stick with it.

    Personally, I gain really well doing a full body routine 3 days a week.

    Exactly. And I gain well from a once a week routine. Does this mean one of us is lying? No. it simply means through trial and error and reading we have each found a routine that works well for each of us. By the way, those people who claim that you MUST do a full body routine 3 days a week, might want to look at Chris Mason's journal. Here is a example of a man who trains bodyparts LESS frequently than once a week and STILL gains. (If I am wrong about Mr. Mason's training routines, I am sure he will correct me)

  17. #42
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Posts
    108
    Firstly, I'd suggest not being so defensive.

    Now, on to what you said:

    'Inferences made from animal models do not always apply to humans though. So not quite sure what your point was here.

    My point here is that stretch overload studies in animal models (both avian in mammal) both point to the ability of muscle to be continually loaded. For that matter, there's plenty of HUMAN research demonstrating this too. Let me know if you want the specific references.

    The 'point' is to understand what is meant by 'recovery,' and why it is misleading to treat 'recovery' as something only pertaining to muscles. The reality is that recovery is probably more about central nervous issues and connective tissue health for a lot of people (ie avoiding 'central' fatigue and injury).

    "No such studies exist" I never claimed they do. I said (please read before posting) that it was what "I labeled them as such" NOT that they were called that, or in fact even existed. This was in response to a couple of diehards on another board. They insisted that there were indeed such studies done and I started referring to them as these "HST studies" in as much the same way as people talk about 'upper chest'. I thought Mr. restless was on about the same thing.

    So your point here was to make something up to serve your point, even though you knew it wasn't true? Okay.

    Who was talking about Bryan? I never mentioned him in regards to what you are talking about. I was talking about studies that prove HST is the best training method ever. I was asking to see studies that scientifically prove training 3 days a week is better than one.

    Firstly, one study WAS already presented in 'experienced' subjects. With this as a launching point and considering the other lines of inference, it seems a fair assessment or at least our 'best guess.' Where are the studies showing less frequent training is superior when one looks at the same exercises/weekly volume/loads and such? I am aware of none, aside from people's anecdotes (which, no offense, aren't worth all that much in and of themselves).

    Also, looking for studies to compare different 'systems' of training probably isn't going to happen. You're not going to find 'studies' comparing german volume training to HST to Max OT and stuff like that. It would be interesting to see how they directly compare to one another, but we're more left with inferences about how muscle works, and then formulating ways to make it work for us to accomplish some goal. In the case of muscle hypertrophy, there is ample reasoning to establish that more frequent training IS better for growth.

    This comes from stretch overload research, this comes from research looking at the repeated bout effect in human models, this comes from research investigating the resilience of muscle tissue (human and otherwise) in response to frequent loading and more.

    There is plenty of reason to think that 'frequent' training is better than 'infrequent' training when it comes to muscle growth, as in the once per week to three times per week debate. The HST site provides ample evidence, imho, to affirm this position.

    All of this is my 'point.'
    Last edited by blowdpanis; 08-13-2004 at 07:50 PM.

  18. #43
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Posts
    108
    Quote Originally Posted by ExtremeAnabolic
    Exactly. And I gain well from a once a week routine. Does this mean one of us is lying? No. it simply means through trial and error and reading we have each found a routine that works well for each of us. By the way, those people who claim that you MUST do a full body routine 3 days a week, might want to look at Chris Mason's journal. Here is a example of a man who trains bodyparts LESS frequently than once a week and STILL gains. (If I am wrong about Mr. Mason's training routines, I am sure he will correct me)
    I'll suggest two things.

    1) Personal trial and error in and of itself probably isn't the best way to figure out what 'works' best, simply because there are too many training variables to consider, and endless iterations or interpretations of each of these. We ALL start with a general idea of how stuff works, and then experiment from there.

    What's being suggested is that the 'standard' for growth should lean in the direction of more frequent training.

    2) Just because more frequent training might be more optimal for growth does not mean other protocols won't work well.

    Saying that you can drive to work by going on streets X, Y, and Z doesn't mean that you couldn't also get there via A, B, and C. There's multiple paths we can take that will lead us to the same place. All that's being considered here is a question of 'optimization.'

    Ie 'what's optimal.' While individual variation has to be considered, 'what makes us grow best' in principle is not going to change from one person to the next. This is a very important point to understand.
    Last edited by blowdpanis; 08-13-2004 at 07:50 PM.

  19. #44
    Jay
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    1
    Here's a great article that I think everyone should read, it's simple but has all the great points. I you have a sec, check it out


    http://www.teenbodybuilding.com/sean4.htm
    -Jay-

  20. #45
    Bodybuilding Mythbuster
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Location
    Yeongsan. South Korea
    Posts
    5,907
    Quote Originally Posted by blowdpanis
    Firstly, I'd suggest not being so defensive.

    Now, on to what you said:

    'Inferences made from animal models do not always apply to humans though. So not quite sure what your point was here.

    (1) My point here is that stretch overload studies in animal models (both avian in mammal) both point to the ability of muscle to be continually loaded. For that matter, there's plenty of HUMAN research demonstrating this too. Let me know if you want the specific references.

    (2) The 'point' is to understand what is meant by 'recovery,' and why it is misleading to treat 'recovery' as something only pertaining to muscles. The reality is that recovery is probably more about central nervous issues and connective tissue health for a lot of people (ie avoiding 'central' fatigue and injury).

    (3) "No such studies exist" I never claimed they do. I said (please read before posting) that it was what "I labeled them as such" NOT that they were called that, or in fact even existed. This was in response to a couple of diehards on another board. They insisted that there were indeed such studies done and I started referring to them as these "HST studies" in as much the same way as people talk about 'upper chest'. I thought Mr. restless was on about the same thing.

    So your point here was to make something up to serve your point, even though you knew it wasn't true? Okay.

    Who was talking about Bryan? I never mentioned him in regards to what you are talking about. I was talking about studies that prove HST is the best training method ever. I was asking to see studies that scientifically prove training 3 days a week is better than one.

    (4) Firstly, one study WAS already presented in 'experienced' subjects. With this as a launching point and considering the other lines of inference, it seems a fair assessment or at least our 'best guess.' Where are the studies showing less frequent training is superior when one looks at the same exercises/weekly volume/loads and such? I am aware of none, aside from people's anecdotes (which, no offense, aren't worth all that much in and of themselves).

    .'
    WHO is being defensive? I merely pointed out training three times a week has not been proven to be the best training method. Then you jumped down my throat with wild claims about "making stuff up". Try to calm down and read what is written BEFORE you post. Also try to understand the difference between being defensive and being exasperated. Thanks. Now let's address what you have written. (I put numbers on your quotes for easy reference)

    1. In the post just prior to my reply you asked if I believe inference "made from animal models apply to humans". (You said nothing about human studies.) I said not really. The biochemical makeup is different.

    2. This is exactly what I have been saying. While protein synthesis may remain elevated for only 48 hours (as Mr. Restless claims) the CNS may take longer to 'recover'. Which is more likely to provide greater recovery time for the CNS? Training three time a week or once a week?


    3. I NEVER made anything up. The term "HST studies" were used by the people on the other board (as I have already said before and this is the last time I am going to bring this up as I am tired of repeating myself). I initially thought that Mr. Restless was one of the gentlemen who I first had this discussion with. My bad

    4. As I have said before ONE study is meaningless. I may be wrong but I believe one of the criteria to be published in a peer-reviewed journal is that a second study has to be done by (different researchers?) using the same procedures and obtaining the same results. Granted people's ancedotes are of limited value. But I'd rather believe dozens of personal ancedotes relating personal experience than ONE study.

  21. #46
    Bodybuilding Mythbuster
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Location
    Yeongsan. South Korea
    Posts
    5,907
    Quote Originally Posted by blowdpanis
    I'll suggest two things.

    1) Personal trial and error in and of itself probably isn't the best way to figure out what 'works' best, simply because there are too many training variables to consider, and endless iterations or interpretations of each of these. We ALL start with a general idea of how stuff works, and then experiment from there.

    .

    Right. We experiment (i.e. "trial and error"). That's is how we find out what DOESN'T work. 3 times a week didn't work for me. That is what I am pointing out. My best and fastest gains came from training each bodypart once a week. Keep in mind, it is not just about training. It has to do with what the CNS can tolerate and the connective tissue can handle. Obviously some people can handle a lot more volume then other people. If they are on gear and have fantastic genetics this "correct volume" increases greatly.

    Surely you are NOT advocating that EVERYONE train the same way? i.e 3 times a week? This would mean that you think it is the best way to train, and not a single 'guru' or bodybuilder to my knowledge (with the exception of Mike Mentzer) has ever claimed that they "know the best way to train".

    Taking your logic about how training more often is better, then we should be all training six days a week. Because if three is better than one why is 4 not better than three, and five not better than 4? See where I am heading here? Why is 3 the magic number? Why not 1 or 2 or 4 or 5 or 6 or 7?
    Last edited by Songsangnim; 08-14-2004 at 12:33 AM.

  22. #47
    Mystic Eric
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by ExtremeAnabolic
    WHO is being defensive? I merely pointed out training three times a week has not been proven to be the best training method. Then you jumped down my throat with wild claims about "making stuff up". Try to calm down and read what is written BEFORE you post. Also try to understand the difference between being defensive and being exasperated. Thanks. Now let's address what you have written. (I put numbers on your quotes for easy reference)

    1. In the post just prior to my reply you asked if I believe inference "made from animal models apply to humans". (You said nothing about human studies.) I said not really. The biochemical makeup is different.

    2. This is exactly what I have been saying. While protein synthesis may remain elevated for only 48 hours (as Mr. Restless claims) the CNS may take longer to 'recover'. Which is more likely to provide greater recovery time for the CNS? Training three time a week or once a week?


    3. I NEVER made anything up. The term "HST studies" were used by the people on the other board (as I have already said before and this is the last time I am going to bring this up as I am tired of repeating myself). I initially thought that Mr. Restless was one of the gentlemen who I first had this discussion with. My bad

    4. As I have said before ONE study is meaningless. I may be wrong but I believe one of the criteria to be published in a peer-reviewed journal is that a second study has to be done by (different researchers?) using the same procedures and obtaining the same results. Granted people's ancedotes are of limited value. But I'd rather believe dozens of personal ancedotes relating personal experience than ONE study.


    Right. We experiment (i.e. "trial and error"). That's is how we find out what DOESN'T work. 3 times a week didn't work for me. That is what I am pointing out. My best and fastest gains came from training each bodypart once a week. Keep in mind, it is not just about training. It has to do with what the CNS can tolerate and the connective tissue can handle. Obviously some people can handle a lot more volume then other people. If they are on gear and have fantastic genetics this "correct volume" increases greatly.

    Surely you are NOT advocating that EVERYONE train the same way? i.e 3 times a week? This would mean that you think it is the best way to train, and not a single 'guru' or bodybuilder to my knowledge (with the exception of Mike Mentzer) has ever claimed that they "know the best way to train".

    Taking your logic about how training more often is better, then we should be all training six days a week. Because if three is better than one why is 4 not better than three, and five not better than 4? See where I am heading here? Why is 3 the magic number? Why not 1 or 2 or 4 or 5 or 6 or 7?

    EA, the problem here is that you do not understand HST. Your comments about CNS and why does it have to 3 days a week with full body training etc show that you do not have a good knowledge of HST and its principles.

    To answer your question about CNS, your CNS is fine while adhering to HST principles because you do not train anywhere near failure for the majority of the workouts. For example, if you choose to do a 2 week, 10 rep block, the 6th workout would be the max weights that you tested for before you start HST. Because you have 5 workouts to reach these weights, and you must increase a "signficant" amount of weight each time, you are not taxing your CNS.

    To address your question about why 3 is the best, 3 is not the best. HST is not a strict program. They're principles based on science and how the body works. You can workout 6 days a week if you wanted to on HST. The point of loading the muscle every 48 hours is because protein synthesis after a workout drops roughly at around 48 hours. This is why you load it as frequently as possible so you can grow as frequently as possible.

    Now you're probably wondering how using such light weights for a few workouts until you reach your "max" could be effective. It is effective because you strategically decondition your muscles. I'm not going to go into that because if you really wanted to know, you would have read the site.

    As to your comment about Chris mason and his workouts, have you read his latest article? He has changed his views on training. He recommends hitting a body part 2 times a week at lighter loads for optimal growth. Basically what he's saying has a lot of similiarties to HST.

    I also wanted to point out that you saying that 3x a week didn't work for you etc. This could have been due to a lot of reasons. I'm going to go out on a limb and assume that you weren't training at sub max weights while hitting a body part 3 times a week. As well, personal ancedotes do not have much weight in scientific results. Aside from the fact that your 3x a week for a body part could have been done not in an HST fashion, other aspects in your life could have hindered your gains or lack of gains. There are too many variables to make a definate conclusion for just one sample size.

    I'd just like to conclude with saying that HST is not a definate program. It is a summation of how the body goes through hypertrophy with the current knowledge that we have through science today. Is it 100% concrete as the truth? No. But with the science that we know today, based on the studies that HST principles were extracted from, it is one of the best principles that we can apply to our training.
    Last edited by Mystic Eric; 08-14-2004 at 01:28 AM.

  23. #48
    Wannabebig Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Posts
    55
    when you guys are talking about protein synthesis 48 hrs after exercise what exactly do you mean? and whats this about cns recovery can someone elaborate on this
    thanx

  24. #49
    Bodybuilding Mythbuster
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Location
    Yeongsan. South Korea
    Posts
    5,907
    Quote Originally Posted by Mystic Eric
    EA, the problem here is that you do not understand HST. Your comments about CNS and why does it have to 3 days a week with full body training etc show that you do not have a good knowledge of HST and its principles.

    To answer your question about CNS, your CNS is fine while adhering to HST principles because you do not train anywhere near failure for the majority of the workouts. For example, if you choose to do a 2 week, 10 rep block, the 6th workout would be the max weights that you tested for before you start HST. Because you have 5 workouts to reach these weights, and you must increase a "signficant" amount of weight each time, you are not taxing your CNS.

    To address your question about why 3 is the best, 3 is not the best. HST is not a strict program. They're principles based on science and how the body works. You can workout 6 days a week if you wanted to on HST. The point of loading the muscle every 48 hours is because protein synthesis after a workout drops roughly at around 48 hours. This is why you load it as frequently as possible so you can grow as frequently as possible.

    Now you're probably wondering how using such light weights for a few workouts until you reach your "max" could be effective. It is effective because you strategically decondition your muscles. I'm not going to go into that because if you really wanted to know, you would have read the site.

    As to your comment about Chris mason and his workouts, have you read his latest article? He has changed his views on training. He recommends hitting a body part 2 times a week at lighter loads for optimal growth. Basically what he's saying has a lot of similiarties to HST.

    I also wanted to point out that you saying that 3x a week didn't work for you etc. This could have been due to a lot of reasons. I'm going to go out on a limb and assume that you weren't training at sub max weights while hitting a body part 3 times a week. As well, personal ancedotes do not have much weight in scientific results. Aside from the fact that your 3x a week for a body part could have been done not in an HST fashion, other aspects in your life could have hindered your gains or lack of gains. There are too many variables to make a definate conclusion for just one sample size.

    I'd just like to conclude with saying that HST is not a definate program. It is a summation of how the body goes through hypertrophy with the current knowledge that we have through science today. Is it 100% concrete as the truth? No. But with the science that we know today, based on the studies that HST principles were extracted from, it is one of the best principles that we can apply to our training.
    But I am NOT talking about HST in the posts you quoted. In fact about the only two things I did say about HST is that it is not the best method (apart from a sarcastic reference to a debate I had on another board). I also mentioned that I tried it and it didn't work. But HST is not the only routine that uses 3 x a week. When I say 3 x a week I was talking about other training methods. When I was talking about HST I mentioned it by name.

    So I said that it has not been proven to be the best method and that it didn't work for me. The REST of the time I was NOT TALKING ABOUT HST.
    Anyway we were debating which is best. To train a bodypart three times a week or once a week? I was saying that there are no studies that prove this one way or the other. That being so, all we have to go on is personal experience.

    The one study that was quoted had both groups of participants going to failure each time. Doesn't sound like HST, which I was not talking about anyway. Does that clarify things for you?

    As for Mr. Mason you may be right, I could not find his journal in the Journal section, so I will take your word for it. However I was talking about his old style of training which (if you have seen his photos) built a pretty darn impressive build, which is probably better than 90% of the people on here. It seems to have worked quite well for him (although I am speaking from memory)

    My apologies to Mr. Mason if I have inadvertently misrepresented his training methods
    Last edited by Songsangnim; 08-14-2004 at 08:06 AM.

  25. #50
    Wannabebig Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    47
    the 1x/week routine is a Max-OT principle. Just curious if any of you have tried Max-OT and how it stands up to HST? I am currently training using Max-OT and have made awesome gains

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •