The Effect Of Training Volume And Intensity On Improvements In Muscular Strength And Size In Resista

Luckytype

Member
Joined
Jan 15, 2017
Messages
933
Also, the first weeks of training in any rep range or intensity level is going to be a neural DISinhibition and an upregulation in storage substrate and transport systems.

In other words efficiency tactics are employed befofe spending the energy on actually adding tons of sarcomeres. Contractile strength increases, fuels are increased and the ability to extract and exchange increases. Its much more complex but people are really only adding fluid and storage volumes and not actually packing on tons of muscle...yet.

This is likely why its "favorable" from a stress response as shown in the studycompared to even an intermediate strength trainer, in beginners even the stress response has yet to be fully adapted. Stresses eventually go from "oh whats this?" to "damn, we need to get better in case this gets worse"

This is also part of the reason vasculature and "pump" really become enhanced as time goes on as capillary and exchange adaptations along with a ton of other things.
 

Jon

Member
Joined
Jun 29, 2017
Messages
560
Location
Colorado
Exceptions to this would be periodic genetically dormant groups that sometimes require extreme stimulation to force a change. Calves and deltoids are an example for some people.

I don't really think that's true. As long as you're training above 55%1rm making sure to hit minimal effective volume (36 reps per week) then you should keep growing/getting stronger. There can be periods of overreaching where your perform more reps than you could normally recover from in a week followed by a deload or rest week but you do this further and fewer between than just hitting Volume mins and maxes. I've never hit a plateau in 12 years if that means anything.
 

Luk3

Member
Joined
Jun 26, 2018
Messages
89
I had great gains when I was younger from high intensity, but way overdid it and burned out—my body has never been the same since. When I train properly now, I follow Growth Stimulus Training. I think it’s a good program for long-term gains, and it provides enough recovery to prevent overtraining.
 

Luckytype

Member
Joined
Jan 15, 2017
Messages
933
I don't really think that's true. As long as you're training above 55%1rm making sure to hit minimal effective volume (36 reps per week) then you should keep growing/getting stronger. There can be periods of overreaching where your perform more reps than you could normally recover from in a week followed by a deload or rest week but you do this further and fewer between than just hitting Volume mins and maxes. I've never hit a plateau in 12 years if that means anything.

I shouldve clarified, I didn't mean anything about plateauing.

Im talking about genetic outlying individuals or bodyparts.

I have known several lifters, including myself that "standard volume" didnt work for delts. The opposite was my hamstrings that could be trained once every 2-3 weeks and would continue to grow.

For the former, every single possible combination was tried and no real growth occured. Strength sure but hypertrophy was never significant until I started training them 4-5 days a week with 120 reps of varying tempo, speed, load etc etc on the light days and some ungodly amount on the dedicated shoulder days. They exploded eventually to finally catch up to my dominating arms but it took more volume than guys on gear do twice over.

In the same regard I could skip arms all together and they would still disproportionately dominate my upper body
 

Jon

Member
Joined
Jun 29, 2017
Messages
560
Location
Colorado
I shouldve clarified, I didn't mean anything about plateauing.

Im talking about genetic outlying individuals or bodyparts.

I have known several lifters, including myself that "standard volume" didnt work for delts. The opposite was my hamstrings that could be trained once every 2-3 weeks and would continue to grow.

For the former, every single possible combination was tried and no real growth occured. Strength sure but hypertrophy was never significant until I started training them 4-5 days a week with 120 reps of varying tempo, speed, load etc etc on the light days and some ungodly amount on the dedicated shoulder days. They exploded eventually to finally catch up to my dominating arms but it took more volume than guys on gear do twice over.

In the same regard I could skip arms all together and they would still disproportionately dominate my upper body

I can't argue what your specific genetics are as that would be ignorant of me but I will say if strength increased, then muscle increased. Increase in Neural efficiency of power output happens largely independent of hypertrophy gain only when conducted with reps lower than 5 in a day lol. If you were training calves with a minimum of 36reps a week at over 55%1rm and gaining strength in that rep range then you were growing. You may have expedited your growth by adding in more volume but you didn't HAVE to do that.
 

Luckytype

Member
Joined
Jan 15, 2017
Messages
933
I can't argue what your specific genetics are as that would be ignorant of me but I will say if strength increased, then muscle increased. Increase in Neural efficiency of power output happens largely independent of hypertrophy gain only when conducted with reps lower than 5 in a day lol. If you were training calves with a minimum of 36reps a week at over 55%1rm and gaining strength in that rep range then you were growing. You may have expedited your growth by adding in more volume but you didn't HAVE to do that.

I certainly wont argue that progressive overload in some way shape or form produces results whether measurable, perceivable or obvious. Im confident youre familiar with the SAID principle not just in training.

By this, any infrequent but regular stressor produces an adaptation, period. My purpose was simply a data point that plateaus do happen and that 55-70 percent of any RM is relative.

Neural adaptation in beginning populations happen concurrently with substrate storage and change. Its quite literally the first thing to happen; disinhibition.
 

Jon

Member
Joined
Jun 29, 2017
Messages
560
Location
Colorado
I certainly wont argue that progressive overload in some way shape or form produces results whether measurable, perceivable or obvious. Im confident youre familiar with the SAID principle not just in training.

By this, any infrequent but regular stressor produces an adaptation, period. My purpose was simply a data point that plateaus do happen and that 55-70 percent of any RM is relative.

Neural adaptation in beginning populations happen concurrently with substrate storage and change. Its quite literally the first thing to happen; disinhibition.

Yeah we speakin the same language :) (insert: I see you're a man of taste as well meme)

Agreed to all. I don't even do 1 rep maxes anymore lol I just do 5-10 rep maxes to retest for each new mesocycle and find an arbitrary 1rm using the theoretical 1rm formula to base all my percentages off of.
 
Joined
Aug 30, 2018
Messages
68
Imo you're eating far too much fructose. Fructose is largely metabolized by visceral organs. Glucose is muscle fuel. I keep a minimum of 4:1 of grams of starch(glucose):fructose. Studies I've read suggest this is optimum and my experiences validate these claims. Anymore fructose than this and I get some not so pleasant bathroom issues.

Where can i get all that glucose without fructose if i don’t cook? I cook only on sunday, beef liver with white rice. That is my only starch for a week. The remaining 6 days its is oj+honey+grape juice+fruit as my main source of carbs. (And of course whatever lactose i get in dairy). Yes, probably too much fructose. What can i do?
 
Joined
Aug 30, 2018
Messages
68
The golden ratio is what Di Vinci discovered all Ancient Greek and roman sculptors used to proportion their ideal/godlike human figures for their artworks. Oddly this ratio correlates to all skeletal and nervous structures once adult growth is achieved in the human body. The ratio is 1:1.6 or a:b=a:a+b. In other words a smaller bodypart to a larger bodypart should have a ratio of 1:1.6 i.e. Upper thighs at their pinnacle circumference should be 1.6x the size of the lower leg circumference.

My starting weight was 112lbs around 18%bf at 5'6" 17yrs old!!! Hahaha I was PUNY :) as of this morning I am currently 148.8lbs 13%bf. Goal weight for now is 160lbs at 10%bf which I think I can reach in maybe another 5-6years doing everything right. I haven't maxed in about 3 years since before my last prep but my stats were bench:301lbsx1 /squat: 415x2/sumo dead: 485x1. I suck at deadlifts, I only started training them 4 years ago.


This is current composition:
View attachment 10529

Top two are 6 weeks out; bottom left is 10 weeks out; bottom right were trophies for winning my two weight classes.
View attachment 10527

These were all 3 weeks out from show date; looked good, utterly miserable though. Was eating 1521cals a day :hangingaround
View attachment 10526
I’d like to believe this isn’t genetics.
 

Jon

Member
Joined
Jun 29, 2017
Messages
560
Location
Colorado
Where can i get all that glucose without fructose if i don’t cook? I cook only on sunday, beef liver with white rice. That is my only starch for a week. The remaining 6 days its is oj+honey+grape juice+fruit as my main source of carbs. (And of course whatever lactose i get in dairy). Yes, probably too much fructose. What can i do?

POTATOES!!!! They're my favorite food :) just cook about 10 potatoes and 6 cups of white rice raw and then freeze it and pull it out when you need a meal.

I’d like to believe this isn’t genetics.

''Tis not genetics lol. I was skinny as a rail as a child and into my teens but had no muscle definition except for my arms and vastus medialis since I played a lot of competitive sports especially hockey.
 

Luckytype

Member
Joined
Jan 15, 2017
Messages
933
I’d like to believe this isn’t genetics.

Its absolutely genetics. Training can obviously help but its already written.

Thats the reason why if you look at golden era guys who were training similarly, taking likely similar anabolics, eating the same that 10 guys had 10 different shapes. Its why guys like Serge Nubret never looked like Franco Columbo(insert argument about Serge training in volume and Franco training in powerlifting). Take any 2 guys and compare them, it wasnt their gym routine choice that was the main decider of their shape and proportion but its the reason guys like Mike Katz had no arm development compared to The Oak etc etc
 
Last edited:

Hans

Member
Forum Supporter
Joined
Aug 24, 2017
Messages
5,856
Its absolutely genetics. Training can obviously help but its already written.
You mean to say that if I have bad genetics for shoulders for example, that it will always be lagging in my physique no matter how I train them?
 

Luckytype

Member
Joined
Jan 15, 2017
Messages
933
You mean to say that if I have bad genetics for shoulders for example, that it will always be lagging in my physique no matter how I train them?

No absolutely not, but use me as an example: I literally had to apply absolutely ridiculous volume and intensity techniques before my delts responded. It took a least 3 years of complete insanity before they balanced out.

Had I just stuck with the "regular" suggestions my arms would still be dominating my upper body, my delts would never be proportionate until I destroyed them enough to "unlock" them.

I was doing more than a heavy steroid user would do in volume. Anything less yielded disproportionate results.

EDIT: Also im not advocating extreme things, only using this to identify that I had to ultimately get very creative and dedicated to balancing out my body, even from an injury prevention perspective.
 
Last edited:

Hans

Member
Forum Supporter
Joined
Aug 24, 2017
Messages
5,856
No absolutely not, but use me as an example: I literally had to apply absolutely ridiculous volume and intensity techniques before my delts responded. It took a least 3 years of complete insanity before they balanced out.

Had I just stuck with the "regular" suggestions my arms would still be dominating my upper body, my delts would never be proportionate until I destroyed them enough to "unlock" them.

I was doing more than a heavy steroid user would do in volume. Anything less yielded disproportionate results.

EDIT: Also im not advocating extreme things, only using this to identify that I had to ultimately get very creative and dedicated to balancing out my body, even from an injury prevention perspective.
I agree. I have also just followed "standard" training and had lagging muscles. I then had to drastically up the volume and frequency and play with angles, different exercises and all that for them to come to life.
But for me it was my triceps.

I remember once I told my dad I was unsatisfied with my triceps and he just told me I had to accept it because it was my genetics. I didn't accept that and started experimenting and growed them.

But I guess what you meant with genetics is muscle origins and insertions?
 

Jon

Member
Joined
Jun 29, 2017
Messages
560
Location
Colorado
Its absolutely genetics. Training can obviously help but its already written.

Thats the reason why if you look at golden era guys who were training similarly, taking likely similar anabolics, eating the same that 10 guys had 10 different shapes. Its why guys like Serge Nubret never looked like Franco Columbo(insert argument about Serge training in volume and Franco training in powerlifting). Take any 2 guys and compare them, it wasnt their gym routine choice that was the main decider of their shape and proportion but its the reason guys like Mike Katz had no arm development compared to The Oak etc etc

I'm not sure he was talking about my muscle shape?
 

Luckytype

Member
Joined
Jan 15, 2017
Messages
933
I agree. I have also just followed "standard" training and had lagging muscles. I then had to drastically up the volume and frequency and play with angles, different exercises and all that for them to come to life.
But for me it was my triceps.

I remember once I told my dad I was unsatisfied with my triceps and he just told me I had to accept it because it was my genetics. I didn't accept that and started experimenting and growed them.

But I guess what you meant with genetics is muscle origins and insertions?

No im saying anything related to it.

As an opposite example I posted about my arms and hamstrings which can grow proportionately without being trained directly. My glutes and hamstrings are disproportionately strong compared to my quads as well.

You can sometimes beat genetics..sometimes though its quite a time based commitment in effort without a definite payoff.
 

Hans

Member
Forum Supporter
Joined
Aug 24, 2017
Messages
5,856
No im saying anything related to it.

As an opposite example I posted about my arms and hamstrings which can grow proportionately without being trained directly. My glutes and hamstrings are disproportionately strong compared to my quads as well.

You can sometimes beat genetics..sometimes though its quite a time based commitment in effort without a definite payoff.
I just saw your pervious edit. I agree.
 

Jon

Member
Joined
Jun 29, 2017
Messages
560
Location
Colorado
Indeed i wasn’t. Not about the variety of shapes. A mere muscle building capability as a whole.

Well I can tell you that I have dedicated 12 years of my life training a minimum of 5 days a week for the first 9 years and recently in these last 3 have down shifted to 4 days. By my calculation I've gained 35-37lbs of muscle since I started and my approach has not been optimal the whole time. The pictures of me dieted down I was 125lbs....I'd hardly say I'm a prime genetic outlier for copious muscle growth. The only things on my body I ever had trouble growing were my calves and it IS genetics but not the way you think...I have very flat feet which makes it difficult to engage my gastrocnemius for proper contraction so it took me a long time to figure out foot placement to hit the muscle just right. Other than that I've just had to be smart to know when to push and when not to.

Edit: I should say I've gained 35-37lbs of LEAN TISSUE or fat free mass, of which not all is muscle.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom