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.
Last edited: