Man, I go to workout and so much good stuff comes up in this thread.
The question is: How you make sure the switch goes on?
Your answer: It's enough to do 1 set to failure instead of multiples. Correct?
My question:
Doesn't a more rigorous workout (multiple sets) guarantee the switch goes on due to more fatigue (I still belief fatigue is a trigger)?
If not, why does anyone else spend an hour -or more in the gym, instead of 10 minutes?
I doubt the switch hypothesis and go for a "dynamo" one, remember bicycles with dynamo? Paddle harder=more light.
Ding ding ding! This is a KEY question (you are so smart). This is why Mentzer stated the sets had to be 100% to failure, max efforts. His point was that maybe 80% intensity was enough to trigger growth, maybe 60, maybe only 30. But really, how do we know when we are at 80%? or 65%? The only point at which we can measure intensity is 0% (no effort) or 100% (failure during all out effort). This is the reason for a 100% all out effort until failure. And this effort, in order to be 100% intensity, by definition has to be brief; you can train hard or you can train long but you can't do both. No matter how good a shape you are in, anything you do after a max effort will be diminished. Even the best sprinters are slower at the end of a dash than at the beginning. So, from your body's perspective, a 100% effort cannot be sustained long if it is a true 100% effort. And the only way to ensure a trigger (at least in Mentzer's theory) is to flip the switch, which again may be 80 or 75% intensity - but since you can't accurately measure that, you have to go all out for 100%.
And I can tell you from experience. If you are TRULY going ALL OUT on one set, you will either be stronger the next workout, or you did not recover then grow and you needed more time to recover. So if you go back the following 3 days and you are not stronger, but you know you went 100% and failed, then you need to take more time to allow for growth. This then gets into the hypothesis that some people are great at recovery and can train often, others are genetically inferior from this perspective and may need 4 days, a week or even more between workouts.
Having said all that, I believe the theory is RELATIVELY useful, BUT - as you pointed out with the study, lighter weights going to failure can lead to the same results and this may be better for recovery as it doesn't strain the CNS so much. I think Mentzer's theories have room for this in application.
Your lumen theory reminds me a little of Mentzer's own theory - he used to say you can tap a stick of dynamite with a pencil all day long and you won't get anywhere. But hit it with a sledge hammer and you better watch out.
It would be a waste of time when wrong, I would loose weeks of training and had to cut my meals in half because of those short workouts.
Don't get me wrong but I don't swallow this hypothesis, I call it BS.
Well, eating more should aid in recovery. And here's the beauty of the Menzer Theory. If you start training with 5 sets per bodypart and you don't see results, what do you do? You can do 6 sets, or 4 sets, or ....you can go anywhere. You are shooting in the dark. If you use 1 set and it isn't working, you have a choice. Stop working out altogether, or add a set. There's really only one direction to go in - and you have fewer variables to change. So, it isn't about fighting over if 1 set or 5 sets is the "right amount", it is about finding the "right amount".
If you scroll a bit this is what the guy says in the link provided:
Read carefully, it's his opinion, I highlighted a bit...
Okay, here the only study on the subject: "multiple sets vs single set".
CJNator and
HIT4ME
Obviously, doing more = more results but doing double does not give double results-
only 40% more. Guys here on AM are taking all kinds of expensive supplements, to get
only 1-5% more.
Obviously doing too much could give diminished results (thats why rest days matter, doah).
I rest my case.
Again, how many sets do you do? 1, 3 or 6? And are they all to failure? REAL failure? Any of these protocols are much lower volume than almost anyone on this board uses, and they already show diminishing returns. A lot of people on here do 9-12 sets per bodypart and that puts them clearly in the "diminishing returns" category. And they may be doing a lot of volume, but if they are going to failure on the first sets, they are using much less weight (and thus getting less stimulus) on the second and third set. Look at my log - I do incline dumbbell flyes to failure and then can barely bench 200 pounds after that. I bet I could get 5-6 reps with 200 pounds if I was fresh. That's just after 1 set. The stimulus becomes less and less with each set and I become more and more fatigued, but it doesn't mean each set adds a unit of growth.
Plus, wouldn't it be better to do less today, recover faster, grow sooner and stimulate again sooner (which is also why I believe the lighter weights you are suggesting have their place - less CNS stress, faster recovery, faster overcompensation, increased frequency).
There's a problem with variables then. How are we to know how much recovery time is optimal after each workout? We would only be guessing.
Years ago I used to only work out when Dom's was gone completely. Then I started doing some light workouts when still slightly sore. Now I wait until my energy levels have returned enough to go again.
You are not guessing. If you KNOW you have stimulated growth, and you are NOT stronger the next workout, then you are overtraining. Because you didn't allow time for recovery and then growth. If this is the case, you reduce frequency until you start seeing improvements every workout. It goes against all the work ethic we hold dear.
Of course, do I believe all of this 100%? No, but these are HIGHLY useful concepts that I apply to all of my training, even if I don't follow it exactly.
I also see the theories playing out in 5X5, 5/3/1, Dogg Crap, etc. They may not stick to the "1 set" mantra, but they all modulate volume, frequency and intensity in some way.
Lighter weight to failure, as HGP is thinking of, may be a good way to do that.
Also, keep in mind, that steroid use totally changes this - your body becomes much better at recovering and synthesizing protein so all of this happens much more quickly and higher volume and frequency becomes the smart thing to do, because if it is all happening faster - then the more often you do it the more "stimulate-recover-grow" cycles you can get through in a given period of time.
at:
can't wait too see how well you change with you new diet approach. Also the link doesn't go anywhere, it may be the ... that's messing it up.
Have to take them with AAS now, well, this can be a good thing too.
