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

[Jon]

I wasnt either specifically

so you can honestly say you were training with over 120 reps a week over 55%1rm up to 85%1rm constantly adjusted for current strength levels during your phase of "gene intertia" (for lack of a better term) and that this was entirely necessary to attain a rate of growth that was appreciable?

Studies show that things like the hamstring across average populations DONT need to be trained as frequently due to their large accumulation of type II fibers.

Edit: neither do arms for that matter if you're basing your program off basic compound movements. They get enough indirect volume this way to easily maintain, if not grow in size and strength. This would be especially true for novice trainees. I also think your argument of sarcomere development is a little misguided as sarcoplasmic growth is not true muscle fiber growth, along with fascicle lengths these are more transient augmentations compared to actual myofibril cross sectional augmentation. The largest fibers are also very A-vascular which has earned them the descriptor of White muscle fibers. This in turn shows that fluid capacity and blood flow capabilities are not large determinants of muscle growth and size.

I used to think I needed retarded volume for growth but honestly I didn't even know HOW to be objective with acute results as watching natural muscle grow is akin to paint drying. In hind sight I over trained constantly and spun my wheels for a good half of my training career in terms of actual progression. The thing about the first five years of training is a body grows lean lbs in spite of how optimal you're training as long as you're eating enough but sometimes even without adequate calories as long as protein is adequate (many "hardgainers" are just chronic undereaters). Sometimes though like in the case of my calves, there's certain extenuating factors that prevent a muscle from being stimulated for growth, but I think this mostly pertains to structural differences.

The only reason I argue these points with you is that I feel your opinions you have voiced though not invalid, are very misleading to newbies who have an interest in training but will either be deterred at the proposition of having to be ground to a pulp to gain size or are too willing to do just that to get what they want. Neither of which I think is conducive to foster future healthy populations.

 

[nwo2012]

The only thing wrong is assuming that training intensity is only generated by training with certain weight in certain rep ranges when in fact as one masters the ability to maximally push oneself to the maximum, recruiting maximal muscle fibers, being so mentally strong and focused that we become stronger still then we can dramatically increase the intensity in a workout, with less volume. A great example would be how Dorian Yates trained at his peak. Ive seen many people along the years, that may be strong but you can tell when their supposed set to failure ends they still couldve pushed out a rep or two if they had the balls.

I will say it again, Jon you have a very nice physique, and great symmetry with full muscle bellies. You may have been wimpy, but you still always had the genetics to do well.

 

[Jon]

The only thing wrong is assuming that training intensity is only generated by training with certain weight in certain rep ranges when in fact as one masters the ability to maximally push oneself to the maximum, recruiting maximal muscle fibers, being so mentally strong and focused that we become stronger still then we can dramatically increase the intensity in a workout, with less volume. A great example would be how Dorian Yates trained at his peak. Ive seen many people along the years, that may be strong but you can tell when their supposed set to failure ends they still couldve pushed out a rep or two if they had the balls.

I will say it again, Jon you have a very nice physique, and great symmetry with full muscle bellies. You may have been wimpy, but you still always had the genetics to do well.

I appreciate the compliments man. I agree with you that sometimes people are afraid to work hard, but see that's the beauty of the percentage based programming, the guess work is taken out of it. Also, it has been shown in minor capacity that mind muscle connection can aid hypertrophy BUT to large effect it is all about velocity in which a weight moves. Concentric movement must be forcibly slowed by the tonnage where the muscle are exerting there full force to move the weight and the velocity in which it moves is still slow because of how heavy it is. This results in The highest amount of high threshold motor units being recruited which in turn has been shown to be superior for cross sectional (true) augmentation. Forcibly slowing the tempo in the concentric by moving weight slower than you are forced to by the tonnag (i.e. Too light of weight) will actually result in less high threshold motor unit recruitment and therefore less hypertrophy. The exact OPPOSITE is true for eccentrics, they must be consciously slowed for maximal high threshold motor recruitment. In this way high intensity training with heavy weights is superior for hypertrophy to all else EXCEPT maybe bfr training.

 

[Wagner83]

Muscle Androgen Receptor Content but Not Systemic Hormones Is Associated With Resistance Training-Induced Skeletal Muscle Hypertrophy in Healthy, Y... - PubMed - NCBI

Abstract
The factors that underpin heterogeneity in muscle hypertrophy following resistance exercise training (RET) remain largely unknown. We examined circulating hormones, intramuscular hormones, and intramuscular hormone-related variables in resistance-trained men before and after 12 weeks of RET. Backward elimination and principal component regression evaluated the statistical significance of proposed circulating anabolic hormones (e.g., testosterone, free testosterone, dehydroepiandrosterone, dihydrotestosterone, insulin-like growth factor-1, free insulin-like growth factor-1, luteinizing hormone, and growth hormone) and RET-induced changes in muscle mass (n = 49). Immunoblots and immunoassays were used to evaluate intramuscular free testosterone levels, dihydrotestosterone levels, 5α-reductase expression, and androgen receptor content in the highest- (HIR; n = 10) and lowest- (LOR; n = 10) responders to the 12 weeks of RET. No hormone measured before exercise, after exercise, pre-intervention, or post-intervention was consistently significant or consistently selected in the final model for the change in: type 1 cross sectional area (CSA), type 2 CSA, or fat- and bone-free mass (LBM). Principal component analysis did not result in large dimension reduction and principal component regression was no more effective than unadjusted regression analyses. No hormone measured in the blood or muscle was different between HIR and LOR. The steroidogenic enzyme 5α-reductase increased following RET in the HIR (P < 0.01) but not the LOR (P = 0.32). Androgen receptor content was unchanged with RET but was higher at all times in HIR. Unlike intramuscular free testosterone, dihydrotestosterone, or 5α-reductase, there was a linear relationship between androgen receptor content and change in LBM (P < 0.01), type 1 CSA (P < 0.05), and type 2 CSA (P < 0.01) both pre- and post-intervention. These results indicate that intramuscular androgen receptor content, but neither circulating nor intramuscular hormones (or the enzymes regulating their intramuscular production), influence skeletal muscle hypertrophy following RET in previously trained young men.

I think in the latest (or "safe supplements"?) Danny Roddy podcast Ray said in an ideal environment hormones levels should be low.

 

[Jon]

Muscle Androgen Receptor Content but Not Systemic Hormones Is Associated With Resistance Training-Induced Skeletal Muscle Hypertrophy in Healthy, Y... - PubMed - NCBI



I think in the latest (or "safe supplements"?) Danny Roddy podcast Ray said in an ideal environment hormones levels should be low.

This is why females in large part have the same muscular potential as men. This is also why boys are the same relative size as girls until after puberty (in general) as it's not about a one time acute exposure, but more about consistent frequent exposure to a higher androgenic atmosphere. Boys have a higher average secretion of androgenic hormones and so their receptors suck up more than girls. If one needs proof that girls have very similar androgen receptor site density, one only need look at women who've abused Steroids. If not for the androgen receptor site density, it wouldn't have mattered how much androgenic hormones they took, they would have never come out looking just as and in most cases more muscular than the average gym going male.

 

[Hans]

This is why females in large part have the same muscular potential as men. This is also why boys are the same relative size as girls until after puberty (in general) as it's not about a one time acute exposure, but more about consistent frequent exposure to a higher androgenic atmosphere. Boys have a higher average secretion of androgenic hormones and so their receptors suck up more than girls. If one needs proof that girls have very similar androgen receptor site density, one only need look at women who've abused Steroids. If not for the androgen receptor site density, it wouldn't have mattered how much androgenic hormones they took, they would have never come out looking just as and in most cases more muscular than the average gym going male.

Androgens increases AR. I don't think they have the same amount of AR, but the androgens increase them, leading to higher levels and greater muscle mass.

 

[olive]

Androgens increases AR. I don't think they have the same amount of AR, but the androgens increase them, leading to higher levels and greater muscle mass.

Females have more androgen receptors which is why they can grow like weeds on tiny doses of AAS.

 

[Hans]

https://www.google.co.za/url?sa=t&s...WMAF6BAgIEAE&usg=AOvVaw2dzHru5HbkQcSYqgX41sAT
"There are sex differences in AR expression; males have significantly higher levels of
AR mRNA than females [18]. In addition, males demonstrate greater AR activation with endogenous
testosterone, and prolonged exposure to endogenous testosterone leads to up-regulation of AR"

 

[Lyall]

I should also mention that as long as you're training with maintenance volume (24 reps ber bodypart @55%1rm or more) you will keep muscle size no matter what intensity you're in.

36 reps per bodypart per week is the minimal effective volume to stimulate new adaptation over 55%1rm

45 reps is the maximal effective volume per bodypart per week per exercise. Anymore in a single exercise may be over training that particular movement pattern.

80-120 direct reps per week is the maximal effective volume per week per large muscle group.

30-60 direct reps is the maximal effective volume for small muscles (bi', tri's, calves, delts)

Are these recommendations off of renaissance periodization/Mike Israetels recs?

 

[Jon]

Are these recommendations off of renaissance periodization/Mike Israetels recs?

Ooo someone in the know I see! Actually, no they're not lol. Schoenfield, krieger, and israetel are more about a number of sets per week at a certain RIR. I got this from researching elsewhere, and most studies prior to schoenfield and kriegers work were based more on reps per week rather than sets. I find for newbies that rep counts are a better place to start than RIR or RPE because rep counts can teach people how to push through pain thresholds and assure enough work but not too much is done. Eventually when somkne has around 8 months to a year of experience then I think autoregulation is a viable tool.

 

[Jon]

Androgens increases AR. I don't think they have the same amount of AR, but the androgens increase them, leading to higher levels and greater muscle mass.

Women apparently gain as much muscle as men:
Comparison of upper body strength gains between men and women after 10 weeks of resistance training

And I guess it's not really about the type of hormone in you but the physiology of your gender:
Impaired skeletal muscle development and function in male, but not female, genomic androgen receptor knockout mice. - PubMed - NCBI

So you're right, higher androgens do help gain more muscle, but it's not the only thing that helps, nor is it the largest factor in muscle gain. I can vouch for myself that I continue to get stronger and gain lean mass even during contest prep when my androgen levels are at castrated levels with no libido to speak of. Igf-1 and the like are powerful hormones as well and easier to manipulate even when androgens are low.

 

[Lyall]

Ooo someone in the know I see! Actually, no they're not lol. Schoenfield, krieger, and israetel are more about a number of sets per week at a certain RIR. I got this from researching elsewhere, and most studies prior to schoenfield and kriegers work were based more on reps per week rather than sets. I find for newbies that rep counts are a better place to start than RIR or RPE because rep counts can teach people how to push through pain thresholds and assure enough work but not too much is done. Eventually when somkne has around 8 months to a year of experience then I think autoregulation is a viable tool.

Fair enough. Also Dr Mikes seems opposite in the sense that he recommends he recommends higher frequency with smaller muscles and less with bigger ones, same goes for volume tolerance.

 

[Lyall]

Women apparently gain as much muscle as men:
Comparison of upper body strength gains between men and women after 10 weeks of resistance training

And I guess it's not really about the type of hormone in you but the physiology of your gender:
Impaired skeletal muscle development and function in male, but not female, genomic androgen receptor knockout mice. - PubMed - NCBI

So you're right, higher androgens do help gain more muscle, but it's not the only thing that helps, nor is it the largest factor in muscle gain. I can vouch for myself that I continue to get stronger and gain lean mass even during contest prep when my androgen levels are at castrated levels with no libido to speak of. Igf-1 and the like are powerful hormones as well and easier to manipulate even when androgens are low.

They don’t gain as much muscle as men, a casual real life experience will corroborate this. Relative strength gains may be equal to a point but in a temporal and absolute sense this will not be so.

Hormones make a huge difference, one would argue the biggest difference. It’s the difference between “ideal” progress vs practical progress in the natural trainee.

 

[Jon]

They don’t gain as much muscle as men, a casual real life experience will corroborate this. Relative strength gains may be equal to a point but in a temporal and absolute sense this will not be so.

Hormones make a huge difference, one would argue the biggest difference. It’s the difference between “ideal” progress vs practical progress in the natural trainee.

Do you have an example of that? I'm using RP Templates right now and it's kind of the opposite of what you're saying lol.

Anecdotal experience is valuable and gives insight to more in depth answers but as of now studies tend to show novice men and women grow at the same rate. I think there are a ton of epigenetic factors that effect hypertrophy, and I don't always believe the difference in gender muscle gain necessarily has to do with hormonal differences as it does skeletal differences, but I digress. All we can say for sure is what the empirical data states:

Muscle size responses to strength training in young and older men and women. - PubMed - NCBI

Response to resistance training in young women and men. - PubMed - NCBI


http://jap.physiology.org/content/112/11/1803


This last one gives insight that quite possibly these results we get are more of a comment that women and men need to train differently to get optimal results as women tend to respond and recover better to higher volumes:

https://www.fasebj.org/doi/abs/10.1...jkey=61cab85d37cad7f234aaaa9d66139b71d586b8f0

And as I previously stated; It's not all about the type of hormone in the body but instead the gender physiology of the person:

Circulating levels of IGF1 are associated with muscle strength in middle-aged- and oldest-old women. - PubMed - NCBI

So you're right, hormones do make the biggest difference, but it's not as cut ancd dry as "androgens are king"

I truly feel the difference you see in men and women in terms of muscle size in general is mostly the result of non optimal approaches to training on the female spectrum, social stigmas against women being muscular and so they don't peruse it as much as males do, nutrition misinformation, and thinking that men and women can train identically and get the same results because they don't.

 

[Hans]

So you're right, higher androgens do help gain more muscle, but it's not the only thing that helps, nor is it the largest factor in muscle gain. I can vouch for myself that I continue to get stronger and gain lean mass even during contest prep when my androgen levels are at castrated levels with no libido to speak of. Igf-1 and the like are powerful hormones as well and easier to manipulate even when androgens are low.

Yes androgens doesn't actually play that big a role. As you say IGF-1 is very important and I think it's very important to mention cortisol. I think cortisol is one of the most important factors determining muscle growth. Elevated cortisol reduces androgen receptors and steroidogenesis, lowers IGF-1, inhibits thyroid function and ATP production, etc. Cortisol and IGF-1 are inversely correlated and it's best to lower/inhibit cortisol (or at least keep it under control) to have high IGF-1 and muscle growth.

 

[Jon]

Yes androgens doesn't actually play that big a role. As you say IGF-1 is very important and I think it's very important to mention cortisol. I think cortisol is one of the most important factors determining muscle growth. Elevated cortisol reduces androgen receptors and steroidogenesis, lowers IGF-1, inhibits thyroid function and ATP production, etc. Cortisol and IGF-1 are inversely correlated and it's best to lower/inhibit cortisol (or at least keep it under control) to have high IGF-1 and muscle growth.

Ah! But the plot thickens! For with no cortisol, there is no dht! And with no dht, nitric oxide has trouble dilating blood vessels.

So really, you need all the hormones lol just enough of some, and depending on your gender more of others lol.

 

[Hans]

I don't think to block the effect of cortisol will result in 0 DHT, NO and vasodilation.
It's also pretty impossible to block it entirely via natural means any way. Yes cortisol is needed obviously, but keeping it under control should be a primary concern.

I'm specifically talking about men here. I haven't researched about women and I'm not planning on doing so, as I work only with men. My wife works with the women.

 

[Jon]

I don't think to block the effect of cortisol will result in 0 DHT, NO and vasodilation.
It's also pretty impossible to block it entirely via natural means any way. Yes cortisol is needed obviously, but keeping it under control should be a primary concern.

I'm specifically talking about men here. I haven't researched about women and I'm not planning on doing so, as I work only with men. My wife works with the women.

Phosphatadylserine can lower cortisol enough to lower dht and subsequently lower NO. Cortisol causes intermittent hypoxia (hence why it's associated with ketosis) and this hypoxia illicit dht secretion in order to activate nitric oxide synthase to create NO from arginine. That's why things like coffee, sprinting, smoking cigarettes, and high altitudes are all associated with a spike in dht post exposure. Acute shots of cortisol cause this. Though, true it won't lower it enough to completely stop NO and Dht, it can lower it enough to cause insufficiency problems. Same reason aspirin will eventually lower androgenic activity and cause joint irritation.

I too am speaking about men here (though the same is true somewhat for women but more progesterone makes them alittle more immune to aromatase activity) but I find it's very helpful to understand the physiology of both since it's helpful to know which issues aren't exclude to one gender over another.

Edit: proof of cortisol being important for NO and DHT is the fact that morning wood happens upon waking when cortisol is highest.

 

[Hans]

Phosphatadylserine can lower cortisol enough to lower dht and subsequently lower NO. Cortisol causes intermittent hypoxia (hence why it's associated with ketosis) and this hypoxia illicit dht secretion in order to activate nitric oxide synthase to create NO from arginine. That's why things like coffee, sprinting, smoking cigarettes, and high altitudes are all associated with a spike in dht post exposure. Acute shots of cortisol cause this. Though, true it won't lower it enough to completely stop NO and Dht, it can lower it enough to cause insufficiency problems. Same reason aspirin will eventually lower androgenic activity and cause joint irritation.

I too am speaking about men here (though the same is true somewhat for women but more progesterone makes them alittle more immune to aromatase activity) but I find it's very helpful to understand the physiology of both since it's helpful to know which issues aren't exclude to one gender over another.

Edit: proof of cortisol being important for NO and DHT is the fact that morning wood happens upon waking when cortisol is highest.

The most anabolic agents are cortisol antagonists combined with androgen receptor agonists. I'm a bit sceptical that lowering cortisol will lower DHT.
Caffeine promotes blood flow yet inhibits NO.
I'm not saying cortisol doesn't have a role in the body, but it is a significant negative regulator of muscle growth.

Edit: thyroid significantly increases DHT production and cortisol inhibit thyroid function.

 

[Jon]

The most anabolic agents are cortisol antagonists combined with androgen receptor agonists. I'm a bit sceptical that lowering cortisol will lower DHT.
Caffeine promotes blood flow yet inhibits NO.
I'm not saying cortisol doesn't have a role in the body, but it is a significant negative regulator of muscle growth.

Edit: thyroid significantly increases DHT production and cortisol inhibit thyroid function.

Only in chronically high quantities does it inhibit growth.

These are not good and evil hormones, this is a circadian rhythm of the ebocrune system. These systems work on negative feed back loops and so without one you cannot have the other.

Yes cortisol inhibits thyroid function, but in a healthy state an acute secretion of cortisol via acute stress is exactly what illicit the secretion of respirative hormones which then make adaptation to a more robust status quo possible.

Coffee itself does not improve bloodflow, it impedes it. This causes tissues to become hypoxic, then release cortisol to continue cellular respiration under stress (releasing ffa), which then once cleared will cause an upsurge of dht, which the. Will raise n.o. Synthase, which then produces nitric oxide, which the. Improves blood flow. It's all a negative feedback loop.