# Does muscle stess increase the stronger we become.....



## TH0R (Aug 15, 2007)

Just been reading Toms building muscle thread and a particular post got me

thinking, over time and with progressive resistance our muscles grow, thats

given, but does the need for more recouperation time increase?

Toms theory on training each bodypart every 2 weeks obviously works for him

and many other advanced bodybuilders, but would it work for somebody

not as advanced

My theory being

Trainer A has trained for 2 years, has a bodyweight of 14 stone, bench's

110kg, squats 130, deads 140.

See these weights, although not bad, don't put the stress on a muscle that

somebody who benches 170+ squats 200 deads 220 does, so recouperation

time shouldn't be as long, hence should be able to recover quicker hence train

more often.

So basically the theory is the bigger your muscle becomes, the more you can

destroy it, so the more time needed for it to rest.

A few other factors involved but this as a base........

Any views??


----------



## Dig (Aug 28, 2007)

tel3563 said:


> Just been reading Toms building muscle thread and a particular post got me
> 
> thinking, over time and with progressive resistance our muscles grow, thats
> 
> ...


I have no idea, but on the flip side look at how some of the strongest people in the world train the same lift multiple times a week.

I think it all depends on intensity, if you are bigger and stronger and train at a high intensity then i think your example works.

Then again would you not expect the more advanced trainer to acclimatize to their training as they would have built it up over time??

As i said i have no idea, but i would imagine much of it depends on the individual, ie what's best for one might not be for another, eve for lifters at the same levels.

Interesting question though.


----------



## Joshua (Aug 21, 2008)

I have found that my training frequency has dropped as I age, but am unsure as to the cause ie lower recovery capacity, more damage being done, etc.

One of the problems I have with the longer rest periods is that the evidence would suggest that skeletal muscle protein synthesis declines after 48hr or so after training. If this is the case, then I would have thought that this would be a guideline for ideal training frequency. That said, there are non-muscle constraints that need to be accounted for, such as CNS recovery. That unfortunately is still a mystery too me.

J


----------



## TH0R (Aug 15, 2007)

Dig said:


> I have no idea, but on the flip side look at how some of the strongest people in the world train the same lift multiple times a week.
> 
> *I think it all depends on intensity, if you are bigger and stronger and train at a high intensity then i think your example works.*
> 
> ...


These comments just about sum it up, is there an answer??

I would of thought there would be some study on this somewhere, although

as you say, it could be totally individual.

I remember Nytol stating most people don't have the guts to only train this

way ie bp e2wks, but equally as you stated, some of the strongest people in

the world do squats 3 times or even more pwk:confused1:

I was always enforced with never train a bp till 72 hours after its been trained,

kinda made me think even at the beginning why? Differing muscles MUST have

differing recouperation times, surely the muscles that lift the heavier weights

ie quads, back, chest need more time for recovery than ancillary muscles ie

bi's, Tri's, Shoulders??


----------



## sizar (Nov 13, 2008)

i know people who trains the entire body over 10 days rather than what most of us do over 7 days .. and it works for them but never tried it my self.


----------



## TH0R (Aug 15, 2007)

Joshua said:


> I have found that my training frequency has dropped as I age, but am unsure as to the cause ie lower recovery capacity, more damage being done, etc.
> 
> One of the problems I have with the longer rest periods is that the evidence would suggest that skeletal muscle protein synthesis declines after 48hr or so after training. If this is the case, then I would have thought that this would be a guideline for ideal training frequency. That said, there are non-muscle constraints that need to be accounted for, such as CNS recovery. That unfortunately is still a mystery too me.
> 
> J


Agree that age could/should be a factor, certainly when you get to my age

although I have to say, I feel no different in recovery than I did 20 years ago.

I think CNS is an equal factor in training frequency, as well as the muscle repair.

How do you feel about the ancillary muscles being hit more often, hence helping

with a carry over effect of when you do the larger muscles, the ancillaries are

already growing to there optimum (faster) so progress on bigger lifts will be better,

also taking into account deloading weeks, different phases of training etc.


----------



## sizar (Nov 13, 2008)

tel you know AAS results in quicker recovery right ? but sometimes it takes 5 days for body part to stop hurting .. is this normal ?


----------



## TH0R (Aug 15, 2007)

sizar said:


> *tel you know AAS results in quicker recovery* right ? but sometimes it takes 5 days for body part to stop hurting .. is this normal ?


Jmo but that is debatable, protein synthesis is improved but with the heavier

weight your lifting does it mean we need longer maybe? I honestly think the

difference is negligable unless you've not reached your natural potential or very

near it, I stand to be corrected as I'm only going on how I've felt.

There is also the added stress on joints and tendons to take into account, when

do they catch up??

I too have had quads ache for days 3,4 and 5 after training them, not so much

on days 1 and 2 though so figure that one out:confused1: :confused1:


----------



## Joshua (Aug 21, 2008)

tel3563 said:


> Agree that age could/should be a factor, certainly when you get to my age although I have to say, I feel no different in recovery than I did 20 years ago.
> 
> I think CNS is an equal factor in training frequency, as well as the muscle repair.
> 
> How do you feel about the ancillary muscles being hit more often, hence helping with a carry over effect of when you do the larger muscles, the ancillaries are already growing to there optimum (faster) so progress on bigger lifts will be better, also taking into account deloading weeks, different phases of training etc.


Although I agree with the sentiments of CNS & muscle repair being equal in importance, I suspect that the actual balance of what is the limiting factor varies from time to time.

The ancillary muscle issue is very topical for me at the moment. I rejigged my workout so that there was more emphasis on compound movements and a little less isolation work. This has exposed some problem areas with overtraining [iMO] in the trap region when doing overhead squats on one day with back on another, then chest on a third (which seems to hit the antagonist ie trap area quite hard too).

The chap who inspired me to make this shift has made excellent consistant gains in mass and strength over the several years I have been following his progress. He does make extensive use of deloads ie(1wk every month!).

I am still in mixed minds how to deal with EMS outside the workouts to maximise protein synthesis - I am sure that I do not have it right at the moment. I suspect that identifying which muscles are getting hit hard (such as traps) will need a layoff from the EMS, whereas others with some spare capacity can get additional stimulation.

CNS loading issues aside, I simply do not understand how hitting each bodypart once a fortnight would be good for skeletal muscle protein synthesis.

J


----------



## Guest (Mar 9, 2010)

Someones maximum is another mans warm up weight..

Its still maximum effort whether it be 100kg or 2000kg.


----------



## Joshua (Aug 21, 2008)

tel3563 said:


> ...There is also the added stress on joints and tendons to take into account, when do they catch up??


This is a very good point - Whether it be through deload periods or whatnot, going all out for muscle growth chronically can cause problems. Maybe some additional rest time through lower workout frequency may help this area.



> I too have had quads ache for days 3,4 and 5 after training them, not so much on days 1 and 2 though so figure that one out:confused1: :confused1:


That sounds like DOMS rather than the usual ache.

J


----------



## TH0R (Aug 15, 2007)

Dan said:


> Someones maximum is another mans warm up weight..
> 
> Its still maximum effort whether it be 100kg or 2000kg.


Sorry Dan, I can't agree with this

Now I know this is gonna sound funny but lets substitute muscle building with

actual tissue damage ie cutting the skin with a blade.

Now if you only cut the skin with light pressure, akin to somebody lifting a lighter

weight but still heavy for them, it would of course still cut the flesh, but how much damage would it do and how quick would it heal??

Now consider that the knife is now pushed in harder, akin to somebody lifting

more weight, the damage would be more, hence more time would be needed

to heal

Make sense??

I think the theory is sound but there are obviously more factors to take into account

such as nutrition, quality of rest etc.

Joshua, good posts, I agree with the 2 weeks aspect, but have to admit it

seems to work for Nytol, Tom, James L etc, so it must have some credence

as these guys muscles prove.

Would love to hear more theories from anyone:thumbup1:


----------



## Joshua (Aug 21, 2008)

> Joshua, good posts, I agree with the 2 weeks aspect, but have to admit it
> 
> seems to work for Nytol, Tom, James L etc, so it must have some credence
> 
> as these guys muscles prove.


Sure. I agree that sucess in practice gives it credence, I just do not understand how this can be squared with the protein synthesis studies.

J


----------



## dtlv (Jul 24, 2009)

I think muscle recovery is a multi factoral condition - it's rate and efficacy is determined by type of training, supply of amino acids, hormonal status, activation of growth pathways, CNS recovery... lots to factor in, and changing one variable may well affect the relative demand placed on the others.

I do think though that the recovery rate would probably get better rather than worsen as a muscle gets bigger, but only to a certain point at which it would plateau. This is only an idea of mine, and could be way off, but here goes anyway...

Long term training in the same way tends to change the proportion of developed fibers within the muscle to a ratio better suited to the type of workload. When training to failure in the 6-8 rep range this typically means conversion of Type IIb to Type IIa (study).

The reason the body would do this is as an adaptive response to improve the muscles efficiency, both in performance related to the workout and to make the muscle metabolically more efficient (efficient calorie cost to maintain, energy substrate utlisation etc). I can't see this kind of adaptation reducing recovery capacity.

Logically however, once the muscle has converted to the most effcient ratio of fiber types for its current workload, there can be no further improvement in efficiency so any improvement in the rate would have to stop, and recovery rate couldn't get any better.

Likewise when changing the form of training, and possibly the demand the exercise puts on each muscle fiber type, the muscle as a whole may suddenly find itself less efficient for that particular kind of exercise but also stimulated to a greater degree to adapt and longer to recover!

Also, the CNS has to re-learn so this would reduce recovery ability.

Since most people notice greater DOMS and more exhaustion when first changing routines I think there may be something to this

So, imo, recovery time is going to be related to the amount of adaptation the muscle has to make to the current training protocol, with more efficient recovery coming to a well trained and familiar form of training but with less adaptive demand.

Hope that makes sense as a theory :confused1:


----------



## Joshua (Aug 21, 2008)

Dtlv74 said:


> I think muscle recovery is a multi factoral condition - it's rate and efficacy is determined by type of training, supply of amino acids, hormonal status, activation of growth pathways, CNS recovery... lots to factor in, and changing one variable may well affect the relative demand placed on the others.
> 
> I do think though that the recovery rate would probably get better rather than worsen as a muscle gets bigger, but only to a certain point at which it would plateau. This is only an idea of mine, and could be way off, but here goes anyway...
> 
> ...


Changes in fibre characteristics is only one part of the equation - protein synthesis / hypertrophy is a more significant goal [iMHO] for most bodybuilders.

SMPS (Skeletal Muscle Protein Synthesis) demand would be increased if there was a greater amount of damage to the muscle, so the amount of recovery needed would increase - either through additional time or improved recovery rate. I suspect that there is some adaptation with improved recovery rate eg through greater perfusion of the muscle, thus greater nutrient delivery.

From a purely SMPS standpoint, I believe that mechano-stimulation every 48-72hr would be ideal, however inflammation responses may frustrate this, as would CNS overloading.

I agree with your comments about relearning motor pattens for the CNS. I suspect that most periodisation routines for bodybuilding are not optimised to minimise this.

I suspect [iME] that the CNS provides a greater constraint in maximising recovery rate & training frequency, in addition to the actual stimulus that can be generated when training ( if you don't sleep, loads and volume drop ).

J


----------



## Wee G1436114539 (Oct 6, 2007)

Systemic fatigue can be cleared with intermittent deloading.

Fluctuating volume / load over time will allow for increases in mechanical stretch and subsequent mechanotransduction with no need to train to fatigue / failure / overly tax the CNS.

Total training load (sets x reps x weights) can be fluctuated such that when mechanical stretch is increased, it is always against a backdrop of DECREASING total training load, allowing for CNS recovery / deloading at the same time as increasing mechanical stretch. Following this with a short deload increases muscle sensitivity to load again and ensures the CNS is NEVER overtaxed.

Motor pattern issue is resolved by training all required patterns from the start of a cycle and maintaining them throughout; never change them until the entire cycle is complete.

Solved?


----------



## TH0R (Aug 15, 2007)

Dtlv74 said:


> I think muscle recovery is a multi factoral condition - it's rate and efficacy is determined by type of training, supply of amino acids, hormonal status, activation of growth pathways, CNS recovery... lots to factor in, and changing one variable may well affect the relative demand placed on the others.
> 
> I do think though that the recovery rate would probably get better rather than worsen as a muscle gets bigger, but only to a certain point at which it would plateau. This is only an idea of mine, and could be way off, but here goes anyway...
> 
> ...


Not sure I agree mate, the study information is debatable as experience isn't

discussed, tbh I could of told them before that if you take 20 odd people and

train there legs for 20 odd weeks then they will grown and lose bodyfat, thats

not in question, the question is when you are growing over months and years

does the recovery of the muscle take longer.

Its still the same muscle that you started with, its just grown, now does this

mean as it grows the ability to recover grows with it or does it fall behind the

growth, certainly when AAS are bought into the equasion it seems to me that

it would be impossible for recovery to keep up with growth, as your growth and

strenght are going beyond what is your natural composite, hence more weight

means more recovery.

Still only my theory and I'm not even sure I believe it myself, just wanting better

educated/experienced people than me to help me understand so I can get a little

more from this game while I still have breath in my lungs


----------



## TH0R (Aug 15, 2007)

Joshua said:


> if you don't sleep, loads and volume drop J


I think sleep could be a very important factor in recovery, almost as important as

time itself, and its something that would be very hard to prove, it would be

great to take 20 experienced bodybuilders and let them train and eat as normal

but change there sleep patterns, give some less, some more, some the same.

See how that would change things, i know every day stress is a factor as well

with catabolsim, but what could be more important than sleep, the actual time

when our body is at rest and ripe for repair


----------



## IanStu (Apr 12, 2009)

Well having tried both methods, I found that it made no difference, I made steady gains training each body part every 10 days and I made steady gains days training every 7 days.....I now train every 7 days as I enjoy going to the gym and I missed it when I had longer rest periods

I dont think there is a hard and fast rule, you see fantastic physiques on bodybuilders who use completely different training methods, its what ever suits you and gives you the most enjoyment.


----------



## TH0R (Aug 15, 2007)

Wee G said:


> Systemic fatigue can be cleared with intermittent deloading.
> 
> Fluctuating volume / load over time will allow for increases in mechanical stretch and subsequent mechanotransduction with no need to train to fatigue / failure / overly tax the CNS.
> 
> ...


I know where your coming from G but are there really any competative BBers

who don't go to failure and beyond regulaly??

I personally doubt it and the proof of the pudding as they say!!


----------



## jw007 (Apr 12, 2007)

I found as I got older I could train far less frequently and stil progress

In fact, TBH for some muscle groups 7 day recovery period is not enough

After heavy bench session, 7 days later im still sore, so sometimes have to leave it a bit..

When I was younger I could get away with far more frequent training, However I as I never did low volume as a youngster I cant say if it would have been benefitial at that time...

But yes I do believe, given that we are made of all same material bones, muscle, connective tissue etc

100kg bench places no where near the stress a 200kg bench does so I believe for myself more rest is required


----------



## round 2 (Jan 14, 2010)

I used to train with a couple of 200k bench boys and they used to train muscle groups every 9 days.So agree with what jw007 said:thumbup1:


----------



## TH0R (Aug 15, 2007)

IanStu said:


> Well having tried both methods, I found that it made no difference, I made steady gains training each body part every 10 days and I made steady gains days training every 7 days.....I now train every 7 days as I enjoy going to the gym and I missed it when I had longer rest periods
> 
> I dont think there is a hard and fast rule, you see fantastic physiques on bodybuilders who use completely different training methods, its what ever suits you and gives you the most enjoyment.


But there are differing parts to the argument, original post mentioned size of

muscle, imagine if we are missing the opportunity to increase our overall mass/strength

because we aren't utilising the isolated muscles in bench, squat, deads and Press.

What if its possible to train biceps every other day, triceps every other day,

same with shoulders, calves and thus get a massive carry over to our

bench, our squat, shoulder press, maybe not deads but hey ho.

Does the size of the muscle effect its recovery potential?

Sure you find fantastic physiques on bbers who train with different methods but

I know a few lads who don't even train with great physiques, its about getting

the optimum out of every workout thats the question, not about routines etc.

Joshua has pointed out the scientifically its seems unlikely that training body

parts once every 2 weeks would be effective, but physiques like Toms, Dutch's

James L's, seem to go against the grain??

We can't debate if you just say "either way works" man, we'd still be in the trees

with that attitude

Cmon Ian, I thought you'd be in the similar boat as me and try and get every last

ounce from your last year of training:tongue:


----------



## dtlv (Jul 24, 2009)

Joshua said:


> Changes in fibre characteristics is only one part of the equation - protein synthesis / hypertrophy is a more significant goal [iMHO] for most bodybuilders.
> 
> SMPS (Skeletal Muscle Protein Synthesis) demand would be increased if there was a greater amount of damage to the muscle, so the amount of recovery needed would increase - either through additional time or improved recovery rate. I suspect that there is some adaptation with improved recovery rate eg through greater perfusion of the muscle, thus greater nutrient delivery.
> 
> ...


Agreed, hypertrophy is the main goal of course.

The idea I was exploring was that if training isn't at all varied, the long term adaptations that the body would eventually make would possibly result in easier recovery (up to a point of eventual plateau) but less and less hypertrophy as a response... as the body doesn't make it's adaptations to exercise to improve hypertrophy or strength per se, it adapts to get more efficient at handling the demands placed upon it... in other words strength and size gains are an adaptive response to make the muscle recover more efficiently to handle repeated bouts of a type of workload. Once it's optimised for that load there's no need to further adapt and recovery potential is maximised and shouldn't decrease.

Thinking about this more though, even if you keep all factors within a routine the same over time (exercises, reps, sets, rest times, TUT etc) and all you do is increase the load, that still counts as a continuing form of variation and a significant progressive demand... at 1.40am I wasn't thinking clearly about this very obvious point :laugh:. Sorry folks!

I'll come back with more on this topic later as it's a really good thread you've started here tel :thumb:


----------



## sizar (Nov 13, 2008)

tel3563 said:


> Jmo but that is debatable, protein synthesis is improved but with the heavier
> 
> weight your lifting does it mean we need longer maybe? I honestly think the
> 
> ...


Exactly i trained legs on monday and todays is proper killing yesturday wasn't so bad and is going to be hurting til friday or saturday i totally agree with you on the tendons and connective tissue doesn't grow at the same rate as the muscle does when your on AAS so it's more likely to have pain from the heavy weights. i have notice this my self.


----------



## hilly (Jan 19, 2008)

good thread,

thoughts - could it not have more to do with the more experienced a lifter becomes the more they are able to get out of there training sessions so they can train a bodypart over 2 weeks instead of 1 but still cause enough damage to the muscle fibers to stimulate hypertrophy etc.

Also the more experienced/bigger/muscular you are the heavier weight you will be lifting meaning more damage to cns/joints/ body as a whole meanding an increase need in recovery time.

Add to this the fact that the bodies healing capabilities tend to slow with age due to decreases in all sorts of things play a major factor possibly?

I no mike mentzer/dorian etc say the more advanced you become the less work you actually do in the gym.

Then theres the thought that always pops up which is training a bodypart once a week, once every 2 weeks or twice over 8 days ala doggrapp and other methods all work for all individuals its just what suits us or what we prefer we get more benefit out of and this think this method is correct.


----------



## ares1 (Apr 27, 2008)

recovery comes down to two things imo - CNS recovery/adaption and Muscle recovery/adaption.

Whilst 200kg bench press may cause the same muscle adaption process as a 100kg bench press (assuming the subjects both complete the same ammount of reps with the same intesity)

it stands to reason that the taxation on the CNS will be far greater in the person that has lifted the heavier weights.

Whilst i dont agree with everything Mike Menzer said, he did state that the more advanced you become the longer you will need between sessions - this fits in with the point above, typically the CNS takes longer to recover - you tax it more by lifting heavier weight, you therefore need more time to recover.

This is my take on it anyway :lol:


----------



## Joshua (Aug 21, 2008)

tel3563 said:


> I think sleep could be a very important factor in recovery, almost as important as time itself, and its something that would be very hard to prove, it would be great to take 20 experienced bodybuilders and let them train and eat as normal but change there sleep patterns, give some less, some more, some the same.
> 
> See how that would change things, i know every day stress is a factor as well with catabolism, but what could be more important than sleep, the actual time when our body is at rest and ripe for repair


I have performed both in normal and sleep deprived states (partial and full deprivation for upto 2nights) on several occasions, and worked with others [n<10] too with similar protocols.

I am not sure as to its effects on recovery rates, as chronic sleep deprivation is particularly harmful, however even slight deprivation quickly reduces loads and volume. More modest impairment of performance kicks in quite quickly, and there seems to be a sharper impairment when there is obvious confusion and disorientation in the subject being beasted.

Most of the work was actually done with sustained endurance/cardio style work rather than weights, and for that the effects are much more stark. Interestingly the risk of URTIs from exercise induced oxidative stress sharply increases with the loss of one night sleep, suggesting that sleep provides some protective role regarding oxidation.

J


----------



## IanStu (Apr 12, 2009)

tel3563 said:


> Cmon Ian, I thought you'd be in the similar boat as me and try and get every last
> 
> ounce from *your last year of training* :tongue:


COCK...and thats my final word on the subject :lol:


----------



## Lois_Lane (Jul 21, 2009)

Well without getting all scientific over it Josh has done that just fine yes heavier weights take longer for the CNS to recover from. After deadlifting 300kg for 6 i wont be pulling again for two weeks but back in the day i would be able to pull every week or even twice.


----------



## hackskii (Jul 27, 2003)

I have not read any part of this thread other than the first post, but I will toss some stuff out there and bump this so I can read later.

New guys need not do a ton of exercises to properly get the stimulation for adaptive recovery.

A new guy can spend 10 minutes in the gym and get massive doms the next couple or few days.

Older trainers need to mix things up to get diffrent muscle stimulation do to being stale at doing the same thing, so to get an adaptive responce they need to do diffrent things, diffrent angles, diffrent rep ranges, volume, intensity, frequency.

The new guy does not need to do that as he is well new. 

I feel that the body is only adapting to the stimulation at hand.

High intensity needs lower frequency and volume.

Hi volume needs low intensity and less frequency.

More frequency needs less volume and less intensity.

Dont forget the mind to muscle coordination thing, I watch new guys and they dont have the control, or the nice fluid form, theirs is more reckless and kaotic paths in their pushing or pulling.

The seasoned guy uses very well controlled movements and if his is due to more mind to muscle coordination I would suggest that more fibers are working together hitting more muscles.

I think that new guys would have the best responce to training than a guy that has been at it for years.

I think of training like digging a hole, the deeper you go (training), the longer it takes to fill said hole (recovery).

I think the magic lies in learning ones body, training smarter if you will.

I get so tired of trying to help the new guys that want to do bench every training session and try a max, I give up on them, they wont listen.

One guy did listen and he started to get alot stronger, then went back to finding out who did the most 1 rep max with his friends, I gave up on him too...lol

The seasoned guy would be more open to suggestions, and less apt to ego lift.....IMO


----------



## Lois_Lane (Jul 21, 2009)

Nice post Scott.

In my experience you don't need variety you just need to work hard at the core lifts.

A tricep kick back may be variety but it is a waste of time when you could do dips.


----------



## TH0R (Aug 15, 2007)

hackskii said:


> I have not read any part of this thread other than the first post, but I will toss some stuff out there and bump this so I can read later.
> 
> New guys need not do a ton of exercises to properly get the stimulation for adaptive recovery.
> 
> ...


Nice post Hackski but I'm not so sure about he last statement


----------



## hackskii (Jul 27, 2003)

I only posted that because every new guy I ever tried to train didnt listen....lol

Ego lifting is bad and can result in injury.

Con, I was more referring primarily to diffrnet angles, lets say one was to do skull crushers every time, then perhaps he might want to trade off and do close grip bench.

Or for a guy that does pushdowns, he can do dips instead.

But for the guy that has all the mass he needs, diffrent isolation exercises wont hurt him one bit, a newbe should stick to the basic compound lifts as his foundation wont be all that great.

Kick backs?........................Gay.......... :lol:


----------



## SALKev (Feb 28, 2009)

So...

JW/Con say they need MORE RECOVERY after a session as they've progressed and Yates/Mentzer say the same thing.

Training methods are similar - Con, you train alot using HIT? JW lifts with enormous weights whereas Dorian/Mike were the leaders in HIT.

Could this be due to the type of training?

I'd like to hear from experienced trainers who train with high volume as opposed to HIT to see how the recovery rates differ over time.


----------



## hackskii (Jul 27, 2003)

CNS will need more recovery time with HIT than volume work.


----------



## Lois_Lane (Jul 21, 2009)

SALKev said:


> So...
> 
> JW/Con say they need MORE RECOVERY after a session as they've progressed and Yates/Mentzer say the same thing.
> 
> ...


Well yes. When i train with higher volume and not to failure American bodybuilder style i can recover very quickly but i do not get the same results as less frequent training and going mega heavy.

Check out PSCARB's log he does higher volume.


----------



## SALKev (Feb 28, 2009)

hackskii said:


> CNS will need more recovery time with HIT than volume work.





Lois_Lane said:


> Well yes. When i train with higher volume and not to failure American bodybuilder style i can recover very quickly but i do not get the same results as less frequent training and going mega heavy.
> 
> Check out PSCARB's log he does higher volume.


It seems I was a little tired last night and messed that post up, my apologies.

I was re-writing what I thought I was trying to ask but I somehow deleted it but the undo button didn't work as it's supposed to and it's now time to HIT the gym...

I'll get my coat.. 

Great thread though tel, have learnt a few things on the way to my distorted post.


----------



## Joshua (Aug 21, 2008)

I suspect CNS is the limiting factor when it comes to the workout frequency for training to failure.

As an aside, If I balance for total work done, I find that recovery time increases with the more compound exercises done. This suggests to me that the more CNS load used at any one given time has a greater demand on CNS load than the same amount of work spread out ie the Peak CNS demand is can be rate limiting.

Does that make sense?

J


----------



## TH0R (Aug 15, 2007)

hackskii said:


> CNS will need more recovery time with HIT than volume work.


Would that not depend on more factors than that ie, diet and inactive rest time

plus amount of volume

Its still possible to go to failure on volume, if this was done enough times I don't

see how there's a difference, in fact I've burnt out on both before.

Volume whilst not going to failure then fair enough, but volume training going to

failure, how is there a difference??


----------



## hackskii (Jul 27, 2003)

Consider it like this.

With HIT it is more of a sprinter, going full blast to the finish line.

The volume work is more like longer distance running, sure you can put some intensity but not all energy incourperated into one set.

Generally speaking the sprinter would use more fast twitch muscles like a sneeze that can go up to and over 100 miles an hour in less than a second.


----------



## Wee G1436114539 (Oct 6, 2007)

Joshua said:


> I suspect CNS is the limiting factor when it comes to the workout frequency for training to failure.
> 
> As an aside, If I balance for total work done, I find that recovery time increases with the more compound exercises done. This suggests to me that the more CNS load used at any one given time has a greater demand on CNS load than the same amount of work spread out ie the Peak CNS demand is can be rate limiting.
> 
> ...


Joshua,

I did a lot of messing about with this kind of idea a few years ago, trying to assign "fatigue" scores to particular exercises at a given % of 1RM so that rather than just tracking total Kg / Week as training load the bigger exercises counted as "more" than the actual KG load and little things like laterals, grip work etc didn't count at all.

I got a pretty decent data set for me but could never get accurate data for anyone else as they were typically pretty new to training and their subjective RPE, fatigue levels and RI often bore little relation to the actuality as borne out by their performance in a given session / week / month.

Anyway, for a little while i tried to set up training cycles around this fatigue coefficient instead of total tonnage and it worked ok but I got sick of wading through all the numbers. For what it's worth deadlifts had the highest impact.

Cheers,

G


----------



## hackskii (Jul 27, 2003)

Wee G said:


> For what it's worth deadlifts had the highest impact.


That does not surprise me with deads, going over 10 reps exhause me to no end, so does clean and jerks.


----------



## TH0R (Aug 15, 2007)

hackskii said:


> Consider it like this.
> 
> With HIT it is more of a sprinter, going full blast to the finish line.
> 
> ...


Makes sense:thumbup1:

What about the experience of the sprinter?

The initial post was about experience bringing more need for recouperation,

so if a novice or intermediate lifted HIT, of which there are varying degrees

of, because he has less fast twitch to call on, does it mean he won't need

the extended recouperation times??

Is one mans HIT different to another mans HIT??

Is the optimum training for hypertrophy somewhere inbetween or a mix of both??


----------



## hackskii (Jul 27, 2003)

Well, there are two types of hypertrophy, sarcoplasmic and myofibrillar.

This will help explain the diffrence's: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muscle_hypertrophy

CNS is a strange one.

It can add up like fetigue and over time turn chronic.

CNS needs time to repair, if you dont give it a rest, you will be forced to down the line, or end up with some form of chronic fetigue.

I would not be the best person to ask but genetic disposition would be something of consideration here.

I guess the answer would be more of something like this.

If a guy was to use HIT type training, would the CNS better support his training over time?

OR

Does the CNS adapt to stimilus like muscle adapts to resistance training?

I dont know, good question though, I will post a link to another member and see if we can get a responce.


----------



## dtlv (Jul 24, 2009)

hackskii said:


> Well, there are two types of hypertrophy, sarcoplasmic and myofibrillar.
> 
> This will help explain the diffrence's: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muscle_hypertrophy
> 
> ...


The CNS definitely does adapt to training and become more efficient at firing the fibers (Chronic neural adaptation induced by long-term resistance training in humans, The sites of neural adaptation induced by resistance training in humans, Transcranial magnetic stimulation during resistance training of the tibialis anterior muscle), but how it responds to exercise intensity and influences recovery time as far as I'm aware is still an area needing more research... so any suggestions about it are for now gonna involve some guess work.

The best way to determine whether overtraining or if recovery has been fully achieved still seems to be the old fashioned way - to see how you perform. When starting a routine that I've not done before, I always seem to take a few weeks of playing around to find the right balance of training volume vs loading vs rest time. Experience helps the guesswork process but sometimes a routine can still really surprise in the way it effects recovery.

Getting back to the physiology, from all I've read there doesn't seem to be any specific marker (interleukin levels, creatine phosphokinase levels, lactate dehydrogenase levels, serum glutamic transaminase levels etc) that when looked at on its own is a sure sign identifier of incomplete recovery and predictor of reduced performance.

However, IMO I think evidence is pretty strong that the prime regulatory mechanism for recovery has to be the inflammation/immune response. The magnitude of endocrine response seems to be what governs the amount of growth, but unlike SMPS, which seems to consistently take place within just 72 hours post workout, the inflammatory response seems to vary much more between individuals and possibly types and intensities of training (Interleukin-1 polymorphisms are associated with the inflammatory response in human muscle to acute resistance exercise, Impact of three different types of exercise on components of the inflammatory response ).

The importance of inflammation in recovery would also be backed up by the experiences of older athletes who describe slower recovery, and studies which suggest the immune response to inflammation post workout deteriorates with age (Aging alters macrophage properties in human skeletal muscle both at rest and in response to acute resistance exercise.).

I think the best approach for longevity of training is variation and periodization of load and volume, ideally conjugated (training different ways) and undulating (and alternating between them). This allows simultaneous training of multiple loading systems (alternating heavy and light sessions for example), gives more equal gains in both types of hypertrophy (sarcoplasmic primarily from the lighter load/greater volume sessions and myofibrillar mostly from the heavier/briefer sessions) and allowing (or seeming to allow) for the CNS to recover more optimally from each kind of workout due to the greater distance between them.

Training both ways together also may possibly have a synergistic effect on recovery times as adaptations to one kind of training (eg increased capiliarisation and cell volumisation due to higher volume exercise) may well better help recovery from the other kind of exercise (recovery from HIT style training may be improved by allowing better blood supply and more efficient immune response at clearing up the damage done to the muscle). No doubt doubt any synergy of this kind would begin at the cellular level.


----------



## Joshua (Aug 21, 2008)

hackskii said:


> Consider it like this.
> 
> With HIT it is more of a sprinter, going full blast to the finish line.
> 
> ...


I think that the HIT and volume labels each cover protocols that can have quite different effects. In particular I think that variation in the interset rest with volume work can have enormous differences in the effect, as can the reps per set.

With the shorter rest times there is a cumulative fatigue which I suspect changes the distribution of stimulus over different fibre types.

How this affects CNS load, I am not sure.



Wee G said:


> Joshua,
> 
> I did a lot of messing about with this kind of idea a few years ago, trying to assign "fatigue" scores to particular exercises at a given % of 1RM so that rather than just tracking total Kg / Week as training load the bigger exercises counted as "more" than the actual KG load and little things like laterals, grip work etc didn't count at all.
> 
> ...


Very interesting G.

It is similar to some work on muscle fatigue that I was looking, however I could not draw anything useful out of the data. Instead of observing fatigue by exercise, I was trying to weight the proportion of stimulus that each muscle had per exercise (retrospectively) then match the cumulative stimulus on each muscle to a subjective fatigue score based on aching and later to performance using that muscle. Neither of these datasets were useful.

After I failed to get utility, I restructured my training and recovery and since then CNS has been the main limiting factor for me, which reduced my motivation to investigate this whole matter further.

Do you have any other exercises that you have fatigue calculations for?

J


----------



## Joshua (Aug 21, 2008)

*Just a little aside relating to CNS...*

There was some studies [abstract] done a while back, looking at the effect of imagination on strength (torque) maintenance in the calves.

This work suggests that if one is unable to train eg( through injury ), if they imagine themselves performing the exercise then they will maintain strength. This also raises questions as to the mechanism of action eg( improved efficiency ), and whether such methods can be used to enhance traditional training allowing greater loading with reduced CNS demands.

I may have to start logging the number of imaginary sets I do for exercises along with the real ones :laugh:.

J


----------



## Wee G1436114539 (Oct 6, 2007)

Joshua,

I have the whole data set somewhere on my 1 of my old hard drives, but it is just for "me". I don't think it would hold any surprises - DL's, snatch pulls / clean pulls, back squats, bent rows, front squats etc were all high on the list.

Detlev,

Re: the inflammation markers taking longer to come down in old folks following training...

IGF1 also drops of with aging, or rather the response to exercise stimulus drops off. Interestingly so does the increase in PS following eating, but that can be "re-started" with high dose l-leucine. I think the slowed recovery may be at least in part due to a lack of response to mechanotransduction AND a drop off in the PS elevating effect of food intake as well as the delayed inflammation clearance.

Regarding the undulating / conjugate model I pretty much agree - interestingly you don't actually need HGF to bind to Cmet to stimulate satellite cell differentiation, HIF1 (hypoxia inducible factor 1) can also bind to it, and that can ofcourse be stimulated through hypoxia. So, alternating heavy sessions with hypoxia type stuff would work well to reduce CNS loading whilst keeping Cmet busy. If you used occlusion the % 1RM could be as low as 20% on the hypoxia workouts, I can't see that having much CNS impact.

Cheers,

G


----------



## hackskii (Jul 27, 2003)

Wow, interesting ideas here, I enjoy the reading.

Josh, I remember years ago when I was learning how to play golf (swing a club), I was told to immagine swinging the club as observed from a pro and doing it over and over in my head, then going out and doing it.

Makes sense as in your mind you can have a path, then in practice try and follow the path.

Really interesting stuff guys, I can say from an age standpoint, I cant do what I used to be able to do, and hell yah, recovery takes longer.

I notice this way more when I have a layoff.

Was sick for 3 weeks and didnt train, comming back I did full body workouts as I knew I would be sore and all parts were not hit for 3 weeks.

The DOMS was damn bad and I did light intensity....lol

Getting old sucks, but its like anything else, if I stop, I will really feel my age.

Love this thread.


----------



## dtlv (Jul 24, 2009)

Wee G said:


> Re: the inflammation markers taking longer to come down in old folks following training...
> 
> IGF1 also drops of with aging, or rather the response to exercise stimulus drops off. Interestingly so does the increase in PS following eating, but that can be "re-started" with high dose l-leucine. I think the slowed recovery may be at least in part due to a lack of response to mechanotransduction AND a drop off in the PS elevating effect of food intake as well as the delayed inflammation clearance.
> 
> ...


Really good post Gavin - has given me a much better idea of the rationale behind occlusion training, rather than just reading "it upregulates a few important enzymes".

You touch on Sarcopenia (age related muscle wasting), and while someone in their late thirties/forties/fifties etc who is exercising regularly and eating properly shouldn't experience this condition to any major degree, the underlying age related changes are still gonna be there.

From what I can recall, the ageing athlete has all of the following natural changes to face:

Reduced Testosterone (total, free and bound)

Reduced Growth Hormone

Reduced IGF1

Reduced DHEA

Reduced satelite Cell function

Blunted post prandial signalling of SMPS in response to complete dietary proteins

Blunted hypertrophic response to exercise

Blunted expression of various signalling proteins

Increased rate of Type II Fiber catabolism

Higher protein diets and regular resistance training are the answers to most of the above, but there's a definite change in gene expression that seems to underpin it all, that I think it's fair to guess that a long time exercisor has to face these things too, only his behavior and diet is already optimised to counter it.



> *Identification of a molecular signature of sarcopenia *
> 
> The age-specific expression signature was comprised of 45 genes; 27 were upregulated and 18 were downregulated.
> 
> ...


No doubt all this, especially the increases in "genes involved in mediating cellular responses to inflammation and apoptosis" contributes to a reduction in recovery ability as we age. This wouldn't be something specific to well trained muscle being harder to recover, but a general decline in recovery due to age.


----------



## big (Sep 14, 2004)

tel3563 said:


> I remember Nytol stating most people don't have the guts to only train this
> 
> way ie bp e2wks, but equally as you stated, some of the strongest people in
> 
> the world do squats 3 times or even more pwk:confused1:


And many (most?) of the strongest squatters, don't actually squat often at all. WSB guys generally squat to max once every 9 weeks or so.

But let's not use the strongest people in the world as an example. Many of them started off squatting 200kg+. And most are genetically in a different class to anybody reading this thread.

IMO if you are increasing the weights regularly, then you're doing fine. If not, then look at what the guys benching 180kg+ (WHO WERE BENCHING 160kg LAST YEAR) are doing instead

Don't look at the strongest guys for inspiration. Look at the guys who are improving year upon year

I bet you'll find more of them train like Nytol suggests than train like most gym-goers lifting the same weight week in and week out do

So yes, I agree with the essence of the original post... as you get stronger, mere mortals need more rest

All IMO of course


----------



## TH0R (Aug 15, 2007)

big said:


> And many (most?) of the strongest squatters, don't actually squat often at all. WSB guys generally squat to max once every 9 weeks or so.
> 
> But let's not use the strongest people in the world as an example. Many of them started off squatting 200kg+. And most are genetically in a different class to anybody reading this thread.
> 
> ...


This is a very good post, I like the bold type comments:thumbup1:

The only debate I have is that there could be a difference between strength

and hypertrophy, I'm not sure if there is I'm just putting it out there


----------



## goonerton (Sep 7, 2009)

IMO its all relative. Someone who at maximum capacity is benching 100k is stressing their muscles to the same extent as someone whose capacity allows them to bench 150K.

For example if you started out being able to bench 100k for a maximum of 4 x 8 sets and managed to get this up to 4x8 with 160k, and then decided to only bench 130k 4x8. I am pretty certain your muscles would have been far more stressed when you were benching your max 100k, than they would be now you are benching 130, when you could do 160.

It could be that the reason some people are finding their recovery takes longer as their training progresses , could have more to the with them becoming more skilled at training and more adept at blasting their muscles harder, than it has to do with the actual increase of weight being lifted as strength increases.


----------



## hackskii (Jul 27, 2003)

Dtlv74 said:


> From what I can recall, the ageing athlete has all of the following natural changes to face:
> 
> Reduced Testosterone (total, free and bound)
> 
> ...


In Red.

There are more things than that like less melatonin and reduced sleep because of loss of this sleep hormone.

The list is long, and none of them are good....lol


----------



## martin brown (Dec 31, 2008)

big said:


> And many (*most?) of the strongest squatters, don't actually squat often at all*. WSB guys generally squat to max once every 9 weeks or so.
> 
> But let's not use the strongest people in the world as an example. Many of them started off squatting 200kg+. And most are genetically in a different class to anybody reading this thread.
> 
> ...


The guys at Westside pretty much squat TWICE a week now mate  Things have changed! Remember westside always used a speed day every week for squats at 50-60% 1RM weight PLUS around 20-30% tension so pretty high % 1RM.

Also the guys as Lexon (Chuck V etc) also squat each and every week - and they a few guys squatting around 500kg!

They aslo do some form of deadlift heavy most weeks too.

I don't really agree with most of the posts here - the stronger you get it doesn't make any difference if you know how to control your training cycle/program. It's only a problem when you over do everything and have no methods of catch up.

Edit - I think the guys trainign a bodypart every two weeks and still doing well says more for the lack of muscle breakdown than the extra rest being a benefit - it shows being catbolic is far over feared for most using PED's + proper diets!

I follow a conjugate plan with a three week volume/intensity (%1RM) wave. It has been working well for me but I have played around with other things too.

M


----------



## dtlv (Jul 24, 2009)

martin brown said:


> The guys at Westside pretty much squat TWICE a week now mate  Things have changed! Remember westside always used a speed day every week for squats at 50-60% 1RM weight PLUS around 20-30% tension so pretty high % 1RM.
> 
> Also the guys as Lexon (Chuck V etc) also squat each and every week - and they a few guys squatting around 500kg!
> 
> ...


I kinda agree with Martin, especially the highlighted bit. While HIT type training definitely is a good way to grow, the ever increasing requirement to do more than before (progression being vital to hypertrophic adaptation) maybe means that if you keep going down that path you end up with greater and greater levels of inflammation and longer CNS recovery as a cost to get those gains.

Higher volume training however is also somewhat limiting when done exclusively - eventually workouts would have to become hours and hours long granting a blunted hormonal response as well as massively depleted energy stores.

The key imo is definitely in manipulating intensity through periodization and realising that it's about stimulating a muscle not frying it... and that effective stimulation can be achieved in many different ways.


----------



## dtlv (Jul 24, 2009)

hackskii said:


> Increased aromitization, thus higher levels of estrogen
> 
> Reduced hydrochloric acid and more defiencies in vitamins and minerals due to less absorption (vitamin B12 specifically).
> 
> ...


Sucks getting old doesn't it?

I didn't realise older folks aromatize more testosterone - interesting and something I'll research a bit. I might have a look for studies on age and cortisol output too - if there's a correlation there then that's a biggie to overcome.


----------



## hackskii (Jul 27, 2003)

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^hi^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Men at 55 produce more estrogen than their female counterparts at same given age.

Meaning men tend to get fatter when the age and thus more aromatase activity.

This tends to increase belly fat which in turn promotes more aromatase activity, which in turn tends to switch off the testosterone button, as testosterone is the only method for conversion to estrogen.

With that said, estrogen is approx 200 times more supressive and logically the only way the man has to limit estrogen is to limit testosterone..............

Bad mix of hormones going on with the older chaps.

Thus said about women (menopausal) women having less estrogen than their male counterparts being the same age (55).....

That sets the stage for less free test (elivations in SHBG), and also declining testosterone levels (serum).


----------



## dtlv (Jul 24, 2009)

hackskii said:


> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^hi^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> 
> Men at 55 produce more estrogen than their female counterparts at same given age.
> 
> ...


Nice post and makes a lot of sense. Would rep ya but... "You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to hackskii again."


----------



## hackskii (Jul 27, 2003)

Dtlv74 said:


> Nice post and makes a lot of sense. Would rep ya but... "You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to hackskii again."


Cant rep you either mate....lol

Kindof fair actually, and ironic.

your perspective is that of youth and information.

Mine is thus of experiance, the information thing passed me by when I had the only basic of math.......

All advanced math I never knew, nor got the chance to explore.

Mine is but of experiance, and things I heard many years ago (40 plus).

Common sense actually, and even that was one of the only things I can hold on to.

It's what I know.

I can no doubt be wrong and most likely correct, (being wrong).

I love you guys.

You help me.

Good folk you guys and girls are (pollitically correct:lol:

Still love you guys.

I notice that without a goal, I tend to drop the ball.

Right now, I want to save money.

I can, but I feel lazy at training due to more time at work.

How is that workin?

Good, but at a compromise.

Family suffering, but finances are not.

See?

Sorry, had an extra shot of tequilla, and I gotta go.....

Cheers


----------



## hackskii (Jul 27, 2003)

Fat, flyby, gotta buzz, old man, flyby^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Im still handsome, ask my Dad.... :lol:


----------



## dtlv (Jul 24, 2009)

Hackskii + tequilla = great posting :thumb: :lol:

Have another one buddy :beer:


----------



## hackskii (Jul 27, 2003)

lol, almost forgot I posted that dribble......... :lol:

Its like I killed the thread.......

Ok, back on topic.

Any of you guys do anything to reduce stress?

Not drugs, but relaxation stuff, breathing exercises or anything like that?


----------



## Wee G1436114539 (Oct 6, 2007)

I do some progressive relaxation once in a while. This is a REALLY old article but i still agree with most of it...lol.

http://www.bodybuilding.com/fun/core_may_3.htm


----------



## dtlv (Jul 24, 2009)

In my late twenties I got well into meditation, and played around with many different styles as well as pranayama/breathing exercises... meditation doesnt have to be all about stillness and calm though, you can use certain kinds of meditation to raise your energy and excitability too.

Have fallen out of the habit recently though and need to get back to it... great things seem to happen when you get in tune with your body and mind.


----------



## hackskii (Jul 27, 2003)

This will crack you up.

My twin and I both have high blood pressure.

The other day we both checked out bp with the monitor at work.

His was pretty freaking high even though he is on meds.

The area is in the cafateria and between meals it is totally quiet in there (surprising because it is an airplane factory and totally freaking loud outside the caf.

So, he keeps taking it and it was pretty damn high, each time he knew it was going up.

I pulled out my iphone and played some relaxation music by Sayama (very calming instamental music), and set next to him, he took his blood pressure again and his numbers were far lower, I started cracking up as it made a big diffrence.

Perhaps it just allowed him to focus on something else than his bad numbers, but none the less, it was noticable and I was cracking up.

Have someone yell at you while you take your blood pressure, then let me know what you see. :lol:

I dont deal with stress well, and at work my focus is on just being an observer, I know that they are going to do things there way and I will just float along and let them.


----------

