Search results

Ha me too, and I used the term mini SD back then, what do they say, 'great minds think alike' lol ;) And agree on acute... in fact, that's one thing people confuse is acute with 'weekly volume', they almost treat weekly volume like the body waits till Friday and totals it up. no no no, each day...

ok yes, I've also listened to a ton of Menno's podcasts too. BUT.... .... tissue condition , anabolic resistance.. is EXACTLY why I think lower frequencies, in practice, DO match higher frequency. Here, read this. If taking a 2 week SD, .........letting a muscle 'rest' for 2 weeks can allow...

that sounds really accurate from everything I've read myself on all this. He's saying, and I've seen that too, that people kinda slowly get resistant to the stimulus, more volume surpasses it, but it's more an 'over time' kinda thing. Which makes sense, it's how we adapt, the resistance to the...

ha you remember him too!?? LOL his posts were fun though!! well, what I've 'read' anyway, is when a satellite cell is activated with damage, it pulls up, donates for repair, but it doesn't donate the nuclei 'into the cell' as another protein factory, that it's different. Donating for addition...

right, and that kind of load increase, IMO, isn't a load increase, so only proves that long term growth can be had, without relatively heavier loads. I'd say no, and not because load is too light but because other factors are ruining it. Like 100 reps with 100RM has so much metabolic and...

I would love to see a study though showing a slack fiber can be stimulated from another fiber pulling it, what I read is the fiber has to have high calcium (calcineurin is permissive) so must be activated, but maybe that's not true... and then I think... well high load would have all fibers...

OK good thoughts... I totally see what your saying, man how can I not babble too much and make what I'm thinking , just be easy to see .. how I see it... ummm lol OK... First, lets separate load increases from LOAD increases. As , compensatory load increases (keeping up with strength so your...

I think it was just thinking more about it, looking at the studies more... Just so much that more load less time wouldn't increase things I don't think. I think 'work' (load and time) have to be increased. I don't think , well, haven't seen a study or anything that shows just load is the factor...

YES!!! remember, stimulation is per fiber. So a fiber has to be activated to 'be used', 'to create tension'. This means, you have to do 30 with 30 RM just so those later fibers even 'get to' create their max tension (even though it's lower from pre fatigue) yet that causes hypertrophy. See what...

My absolute honest guess? All groups would have almost identical results. By all going to failure, time and load were equalized. If any group were going to grow more? I'd honestly say group 1 would be the best results. They are leaning more toward the 30RM fail scenario, and they'd have the...

I think we have a different idea of 'context' then.... To me, activation (participation of the fibers) is the context equalizer. If you do less reps with the lesser load, all the fibers aren't even feeling that total load. And that's the whole point IMO, it's not load, it's not time, it's time...

And I was looking at it this way. If more load relative to starting condition increases the stimulation. Then 90% of 1Rm would for sure be more load, gross and relative both, over 30%, so I can't see how 30% could have HIGHER hypertrophy. Wait.. are you saying compare 8 reps with 50% to 8 reps...

Yes it's weird... there are studies where they did equalize 'work' and then rest periods didn't matter, the conclusion was longer rests allow for more reps so that's why they work better. Which sounds logical and right with all the other research. Even one with rest pause, 20 seconds rest, if...

To add, this study is troubling with respect to load https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2918506/ however, MYO remained elevated (199%) above rest at 24 h only in 30FAIL. 4E-BP1Thr37/46 phosphorylation was greater 24 h after exercise than at rest in both 90FAIL (237%) and 30FAIL (312%)...

LOL that is troubling lol I wonder too about novelty... I know a while back, we saw higher post workout PS with novel stimulus, it sounded like 'the answer', then more recently, studies are showing that the 'extra PS' is about repair, so the PS directed at growth is still really the same...

OK really good thoughts..... So to summarize, mixed with my thoughts... Going from 2 sets of 15 with 16RM to 2 sets of 10 with 11Rm, is probably not an increase. But some kind of increase might be superior to plugging slowly away (HST model vs slow and steady). I see what you mean, and I"ve...

cool! measure this time LOL :)

OK true... but I'd say also that going from 3x12 with say 150 lbs can be beat with 3x13 with the same 150lbs. Seems to be an either or thing... If I could go from heavy 3x5 with long rests, to light short rest with 3x8 Gironda and grow, somehow that beat the condition right? I think load is a...

Interesting Mike.... Here are my thoughts on that...(I posted some of this above too)... If the studies are right and 15 reps to failure with a 15RM is equal to 8 reps to failure with an 8RM, then to me, just moving load up, if that means 'less time with that load' is the same stimulus. Then...

I guess what I'm saying, are these things.... Logically, just creating tension is what a fiber is for, only if it fails to maintain tension, would an adaptation even be needed, so the fiber 'losing force', logically would be the indicator it needed 'more force' so if force drops, it's starting...