Topic: The TRUE Science Behind Muscle Building??

[Canuck]

Thanks for that ..... I see now why 4,500 KCal a day is in order for you .  I've been using a split that only gets to body parts twice every 8 days, so I may have to follow your lead and experiment a little with more frequent work.

[El Greco]

but what does 'easier' mean in that context?

Means that by being hypercaloric and obviously gaining weight, you can be sure that overall you have been exposing your body to an anabolic environment. Taking only the extra calories necessary to put on muscle without putting on fat is tricky: How can you be sure that you are taking enough calories anyway ? That's why most "classic" bodybuilders prefer to make sure they are not compromising their muscle gains in their "bulking" period, even if this means they will gain more fat than what would be unavoidable.

If I understand correctly, lipogenesis is the body's process of storing fat from food intake?

The anabolic hormone cannot just focus on one process but does both and therefore the classical effect of both gaining fat and muscles?

Might this be the reason why you start off by gaining both muscle and fat (inevitably) and then you start to burn off fat as you can burn off fat while still remain your muscles but not necessarily increase their volume?

Do you have any links to a reputable peer-reviewed article proving the model of lipogenesis occurring inevitably when muscle protein synthesis occur?

Yes, that's right. But as I said, one could shorten the cycles. Actually such cycles already happen every day, where we go from "overall anabolic" to "overall catabolic" within the same day.

I'm not sure how such a study could be conducted. The effects of insulin are well documented, it promotes both lipogenesis and protein synthesis. But both lipogenesis and lipolysis, protein synthesis and protein breakdown, all happen at the same time to various degrees. You may be building one gram of muscle tonight and by next morning you may have lost half of it. It's not possible to find a single moment where both fat storage and fat breakdown aren't happening at the same time. So you'd have to measure the cumulative effect. But in what time period ? With what kind of nutrition ? How many meals ? How many and how big insulin and amino-acid spikes ? What kind of training ? All these paramaters can have various effects on what the end result will be.


Regarding volume: I'm of the opinion that the more you do, the better, as long as the intensity is above a certain level. Now, depending on how people train, "the more you do" may mean "high" volume or "low" volume. It's true that some people can push themselves more for a single set while others may be better off with more sets. It doesn't really matter, because in the end the neural system (and maybe the joints) will determine what is enough and what is too much. So my simple rule is this: If you feel you can do more and don't see the symptoms of overtraining, then do more. It may be possible that you are forcing your body to build muscle with very few sets. If this is the case, then you will be feeling it. The best results come if you stop before overtraining, but not too far from it.

[El Greco]

Another interesting thing, which I heard from a friend who claims that, "You need to exercise within an intensity that your body is fast enough to use energy from stored fat instead of carbohydrates. Since it takes longer time for the body to absorb energy from stored fat, you should go for walks in order to get that fat oxidation going; intense workouts mostly use carbohydrates and very little fat".

And since I want to burn off my few pounds of fat and still keep my muscles, I am wondering if he is right? I haven't asked for his sources but what I remembered from what I have read, interval exercises (bursts of speed and then going back to medium running speed) are the best way to go in order to burn off fat?! I'm confused! xD

Intervals rock, but are hard.

This thing about the body using fat deposits only after 20 minutes or so of exercise, is a myth. 20 minutes is just a very general threshold where during low/mild exercise, usage of fat rises so much that it exceeds usage of carbohydrates. But in intense weight lifting or sprinting, you are mainly using anaerobic metabolic pathways which means ATP/carbohydrates - no fat.

Guess what: If you use mainly carbohydrates for some exercise, your body will later be using more fat for resting metabolism because carbohydrates will have been depleted. In the end, it's calories-in vs calories-out.

[GodSlayer]

Another interesting facet (to me) is that training to failure isn't necessary. Not to say you can half-ass it, but you don't need to take yourself to complete muscular failure on every set. In fact, too much of that (especially when combined with high volume) is disastrous for recovery. So now I mostly try to stop at least a rep or two shy,

can you tell what that is on any given day*, or is that just based on your previously known numbers?
*like, do you base it on how many you can do with perfect form/tempo/etc., and if you start getting a bit stuck or wonky or rushing through part of the movement that tells you it's time to stop because failure is near?

[Plastique]

Thanks for that ..... I see now why 4,500 KCal a day is in order for you .  I've been using a split that only gets to body parts twice every 8 days, so I may have to follow your lead and experiment a little with more frequent work.

I got up to about 5000.

Regarding volume: I'm of the opinion that the more you do, the better, as long as the intensity is above a certain level.

Pretty much. I think systems like DC training and HIT are far from optimal. Minimizing one of the only variables we can control for progress (volume) is a fantastic way to undermine your goals.

The best results come if you stop before overtraining, but not too far from it.

Yeah, apparently maximum results come from dipping into over-training slightly (technically over-reaching as opposed to over-training—apparently gettting into an over-trained state is difficult, actually pretty serious, and time-consuming to recover from), then backing off and allowing the body to compensate. Probably not ideal for most non-professional athletes with any type of life due to the exhaustion, though.

Another interesting facet (to me) is that training to failure isn't necessary. Not to say you can half-ass it, but you don't need to take yourself to complete muscular failure on every set. In fact, too much of that (especially when combined with high volume) is disastrous for recovery. So now I mostly try to stop at least a rep or two shy,

can you tell what that is on any given day*, or is that just based on your previously known numbers?
*like, do you base it on how many you can do with perfect form/tempo/etc., and if you start getting a bit stuck or wonky or rushing through part of the movement that tells you it's time to stop because failure is near?

Well, I record every workout, so it's mostly based on previous numbers. But form breakdown is a reasonable way to do it, too—ie, as soon as your form starts to degrade, call the set. For most good exercises (squats, deadlifts, dips, presses) using bad form is highly inadvisable, the risk is too great. A little bit of deformation is inevitable the closer to your one rep max you get, but it should never be extreme.

[El Greco]

Pretty much. I think systems like DC training and HIT are far from optimal. Minimizing one of the only variables we can control for progress (volume) is a fantastic way to undermine your goals.

It probably depends. There are also convincing arguments in favor of low volume: http://www.exrx.net/WeightTraining/LowVolumeTraining.html

And I've seen all kinds of bodybuilders being successful with totally different volumes.

The thing is that if you are training with high intensity (percentage of 1RM) then you can't use as much volume as when you are training with lower intensity. So it's kind of self-regulated. The way it works best for me is to do another set for the same bodypart as soon as I can perform at least the reps of the previous set, no matter whether that is in 5 minutes or in 5 days. Obviously, at some point, systemic exhaustion will also become an issue. But until that happens, I let performance dictate the frequency and the volume of the exercise. This way, cycles of lower intensity will regulate automatically to a higher volume, simply because I can do more.

With the above in mind, I have personally seen the best results with daily (or even several times a day) full-body workouts. If I do a set of bench press with maximum effort, the ideal for me is to have another set of bench press as soon as I can repeat the previous set's repetitions. Which may be in 5 minutes or in 2 days, depending on the intensity and the systemic exertion. I can choose to either do full-body, in which case the limiting factor usually is systemic exhaustion, or focus on few bodyparts, in which case the declining performance (in medium intensity) or the stiff joints (in high intensity) are what limits the frequency.

I've been using the terms like this:
Intensity = Percentage of 1RM
Volume = Weight * repetitions * sets
Frequency = How often I train the same bodypart

Duration isn't an independent parameter in this context, it depends on volume.

[GodSlayer]

Volume = Weight * repetitions * sets

ah. I wanted to ask what volume meant (can't remember from the 'german volume training' discussion last month)

does this mean, say, benching 70kg, 12 reps, 3 sets, is just as good* as 100kg, 8 reps, 3 sets...which a person doing 70 might find impossible? (Generally speaking?--I think Plastique had said something about the need for heavy weights for certain fibres, I think it was in the discussion of building muscle bulk and wanting to make sure you're also using those fibres that will grow the most or something)

*maybe that's not even the word for it? it's 'the same volume' ... but if it's not as good, in that it won't make you as strong or as built, does that mean volume is not a terribly useful term, since the same volume can be achieved in more or less useful combos?

[Plastique]

And I've seen all kinds of bodybuilders being successful with totally different volumes.

Drug-free? It's a different game when you introduce exogenous supraphysiological doses of hormones. Most (all?) of the most successful and impressive natural bodybuilders I've read about use quite high volume. Of course that could be meaningless, but my own experience makes me think there's something in it.

The thing is that if you are training with high intensity (percentage of 1RM) then you can't use as much volume as when you are training with lower intensity.

Why not? Olympic athletes and powerlifters often use a high number of low rep sets, and often over the course of hours.

Obviously, at some point, systemic exhaustion will also become an issue. But until that happens, I let performance dictate the frequency and the volume of the exercise.

True, but to reiterate, if you opt for a high volume approach, there is a definite period of adjustment that can take weeks. So someone shouldn't necessarily assume that they're tapping out their recovery ability prematurely and before they've given it a proper chance.

I think there's been a tendency to underestimate how much work our bodies can deal with and thrive on.

[GodSlayer]

Olympic athletes and powerlifters often use a high number of low rep sets, and often over the course of hours.

makes sense to me.
I've always thought the '3 sets' thing was a bit of a gym fad more than anything else. ...could probably do 20 sets of something if you had enough time to rest, but most people aren't going to stay in the gym for 5 hours a day.

how hard is it to push so hard that you _can't_ do any more _that day_ (rather than being buggered the following day(s))?

[El Greco]

*maybe that's not even the word for it? it's 'the same volume' ... but if it's not as good, in that it won't make you as strong or as built, does that mean volume is not a terribly useful term, since the same volume can be achieved in more or less useful combos?

Exactly. It's not a very useful term in itself. Imagine doing hundreds of reps with very low weight. You would only be training muscular endurance.

Drug-free? It's a different game when you introduce exogenous supraphysiological doses of hormones. Most (all?) of the most successful and impressive natural bodybuilders I've read about use quite high volume. Of course that could be meaningless, but my own experience makes me think there's something in it.

It's a question of neurotransmitters and different muscle activation. It doesn't matter whether they are drug-free or not, the same principles apply. Actually it's the high volume routines that are usually attributed to drugs. My take is that if a bodybuilder makes his  body adapt by building more muscle, then he's obviously stressing it. This may mean that the low volume bodybuilder simply CAN'T do more. You will surely have heard this from low-volume advocates, that after several maximal-effort sets they simply can't go on. The high-volume bodybuilder can do more, so he does.

It may be as simple as different abilities in recruiting muscle fibers. Some may do it with 1 set, others may need 5.

Why not? Olympic athletes and powerlifters often use a high number of low rep sets, and often over the course of hours.

It's way easier if all you do is sleep and train, whether drug-free or not. During an 8-hour training session you can perform many more high intensity reps than someone who stays in the gym for an hour or so. And they do use long lower intensity cycles. Plus, they usually drop the weights and don't engage in neurotransmitter-depleting eccentrics.

True, but to reiterate, if you opt for a high volume approach, there is a definite period of adjustment that can take weeks. So someone shouldn't necessarily assume that they're tapping out their recovery ability prematurely and before they've given it a proper chance.

Yes, but the way I do it it doesn't really matter. You don't have to pay attention to it. If and when that neurological adaptation takes place, you will be capable of higher volume and so that's what you'll do. You'll be feeling you have recovered sooner and your performance will be mirroring that.

[Plastique]

Drug-free? It's a different game when you introduce exogenous supraphysiological doses of hormones. Most (all?) of the most successful and impressive natural bodybuilders I've read about use quite high volume. Of course that could be meaningless, but my own experience makes me think there's something in it.

It's a question of neurotransmitters and different muscle activation. It doesn't matter whether they are drug-free or not, the same principles apply.

Totally agree—what I was getting at is that it might look like low volume training is more effective than it really is because of an exaggerated response to drugs as opposed to a great training program.

My take is that if a bodybuilder makes his  body adapt by building more muscle, then he's obviously stressing it.

Absolutely, but I'm talking about what's optimal, not the minimum required to produce a result.

You will surely have heard this from low-volume advocates, that after several maximal-effort sets they simply can't go on. The high-volume bodybuilder can do more, so he does.

Definitely heard that, and my response is that you can't do high volume with maximal effort (at least not for long). I currently think that sub-maximal work for more time will produce more hypertrophy. What's optimal for strength is probably a bit different (less work overall).

Why not? Olympic athletes and powerlifters often use a high number of low rep sets, and often over the course of hours.

It's way easier if all you do is sleep and train, whether drug-free or not. During an 8-hour training session you can perform many more high intensity reps than someone who stays in the gym for an hour or so. And they do use long lower intensity cycles. Plus, they usually drop the weights and don't engage in neurotransmitter-depleting eccentrics.

I basically agree, except that powerlifters do perform the eccentric part of the movement, at least on squats and bench (and assistance work). My point was just that you can do quite a high volume of work with high percentage of 1RM if you're careful about it.

True, but to reiterate, if you opt for a high volume approach, there is a definite period of adjustment that can take weeks. So someone shouldn't necessarily assume that they're tapping out their recovery ability prematurely and before they've given it a proper chance.

Yes, but the way I do it it doesn't really matter. You don't have to pay attention to it. If and when that neurological adaptation takes place, you will be capable of higher volume and so that's what you'll do. You'll be feeling you have recovered sooner and your performance will be mirroring that.

But you're always veering on the side of complete recovery. It seems that for the absolute maximum results possible we need to over-reach then back off a bit to allow super-compensation. (Obviously there's a difference between absolute optimal and what is practicable for most people.)

[El Greco]

But you're always veering on the side of complete recovery. It seems that for the absolute maximum results possible we need to over-reach then back off a bit to allow super-compensation. (Obviously there's a difference between absolute optimal and what is practicable for most people.)

Actually the way I'm doing it allows LESS recovery than the vast majority of high-volume bodybuilders' routines allow. Think of it this way: If a bodybuilder performs 30 sets for chest on a Monday, and then he hits chest again next Monday, then he has recovered much more than me in the meantime. I could be doing one set every 6-8 hours for the whole week and perform the same number of sets, but obviously more volume than if I had done all 30 sets in one session.

[Plastique]

Actually the way I'm doing it allows LESS recovery than the vast majority of high-volume bodybuilders' routines allow. Think of it this way: If a bodybuilder performs 30 sets for chest on a Monday, and then he hits chest again next Monday, then he has recovered much more than me in the meantime. I could be doing one set every 6-8 hours for the whole week and perform the same number of sets, but obviously more volume than if I had done all 30 sets in one session.

You'd get much better results your way than doing high volume once per week. Higher frequency seems to be best to keep muscle protein synthesis elevated.