low volume, high frequency

B5150

B5150

Legend
Awards
3
  • RockStar
  • Legend!
  • Established
There is a lot more to hypertrophy than simply 'contraction'.

A lot of variables in "work load" contribute to CNS exhaustion.

Support your claims with some research otherwise you are just posting your opinion, which of course, you are entitled to. But then again everyone has one.
 

MrSquat

New member
Awards
0
There is a lot more to hypertrophy than simply 'contraction'.

A lot of variables in "work load" contribute to CNS exhaustion.

Support your claims with some research otherwise you are just posting your opinion, which of course, you are entitled to. But then again everyone has one.
I would like to see some scientific or medical papers showing the variables you describe please otherwise it seems someone else is posting just an opinion.I was asked my opinion but if necessary I will support it but first I would like to see some contrary evidence.
 
B5150

B5150

Legend
Awards
3
  • RockStar
  • Legend!
  • Established
I would like to see some scientific or medical papers showing the variables you describe please otherwise it seems someone else is posting just an opinion.
...and in here lies the dilemma.
 

MrSquat

New member
Awards
0
...and in here lies the dilemma.
No it isn't. As I said I can provide scientific backing for my opinion if there is contrary scientific evidence put forth. If you can't (or won't) be bothered to produce any contrary evidence why should I prove your absent evidence wrong? You claim there are other factors in exercise that contribute to hypertrophy, show scientific evidence.
 
ShakesAllDay

ShakesAllDay

Well-known member
Awards
1
  • Established
I'm trolling because you don't agree? Whatever.
Your responses are not informative - they are simply argumentative. You pretty much keep reiterating that "I'm right, you're wrong."
 
ShakesAllDay

ShakesAllDay

Well-known member
Awards
1
  • Established
Yes....and the eccentric doesn't follow muscular contraction? This does nothing but agree with what I said so why are you disagreeing?
Doesn't have to. I know a lot of people that do heavy negatives (>100%RM). They can't contract (press) the weight up... they use the help of others then lower the weight on their own.
 
ShakesAllDay

ShakesAllDay

Well-known member
Awards
1
  • Established
I think this thread has taken a tangent. Mr. Squat, do you have anything to add relating to low volume + high freq. training vs. high volume + low freq. training?
 

MrSquat

New member
Awards
0
ShakesAllDay, you might as well save your posts since I had you on ignore as soon as you made your immature accusation. I was told that AM had a smart, mature group of posters and I would appreciate it if you stop trying to make that a lie.
 
B5150

B5150

Legend
Awards
3
  • RockStar
  • Legend!
  • Established
I can go one and on a find plenty of research that states that contraction is not the sole contributor to hypertrophy.

There is of course eccentric, as well as time under tension, progressive over load, negatives...etc etc.
 
ShakesAllDay

ShakesAllDay

Well-known member
Awards
1
  • Established
ShakesAllDay, you might as well save your posts since I had you on ignore as soon as you made your immature accusation. I was told that AM had a smart, mature group of posters and I would appreciate it if you stop trying to make that a lie.
:ntome:
 
B5150

B5150

Legend
Awards
3
  • RockStar
  • Legend!
  • Established
Contraction is not the sole contributor to hypertrophy. There are multiple factors. Show me evidence that contraction is the sole contributor to hypertrophy.
 

MrSquat

New member
Awards
0
I can go one and on a find plenty of research that states that contraction is not the sole contributor to hypertrophy.

There is of course eccentric, as well as time under tension, progressive over load, negatives...etc etc.
Eccentric is part of muscular contraction. TUT pertains to the time the muscle is under contraction and is a tactic that causes stimulation not the process of stimulation. Progressive overload again are a tactic not stimulation itself and what are you overloading...once again, the muscular contraction. Negatives...once again like a broken record you come back to eccentric and muscular contraction. Where is your scientific or medical research that proves me wrong?
 

MrSquat

New member
Awards
0
Oh...I get it. Speak against "group think broscience" and get negged by an idiot. Guess my friend was wrong about AM. There are some jerks here. BTW, ignore means I can't read your comments or didn't you know that?
 

MrSquat

New member
Awards
0
Act as if you don't care. I find it funny how you disagree with what I said yet you post a bunch of papers that point to hypertrophy caused by muscular contraction.

:yawn:
 
ShakesAllDay

ShakesAllDay

Well-known member
Awards
1
  • Established
Haven't I read somewhere that simply eating a caloric surplus, regardless of training, causes increases in LBM (of course adipose, as well)?

Maybe not.
 
B5150

B5150

Legend
Awards
3
  • RockStar
  • Legend!
  • Established
Act as if you don't care. I find it funny how you disagree with what I said yet you post a bunch of papers that point to hypertrophy caused by muscular contraction.

:yawn:
My point is that there are various methods to induce muscle contraction. So in essence I would not be disagreeing with you that contraction causes muscular hypertrophy.

For the record, please make no mistake, I'm not acting like I don't care...I don't. :)
 

MrSquat

New member
Awards
0
My point is that there are various methods to induce muscle contraction. So in essence I would not be disagreeing with you that contraction causes muscular hypertrophy.

For the record, please make no mistake, I'm not acting like I don't care...I don't. :)
Ok..you agree with me but you found a need to argue that I was wrong? That's a new one...
 
B5150

B5150

Legend
Awards
3
  • RockStar
  • Legend!
  • Established
No. I was not arguing you were wrong. I mistook your statement of "contraction" to suggest "concentric" and therefore stated other means (eccentric, etc) that ultimately are also "contraction".

Would you like to argue the point that I am stating that I am not arguing with you...?
 

MrSquat

New member
Awards
0
No. I was not arguing you were wrong. I mistook your statement of "contraction" to suggest "concentric" and therefore stated other means (eccentric, etc) that ultimately are also "contraction".

Would you like to argue the point that I am stating that I am not arguing with you...?
Later...

Is it a good time yet? :D
 
Apowerz6

Apowerz6

Board Sponsor
Awards
1
  • Established
And MR. Squat for you we have the ARSE On Your Shoulder, I Am Smart And You Are Dumb Because I Have Some Medical Knowledge Award for you.

As stated there are many roads to get to a destination, it does not have to be JUST yours, you asked for science B gave it to you where is your journal articles proving your opinoins, oh wait because you come from a medical background your opinion mkaes it valid, and without reseach makes it credible right? WTF, please stop trolling and give this thread some intelligent post, or please stop with this heady Patrick Arnold like banter.

B really does not care, he is not trying to pretend.
 

MrSquat

New member
Awards
0
And MR. Squat for you we have the ARSE On Your Shoulder, I Am Smart And You Are Dumb Because I Have Some Medical Knowledge Award for you.

As stated there are many roads to get to a destination, it does not have to be JUST yours, you asked for science B gave it to you where is your journal articles proving your opinoins, oh wait because you come from a medical background your opinion mkaes it valid, and without reseach makes it credible right? WTF, please stop trolling and give this thread some intelligent post, or please stop with this heady Patrick Arnold like banter.

B really does not care, he is not trying to pretend.
Excuse me? I didn't say anything about getting to any destination nor did I say anything about any background. In case your too dumb to read, "B" as you call him already admitted that he misunderstood that I said contraction not contracture and he agrees with me. BTW, take your accusation and shove it. You are going on ignore just like the other idiot.
 

Maverick60

Member
Awards
1
  • Established
Who is your friend so I can neg him too for bringing a pompous jackass to the board?

Muscular contraction indeed induces hypertrophy. We all use contraction to lift the weights in the gym "bro". His question to anyone that wasnt just trying to be a douche bag would have been clearly interpreted as what type of muscular contraction is more advantageous for a person to use to result in the greatest amount of hypertrophy. No one was arguing against you, B was simply stating that there are various ways to entice more or less hypertrophy from the basic theory you stated of contraction. Otherwise I would just stand in front of a mirror and flex my biceps all day and make them 22's - Its contraction, right? They should grow! Volume, intensity, tempo, rest time between sets, full or partial range of motion, and other factors of your muscular contraction will all affect the degree of stimulation and the resulting hypertrophy.

It sounds like there is a chance you may be an intelligent person MrSquat, but what good would all the knowledge in the world do for you if no one likes you enough to care to listen to what you are actually saying? Your attitude in this thread has been very unrepresentative of a quality character, and will lessen the credibility of any quality knowledge that you may or may not bring to this board. I would like to ask you to try to lighten your approach when discussing future topics for everyones sake. This type of debate brings nothing positive to the AM community, and Im sure not too many people appreciate it.
 

MrSquat

New member
Awards
0
Who is your friend so I can neg him too for bringing a pompous jackass to the board?

Muscular contraction indeed induces hypertrophy. We all use contraction to lift the weights in the gym "bro". His question to anyone that wasnt just trying to be a douche bag would have been clearly interpreted as what type of muscular contraction is more advantageous for a person to use to result in the greatest amount of hypertrophy. No one was arguing against you, B was simply stating that there are various ways to entice more or less hypertrophy from the basic theory you stated of contraction. Otherwise I would just stand in front of a mirror and flex my biceps all day and make them 22's - Its contraction, right? They should grow! Volume, intensity, tempo, rest time between sets, full or partial range of motion, and other factors of your muscular contraction will all affect the degree of stimulation and the resulting hypertrophy.

It sounds like there is a chance you may be an intelligent person MrSquat, but what good would all the knowledge in the world do for you if no one likes you enough to care to listen to what you are actually saying? Your attitude in this thread has been very unrepresentative of a quality character, and will lessen the credibility of any quality knowledge that you may or may not bring to this board. I would like to ask you to try to lighten your approach when discussing future topics for everyones sake. This type of debate brings nothing positive to the AM community, and Im sure not too many people appreciate it.
Tell you what. Cut the pompous condescending bullshit and there is a possibilty that you won't get put on my ignore list. If you feel that you have anything of worth to say it isn't going to be heard if you continue. Understand?

Actually forget the above. Your assinine jackass remark is going on ignore. Really smart move you made...good way to get heard, I'll remember the method.
 
ShakesAllDay

ShakesAllDay

Well-known member
Awards
1
  • Established
You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to MrSquat again.
Well, I'll be a son of a b!tch.

edit: Mr. Squat, why not go back over to that compound lift/stabilizer thread? It seems to at least be worthwhile.
 

MrSquat

New member
Awards
0
C'mon guys...keep negging me to show how immature some people are.
 
ShakesAllDay

ShakesAllDay

Well-known member
Awards
1
  • Established
C'mon guys...keep negging me to show how immature some people are.
Unfortunately, I'll have to wait until another day. :(

But, when Hal 2000 finally gives in, it's going to be a NEG PARTAY! Bring your friends!

:djparty:
 
celc5

celc5

Well-known member
Awards
3
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
  • RockStar
Never said he couldn't do whatever he pleases. There is no scientific backing (this is the exercise science forum) to believe that exercise does not tap into the body's recovery potential.
It takes muscles 36-48 hours to recover. It takes the neurologic system 5-7 days to recover.

Higher frequency = more consistent instigation of anabolic activity... without exogenous hormones of course.
 
Apowerz6

Apowerz6

Board Sponsor
Awards
1
  • Established
Yeah I have been ignored. Wow sounds like Pee Wee's playhouse I know you are, but what I am I...

Whatever, I like the idea NEO, and as I have seen from a carribean NATTY pro, he grew like a weed doing whole body workouts 5 days a week, and continues to do this today.So anywas there are many ways to skin a cat.
 

MrSquat

New member
Awards
0
It takes muscles 36-48 hours to recover. It takes the neurologic system 5-7 days to recover.
In all cases? For everybody? Let's see some backing for this because I honestly believe this to be a myth along the same lines as 1 lb of muscle burns 50 calories.

Higher frequency = more consistent instigation of anabolic activity... without exogenous hormones of course.
That is opinion based on what very well may not have science backing it. But I do believe that WITH those exogenous hormones a higher frequency would be fine.
 
Apowerz6

Apowerz6

Board Sponsor
Awards
1
  • Established
AND ONCE AGAIN I ASK WHERE IS HIS SCIENCE TO PROVE HIS POINT!!! This guy spouts of with science backed claims without 1 effing journal article ref. Please LMK who ref'd him cuz I am going to neg rep the ish out him for this tool!!!
 
celc5

celc5

Well-known member
Awards
3
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
  • RockStar
as I have seen from a carribean NATTY pro, he grew like a weed doing whole body workouts 5 days a week, and continues to do this today.So anywas there are many ways to skin a cat.
For you guys that are looking for science to support frequency of training, you should check out HST training. It's pretty much based on frequent full body workouts with studies to back it up (not to mention tons of subjective feedback).
 

MrSquat

New member
Awards
0
For you guys that are looking for science to support frequency of training, you should check out HST training. It's pretty much based on frequent full body workouts with studies to back it up (not to mention tons of subjective feedback).
Think you mean anecdotal. Subjective would be in the mind and biased.
 
celc5

celc5

Well-known member
Awards
3
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
  • RockStar
In all cases? For everybody? Let's see some backing for this because I honestly believe this to be a myth along the same lines as 1 lb of muscle burns 50 calories.

That is opinion based on what very well may not have science backing it. But I do believe that WITH those exogenous hormones a higher frequency would be fine.
I'm almost positive that I have support for those time frames. If I forget to respond within a day or 2, pm me a reminder and I'll do my best to back it up with published studies.
 

Maverick60

Member
Awards
1
  • Established
AND ONCE AGAIN I ASK WHERE IS HIS SCIENCE TO PROVE HIS POINT!!! This guy spouts of with science backed claims without 1 effing journal article ref. Please LMK who ref'd him cuz I am going to neg rep the ish out him for this tool!!!
No you have it all wrong here, he is MrSquat, he needs no proof to his claims, we must prove his unproven claims wrong or we have no right to disagree. We are arguing against an educated idiot. The worst kind, just above the combination of ignorance and arrogance. Its like a naked straight man agreeing to wrestle a naked gay man, the straight man cant win that battle either way.
 
Apowerz6

Apowerz6

Board Sponsor
Awards
1
  • Established
No you have it all wrong here, he is MrSquat, he needs no proof to his claims, we must prove his unproven claims wrong or we have no right to disagree. We are arguing against an educated idiot. The worst kind, just above the combination of ignorance and arrogance. Its like a naked straight man agreeing to wrestle a naked gay man, the straight man cant win that battle either way.
:toofunny:
That by far has been the funnniest **** I have heard in awhile!!!:cheers:
 

MrSquat

New member
Awards
0
I'm almost positive that I have support for those time frames. If I forget to respond within a day or 2, pm me a reminder and I'll do my best to back it up with published studies.
Hey not a problem. I will read them whenever you put them up.
 

Necroticism

Well-known member
Awards
1
  • Established
It takes muscles 36-48 hours to recover. It takes the neurologic system 5-7 days to recover.

Higher frequency = more consistent instigation of anabolic activity... without exogenous hormones of course.

that was the premise behind this kind of training system. i read somewhere(if i can find the source ill post it) that protein synthesis in a particular muscle is spiked for 36 hours after stimulation. assuming that that is true, it made more sense to me to cause minor stimulation, thus low volume, to the muscle so that it grows in small increments more frequently, opposed to doing high volume and expecting a more substantial amount of growth in the week or so i would rest the muscle. and then after this premise popped in my head, i went looking around for similar approaches to this, and i found one on another forum that is virtually exactly how i am doing mine, and everyone who utilizes it swears by it. and squat, you said in one of these more recent posts that this training style would be acceptable(not exact words of course) if one were using exogenous hormones. i am starting a cycle in a few weeks on top of this...but regardless, i am not arguing that your, and the majority of other peoples methods don't work, i am stating that this one may. you have yet to prove to me that what i am going to do WILL NOT work, and if you could show me any published studies that says that the approach i am going to take to training is ineffective i will believe you, but until then i am going to test it. i read a good quote that pertains to different training forms that i find suitable here, "everything works, but only for so long" and the typical high volume low frequency program stopped working, so i am doing the opposite.
 

MrSquat

New member
Awards
0
that was the premise behind this kind of training system. i read somewhere(if i can find the source ill post it) that protein synthesis in a particular muscle is spiked for 36 hours after stimulation. assuming that that is true, it made more sense to me to cause minor stimulation, thus low volume, to the muscle so that it grows in small increments more frequently, opposed to doing high volume and expecting a more substantial amount of growth in the week or so i would rest the muscle. and then after this premise popped in my head, i went looking around for similar approaches to this, and i found one on another forum that is virtually exactly how i am doing mine, and everyone who utilizes it swears by it. and squat, you said in one of these more recent posts that this training style would be acceptable(not exact words of course) if one were using exogenous hormones. i am starting a cycle in a few weeks on top of this...but regardless, i am not arguing that your, and the majority of other peoples methods don't work, i am stating that this one may. you have yet to prove to me that what i am going to do WILL NOT work, and if you could show me any published studies that says that the approach i am going to take to training is ineffective i will believe you, but until then i am going to test it. i read a good quote that pertains to different training forms that i find suitable here, "everything works, but only for so long" and the typical high volume low frequency program stopped working, so i am doing the opposite.
Guess I wasn't exactly clear. I didn't mean any specific type of training but I meant high volume but the volume, intensity, overload or whatever you prefer to call it must be enough to stimulate hypertrophy. You mention minor stimulation. That is not possible. Either a muscle is stimulated or it isn't.
 

Similar threads


Top