So, the common wisdom is that when cutting, keep weights lower and reps higher. Sure. But why?
All in all, what that boils down to is longer TUT than the vanilla sets of 6-8 "2s up, 1s rest, 1s down, no stretch" reps we see all the time in the gym. Such reps are OK for strength training but all the more knowledgeable bodybuilders know that such reps are far, far from optimal for hypertrophy.
Longer TUT, such as 5 second reps for sets of 10, are known to be much better than the above for muscle size. 50s TUT / set or so has been referred to by knowledgeable people as the single best method for hypertrophy provided the diet is good, meaning plenty of protein and a calorie excess. While "the single best method" is of course subject to debate, this thread isn't for debating these finer points. I want to make this thread about the rationale for a specific training style or regimen for cutting, which of course would entail a discussion about what would be best for bulking (pretty much a given, stated above) and for recomposition.
As such, this is why I put "Advanced discussion" in the thread title, to stave off newb comments such as "for me, 15 reps is good while cutting". Which might be true, but is NOT the point of this thread. This thread is more about science than what works for certain individual.
Now of course long-TUT training such as the 50s regimen mentioned above, does create lots of microfibrillar damage. 15 or 20 reps of 2-1-1-0 style is a pretty clumsy way of achieving this, but the end result is not too far from being the same. Lots of microtearing, which means a lot of hard work for recuperation. Now in a calorie surplus this is perfectly OK since you have lots of energy readily available. Since a calorie surplus is needed for muscle hypertrophy, it ensues that a calorie deficit limits the ability of the muscles to supercompensate the damage. Indeed, if the calorie deficit is too much, catabolism and severe overtraining ensues. From this stems the question: In a calorie deficit, even if the protein is present, what is the best way to keep the muscle?
It took a while, but there you have my first question. The long-TUT training which is used for hypertrophy will be catabolic in a calorie deficit, that's almost a given from what I know. Now of course if the calorie deficit is small, the athlete might maintain the muscle mass and lose fat, but there will be catabolism when he cuts the calories a little more, attempting to speed up fatloss.
What the cutting athlete needs IMO is to maintain muscle mass as well as possible while reducing bodyfat through diet and muscle-friendly cardio. To do this, he needs to just stimulate regeneration of the tissue and create the least amount possible of myofibrillar damage. This way, the amount of work needed to maintain the fiber in good shape is easily achievable even in a calorie deficit. Low-intensity cardio and perhaps HIIT can make up the bulk of the fatloss.
I'm thinking "out loud" on this thread, going from supposition to reasoning. I'm not stating this is definitive science, it is simply my current reasoning on the matter.
Of course, for the athlete running anabolics, the above-stated reasoning is somewhat different. Maintaining muscle mass should be relatively easy and more damage can be sustained by the muscle without exceeding its ability to repair. Perhaps some long-TUT is doable by the enhanced athlete, but I feel the volume should be limited. So perhaps a HIT-like routine with lots of cardio and a good diet would be best for the natural athlete in cutting mode?
What do you guys think?
All in all, what that boils down to is longer TUT than the vanilla sets of 6-8 "2s up, 1s rest, 1s down, no stretch" reps we see all the time in the gym. Such reps are OK for strength training but all the more knowledgeable bodybuilders know that such reps are far, far from optimal for hypertrophy.
Longer TUT, such as 5 second reps for sets of 10, are known to be much better than the above for muscle size. 50s TUT / set or so has been referred to by knowledgeable people as the single best method for hypertrophy provided the diet is good, meaning plenty of protein and a calorie excess. While "the single best method" is of course subject to debate, this thread isn't for debating these finer points. I want to make this thread about the rationale for a specific training style or regimen for cutting, which of course would entail a discussion about what would be best for bulking (pretty much a given, stated above) and for recomposition.
As such, this is why I put "Advanced discussion" in the thread title, to stave off newb comments such as "for me, 15 reps is good while cutting". Which might be true, but is NOT the point of this thread. This thread is more about science than what works for certain individual.
Now of course long-TUT training such as the 50s regimen mentioned above, does create lots of microfibrillar damage. 15 or 20 reps of 2-1-1-0 style is a pretty clumsy way of achieving this, but the end result is not too far from being the same. Lots of microtearing, which means a lot of hard work for recuperation. Now in a calorie surplus this is perfectly OK since you have lots of energy readily available. Since a calorie surplus is needed for muscle hypertrophy, it ensues that a calorie deficit limits the ability of the muscles to supercompensate the damage. Indeed, if the calorie deficit is too much, catabolism and severe overtraining ensues. From this stems the question: In a calorie deficit, even if the protein is present, what is the best way to keep the muscle?
It took a while, but there you have my first question. The long-TUT training which is used for hypertrophy will be catabolic in a calorie deficit, that's almost a given from what I know. Now of course if the calorie deficit is small, the athlete might maintain the muscle mass and lose fat, but there will be catabolism when he cuts the calories a little more, attempting to speed up fatloss.
What the cutting athlete needs IMO is to maintain muscle mass as well as possible while reducing bodyfat through diet and muscle-friendly cardio. To do this, he needs to just stimulate regeneration of the tissue and create the least amount possible of myofibrillar damage. This way, the amount of work needed to maintain the fiber in good shape is easily achievable even in a calorie deficit. Low-intensity cardio and perhaps HIIT can make up the bulk of the fatloss.
I'm thinking "out loud" on this thread, going from supposition to reasoning. I'm not stating this is definitive science, it is simply my current reasoning on the matter.
Of course, for the athlete running anabolics, the above-stated reasoning is somewhat different. Maintaining muscle mass should be relatively easy and more damage can be sustained by the muscle without exceeding its ability to repair. Perhaps some long-TUT is doable by the enhanced athlete, but I feel the volume should be limited. So perhaps a HIT-like routine with lots of cardio and a good diet would be best for the natural athlete in cutting mode?
What do you guys think?