Aerobic Exercise

[Inspector]

Yeah, but imagine how much weight that'd have to be, probably ~600+.

It might well be. If safety is a concern, then you'll have to either focus up on your form, get some training partners or a trainer, or switch to isolation exercises. But getting huge is about big weights, not small ones, so you'll have to face up to it sooner or later.

Plus, I do love volume, and I'd hate working out so infrequently.

Sorry, but the science I've read in Mentzer's and Little's work says that achieving muscle hypertrophy is all about minimizing volume and frequency and maximizing intensity.

To me, it doesn't seem to be killing my potential. When/if I'm no longer making progress, I'll have to reconsider, though.

You can do that. It will work, for a time. But sooner or later you will hit a wall with that. It all depends on your genetics.

And from the gymrats I associate with, the HIT-ish people aren't the biggest of the non-steroid people. They're friggin strong, but they're not the biggest.

Genetics is the single largest determining factor in a person's size. Most likely, the HITers you see realized early on that they don't have the genetics and had no choice but to start being smart about it. I know that is true for me, certainly.

Once I hit my current goal, I'm thinking about incorporating it. I do see some advantages of it.

Let us know what methods you use and how it goes for you.

[Alfa]

It has been proven that intensity is the key to muscle growth; all that volume is killing your potential.

Really? As far as I know, and I might be wrong of course, this is the biggest mistake "HIT;ers" make.

Arthur Jones saw that by reducing the volume and frequency, while increasing intensity, he made better gains than ever before. A reduction in volume and increase in intensity always seemed to produce better results for him. A fair conclusion then is that intensity is a key stimulus for muscle growth. I believe Arthur was right here. However, intensity cannot be the only stimulating factor involved.

The basic fundamental variables of exercise are intensity, volume and frequency. You cannot isolate either one of them. Volume will, in one way or another, force the body to adapt to the demands. In that way it can be a growth producing factor. However, volume alone will produce nothing except atrophy. It´s like lying in bed all day, lots of volume but no intensity. So for exercise we need intensity. Intensity without volume, however, is impossible. That way it must be a combination of the two that stimulate muscle growth. But we also need some amount of frequency.

As far as I know no optimal combination of theese variables have been found. I guess some guidelines would be hard work, not too much volume and plenty of rest. Not necessarily HIT, but probably not very far away from it. I think the rest would be fine tuning for individual needs and differences, and different techniques/strategies to impose apropriate demands for the body to adapt to(for example, I respond differently to exercise today than I did a year ago - what I did a month ago is not necessarily the best today).

I think this is why people respond so differently to certain methods of exercise. Some HIT;ers for example get better results from a little more volume and less intensity. Others show the opposite. I know some who do HIT in short periods, they make good gains for a few months until they plateu. Sometimes more volume is the answer, other times less. In my short experience I have noticed that the best results have come from understanding theese variables and making the right changes, predicting the bodys response.

[Inspector]

However, intensity cannot be the only stimulating factor involved.

It can't? Why not?

The basic fundamental variables of exercise are intensity, volume and frequency. You cannot isolate either one of them. Volume will, in one way or another, force the body to adapt to the demands.

Little addressed this issue; I will attempt to paraphrase. The volume isn't actually responsible for stimulating the adaptation. It only works by wearing you down until eventually it becomes intense. The growth stimulus is in that last rep. All the other ones before it are just a waste of your time. Volume is something you ideally want to minimize. Experiments have shown that growth can be stimulated with one second contractions. Think about that.

Intensity without volume, however, is impossible.

Of course. But you just want to minimize it and maximize intensity, is all I meant.

But we also need some amount of frequency.

Again true, but not as much as previously believed. The Nautilus North study showed some pretty amazing results about just how long it takes to recover. If you exercise again before you have finished recovering and then growing, then you just short-circuit the process. You don't get big in the gym; you get big when you rest.

As far as I know no optimal combination of theese variables have been found.

Well, maybe you should check out some of Mr. Little's books. Of course, they are principles that you must apply to the context of each individual and not some one-size-fits-all formula. And of course you adjust as someone progresses from beginner to advanced. But my point is that the amount of intensity that is recommended by most is well below ideal. And the volume and frequency are well above ideal. Hunter's routine is way, way too much volume. I would recommend less volume and more intensity for even a beginner. [edit, had that backwards]

I don't know what his frequency is, but I will bet that is too much as well. After the NN study, Mr. Little has adjusted even his previous (low) recommendations downward.

I guess some guidelines would be hard work, not too much volume and plenty of rest. Not necessarily HIT, but probably not very far away from it.

Hah, you're suggesting something like HIT but less so. According to Mr. Little, the truth is that HIT doesn't go nearly far enough.

I think this is why people respond so differently to certain methods of exercise. Some HIT;ers for example get better results from a little more volume and less intensity.

I think there is something else at work here. Given what the studies have shown, I am skeptical of this sort of observation. Too many uncontrolled variables. Too many alternate explanations.

Edited January 27, 2007 by Inspector

[BaseballGenius]

The growth stimulus is in that last rep. All the other ones before it are just a waste of your time.

Are you suggesting that any movement less than high-intensity wont produce any growth or adaption?

The Nautilus North study showed some pretty amazing results about just how long it takes to recover.

One potential flaw I see in max intensity movements is the idea that it might be taxing the central nervous system more than the muscles themselves. Therefore most of the recovery period is spent recuperating the CNS, while the muscles recover and grow in the first 2-3 days.

[Alfa]

It can't? Why not?

Because how it relates to volume, and how volume can cause adaptation...

Little addressed this issue; I will attempt to paraphrase. The volume isn't actually responsible for stimulating the adaptation. It only works by wearing you down until eventually it becomes intense. The growth stimulus is in that last rep. All the other ones before it are just a waste of your time. Volume is something you ideally want to minimize. Experiments have shown that growth can be stimulated with one second contractions. Think about that.

If the growth stimulus is in that last rep then only the ones working to failure could grow. The reps before that will pump blood and nutrients to your muscle, it´s possible that by achieving a big pump you can cause sarcoplasmic hypertrophy, and the wearing down seems like something positive - that would mean fatiguing more and more muscle fibres.

The body adapts as a response to imposed demands(as long as the level of demands are apropriate and we are given enough rest). Volume can certainly be demanding.

Of course. But you just want to minimize it and maximize intensity, is all I meant.

I think that is good as a general guidline, but sometimes I think that less intensity and more volume can be the right way to go(I have experienced it lately, however I think it´s temporary).

Again true, but not as much as previously believed. The Nautilus North study showed some pretty amazing results about just how long it takes to recover. If you exercise again before you have finished recovering and then growing, then you just short-circuit the process. You don't get big in the gym; you get big when you rest.

I´m not sure if i´m familiar with that study... If i recall correctly a few subjects showed a very long recovery time, up to a month maybe? If i´m not mistaken most of the subjects showed much shorter recovery times, although I don´t remember how long. Is my memory getting old or am I on the right track here?

What I would like to know is what kind of recovery and how it was measured.

One interesting thing to note here is that the muscle protein synthesis is elevated up to 48 hours following exercise, after that it´s down to base levels. So it´s within that time span that the biggest growth is possible, only problem is recovery...

Well, maybe you should check out some of Mr. Little's books. Of course, they are principles that you must apply to the context of each individual and not some one-size-fits-all formula. And of course you adjust as someone progresses from beginner to advanced. But my point is that the amount of intensity that is recommended by most is well below ideal. And the volume and frequency are well above ideal. Hunter's routine is way, way too much volume. I would recommend less volume and more intensity for even a beginner. [edit, had that backwards]

Can´t you tell me about theese principles? I can´t buy Mr. Little´s books right now, unless they are made eatable and nutrient rich.

I think the optimal combination can only be found for the individual, at a given time - of course within the rules and principles of exercise.

Regarding Hunter´s routine I don´t think four sets of squats is that bad, if that´s all that he does. For squats and deadlifts I prefer to add a little warmup and get the form down properly before I do a heavier set to failure. Non-failure sets with a little lighter weights do not tax the recovery ability much at all. Looks like Hunter is doing something similar, working up to heavier weights.

Hah, you're suggesting something like HIT but less so. According to Mr. Little, the truth is that HIT doesn't go nearly far enough.

Yes, I have a broader view on what works(unless taking it down to an individual level).

I think there is something else at work here. Given what the studies have shown, I am skeptical of this sort of observation. Too many uncontrolled variables. Too many alternate explanations.

I think this article explains it pretty good(not very well written, but well thought in some parts atleast):

http://www.zone-training.net/articles/methodmadness.html

[Inspector]

Therefore most of the recovery period is spent recuperating the CNS, while the muscles recover and grow in the first 2-3 days.

Muscle recovery and growth has been proven to take longer than that by the NN study. The CNS/muscle recovery dichotomy may not exist.

[Inspector]

If the growth stimulus is in that last rep then only the ones working to failure could grow. The reps before that will pump blood and nutrients to your muscle, it´s possible that by achieving a big pump you can cause sarcoplasmic hypertrophy, and the wearing down seems like something positive - that would mean fatiguing more and more muscle fibres.

It will do something, I imagine that would be the failure of individual fibres. To stimulate 100% of your fibres to grow, you would need to cause 100% of the fibres to fail. This is the goal of Heavy Duty and Max Contraction. That's why they go to failure.

Volume can certainly be demanding.

No, it can't. It is the intensity that is. Take all the volume you want of just sitting there and see how much growth you get. (haha)

I think that is good as a general guidline, but sometimes I think that less intensity and more volume can be the right way to go(I have experienced it lately, however I think it´s temporary).

Are you sure it isn't just that you aren't resting enough? By lowering intensity you lower the stimulus and the trauma. Thus you can recover more quickly but you will grow less. You can go to the gym 3-4 times like that but if you had more intensity and less frequency you would grow more, even though you spent less time in the gym. Instead of going to the gym, growing a little, and then going back in a few days, how about going once and then growing for weeks?

At least, that's how Mr. Little's theories go.

I´m not sure if i´m familiar with that study... If i recall correctly a few subjects showed a very long recovery time, up to a month maybe? If i´m not mistaken most of the subjects showed much shorter recovery times, although I don´t remember how long. Is my memory getting old or am I on the right track here?

You must be thinking of another study. The one I mean is here. Not just a few subjects took a while, but most of them. The average recovery/growth time recorded was longer then most recommend for rest.

What I would like to know is what kind of recovery and how it was measured.

They used the Body Pod. Here. Muscle is measured to within +/- 2% accuracy and measurements were taken daily.

One interesting thing to note here is that the muscle protein synthesis is elevated up to 48 hours following exercise, after that it´s down to base levels. So it´s within that time span that the biggest growth is possible, only problem is recovery...

That contradicts what was shown by the above study. Mass change wasn't radically larger in the first 48 hrs.

Can´t you tell me about theese principles? I can´t buy Mr. Little´s books right now, unless they are made eatable and nutrient rich.

It's about $12. $25 is for both books you need.

I think the optimal combination can only be found for the individual, at a given time - of course within the rules and principles of exercise.

Of course. But the correct principles need to be found. That's where Mr. Little comes in.

Regarding Hunter´s routine I don´t think four sets of squats is that bad, if that´s all that he does. For squats and deadlifts I prefer to add a little warmup and get the form down properly before I do a heavier set to failure. Non-failure sets with a little lighter weights do not tax the recovery ability much at all. Looks like Hunter is doing something similar, working up to heavier weights.

I suppose the first set could be considered warmups. And we don't know what other exercises he does. But I wouldn't recommend even half of that volume for even a beginner and I doubt he's a beginner. His volume should be 1/10 of what it is, at least. But obviously there is some reading for you to do before that will make any sense...

Yes, I have a broader view on what works(unless taking it down to an individual level).

I think this article explains it pretty good(not very well written, but well thought in some parts atleast):

http://www.zone-training.net/articles/methodmadness.html

I'm sorry, but if Little is right and the studies he cites are right, then that Zone stuff isn't at all right. (I've seen the zone before.)

[BaseballGenius]

Muscle recovery and growth has been proven to take longer than that by the NN study. The CNS/muscle recovery dichotomy may not exist.

Is there a way I can see the study myself, because I noticed it costs $11 to view it on the link you provided.

Or maybe you'll just tell me. How did it prove muscles take longer than a few days to grow? What was the workout the people did?

[Alfa]

Inspector, I will attempt a response a bit later, when I got more time, but I have a little question regarding Max Contraction.

It would be fun to give it a try but it seems difficult without a spotter. However one exercise that could work is the 45 degree leg press, since the movement starts near full contraction. Also I would have stops for safety so failure is no big deal. Do you think this could work?

As I understand it I should move close to full lock out with a weight I can hold for a few seconds, doing no more than five repetitions. I think I read something like that in an article. Another question is, what do you think of pre-exhausting the quads with leg extensions(full range reps)? That should make the weights a bit safer, which is kinda important in my case(the seat in the leg press machine that I use is not very kind on the lower back when using heavy loads).

I think this would be a fun experiment, and if it works... well, it works.

This reminds me a little bit about a routine Ellington Darden posted on his board, called Big Jim´s Quick Grow Routine. Jim Flanagan would have one of his trainees start a few exercises with a 1 rep max 60 second negative, followed by a regular drop-set. That first reps also uses a very heavy load and such a slow negative is almost like static holds through the whole range of motion. I´ve tried it on a couple of exercise and it´s enough to make a grown man cry, and it lives up to it´s name.

[hunterrose]

The volume isn't actually responsible for stimulating the adaptation. It only works by wearing you down until eventually it becomes intense. The growth stimulus is in that last rep. All the other ones before it are just a waste of your time.

But the reps (and sets) before the last rep also provide growth stimulus. They'd only be a waste of time if they actually didn't provide any additional stimulus.

If you exercise again before you have finished recovering and then growing, then you just short-circuit the process.

That depends. Why is it beneficial to recover 100%, if you can instead work out when you get to 95% and thus eke out some more muscle-building workouts?

I don't know what his frequency is, but I will bet that is too much as well.

At my best(worst?) I'm on a 4-on, 1-off plan. I'll have to link my Bodybuilding.com journal when I come back.

[Inspector]

Is there a way I can see the study myself, because I noticed it costs $11 to view it on the link you provided.

Or maybe you'll just tell me. How did it prove muscles take longer than a few days to grow? What was the workout the people did?

It's $11 so it wouldn't be right of me to just give it out for free. People exercised using many different workout styles including HIT, non-HIT, Max Contraction, and others. (The Max Contraction showed the biggest gains, BTW) It measured muscle tissue with the body pod on a daily basis as I mentioned above. Muscles were still growing after more than a few days. To see the specifics I think you should buy the study. I did.

[Inspector]

It would be fun to give it a try but it seems difficult without a spotter. However one exercise that could work is the 45 degree leg press, since the movement starts near full contraction. Also I would have stops for safety so failure is no big deal. Do you think this could work?

Yes, the spotter is the rub on these. Leg presses aren't done in MC because it is a compound exercise and the weight doesn't fall on the muscles in the max contraction position. A leg extention machine that you can set to start at almost full extension would work. Or you could to calf raises on the 45 degree press.

As I understand it I should move close to full lock out with a weight I can hold for a few seconds, doing no more than five repetitions.

Repititions aren't done at all. Hold to failure. That time must not exceed one minute; if you can hold longer than that you are not using near enough weight.

Another question is, what do you think of pre-exhausting the quads with leg extensions(full range reps)?

Well, I think you shouldn't do presses at all with MC since they are a compound exercise and you should do quads seperately as above. I'm not sure about pre-exhaustion. If you have no trainer or spotter you can do them one leg at a time, using your other leg to help you get into position. If you still max the stack on that, try hanging weights. If it's still too easy, then I'm not sure whether pre-exhaust will work. You might just run down your ATP and glycogen without really getting the stimulus you're looking for. Hard to say, though; I'm not an expert.

I'd cross that bridge when you get to it, if I were you.

I think this would be a fun experiment, and if it works... well, it works.

Don't forget to rest enough! This will hit you harder than what you are used to.

This reminds me a little bit about a routine Ellington Darden posted on his board... I´ve tried it on a couple of exercise and it´s enough to make a grown man cry, and it lives up to it´s name.

It's similar, although that was very experimental and MC is very focused. But yes it will really take a lot of willpower to keep holding it to failure. I've had folks come up to me and ask what the hell I'm doing. A few have tried it and comment how psycho-intense it is. Advanced MC uses negatives, BTW, with even heavier weights/shorter hold times.

[BaseballGenius]

It's $11 so it wouldn't be right of me to just give it out for free.

Then I guess you cant speak of Objectivism at all either - since what you say about Objectivism is inevitably going to be in a copyrighted Ayn Rand book, which is for sale.

[Inspector]

Then I guess you cant speak of Objectivism at all either - since what you say about Objectivism is inevitably going to be in a copyrighted Ayn Rand book, which is for sale.

As you can see, I've been speaking quite a bit on the subject. But I could type for hours and never come close to giving you the whole of Objectivism. Whereas the study is fairly short and simple, and I could very well end up giving the whole thing away for free.

I find it hard to believe that $11 is too much to ask...

But if it is, you could:

1) Do a search on Max Contraction, The Nautilus North Study, and John Little and see what information he has given out publicly

2) Contact Mr. Little and see what he will tell you for free

3) Take my word for it.

Edited January 28, 2007 by Inspector

[BaseballGenius]

As you can see, I've been speaking quite a bit on the subject. But I could type for hours and never come close to giving you the whole of Objectivism.

I believe its still a violation of copyrights, isnt it?

I find it hard to believe that $11 is too much to ask...

For me it is. I just moved into my own place and nearly all my money goes to the essential needs. Plus, why would they charge people money to view the results of the study? That would only provide the information to a limited few, most of which are already doing the program. Having more people see it would increase the amount of people wanting to try their program, and they would make more money.

But if it is, you could:

1) Do a search on Max Contraction, The Nautilus North Study, and John Little and see what information he has given out publicly

2) Contact Mr. Little and see what he will tell you for free

3) Take my word for it.

Yeah, I'll try to get it free somewhere.

[Inspector]

I believe its still a violation of copyrights, isnt it?

If I was quoting directly, typing word for word, then at some point I would be. Copyrights do allow for excerpts but there is a "line" somewhere. I am not a legal expert, so I don't really know where it is. I doubt that anyone here has come close to it, though, with Objectivism.

Plus, why would they charge people money to view the results of the study?

Don't ask me; ask John Little.

Yeah, I'll try to get it free somewhere.

Good luck to you, sir! Also I hope your new place works out for you. Oh, but one thing: if you pay gym fees on a per visit basis, buying this study could mean that you go to the gym less often, thus freeing up time or money. So it is possible it could even out for you.

[BaseballGenius]

Don't ask me; ask John Little.

Do you happen to have his contact information?

if you pay gym fees on a per visit basis, buying this study could mean that you go to the gym less often, thus freeing up time or money. So it is possible it could even out for you.

It would be beneficial to me if I didnt already understand my recovery ability very clearly already. I have done HIT for a year, experimenting with recovery times and with all the other factors.

[Inspector]

Do you happen to have his contact information?

http://www.maxcontraction.com/contact.htm

It would be beneficial to me if I didnt already understand my recovery ability very clearly already. I have done HIT for a year, experimenting with recovery times and with all the other factors.

I figured it was a long shot, but worth mentioning. Of course what you think your recovery time is may not be what it actually is. You didn't have access to a scientifically accurate form of measurement.

[Alfa]

Thanks Inspector! Your answer seems to indicate the difference between Max Contraction and Static Contraction. I saw an old article at bodybuilding.com by Joh Sisco where he mentioned doing leg presses the same way I was thinking. He also recomended a much shorter TUL. It looks like the method has evolved with Max Contraction, which is a good thing - I also think that isolation is better that compound for this and I believe longer TUL;s have better scientific support.

Anyway, i´m gonna give it a try later today. I can´t use any isolation exercises for the legs with this, so i´ll stick to the leg press. Calf raises are unfortunatley out of the question, those weights would break my back(i´m having trouble already with my regular weights, so a 100% more does not seem like a good idea).

Plus, why would they charge people money to view the results of the study?

This is a common practice with studies and $11 is a fair price. Usually scientists release abstracts with a short description and results of the study and if you want to review it more closely you have to by the full study.

[Inspector]

Thanks Inspector! Your answer seems to indicate the difference between Max Contraction and Static Contraction. I saw an old article at bodybuilding.com by Joh Sisco where he mentioned doing leg presses the same way I was thinking. He also recomended a much shorter TUL. It looks like the method has evolved with Max Contraction, which is a good thing - I also think that isolation is better that compound for this and I believe longer TUL;s have better scientific support.

Yeah, Little and Sisco worked together on static contraction, and MC is a further development of that work.

I can´t use any isolation exercises for the legs with this, so i´ll stick to the leg press.

You can't do MC with leg presses because the weight is on your bones at full extension and not on your muscles. Try it with a pec deck or with steep angle preacher curls or something like that, where the weight is actually on your muscles at the top.

[hunterrose]

The science I've read in Mentzer's and Little's work says that achieving muscle hypertrophy is all about minimizing volume and frequency and maximizing intensity.

This Nautilus North study seems to be claiming some pretty farfetched stuff (9.3 lbs of muscle in 6 days ) How much muscle have you gained since you switched to Little's methods?

Let us know what methods you use and how it goes for you.

This is the gist of my workout plan. It's much, much more volume-centric than Mentzer would've advocated (Schwarzenegger might approve, though). But on the plus side, I've put on about 20-25 lbs (190 to 210-215) since the fall of '03.

[Inspector]

This Nautilus North study seems to be claiming some pretty farfetched stuff (9.3 lbs of muscle in 6 days )

Well, that was one of the results they got. From the guy doing MC, naturally. Tim Peake, I think his name was.

How much muscle have you gained since you switched to Little's methods?

It's really hard to say. I had a bad experience with a very quackish nutritionist who got fired. Long story short I put on a lot of fat and then had to take it off. Also, I've only recently started to have the proper amount of rest time in between workouts (not that my sleep hygene is all that great), and as I mentioned earlier, I have been doing it wrong: using too long of hold times and not enough weight. Plus I don't really know how close to my genetic limits I am. I've been working out in one way or another since 2002.

So I really don't know how much muscle I've put on. Without a scientifically accurate means of measuring, I don't think any of us can get too precise (unless your bodyfat doesn't change). I am almost back down to my lean best (about 6-8% bodyfat) so once I get there, I could probably be a little more sure that what I put on is muscle. Until then, though... <shrugs>

But with me, almost any muscle put on is great. I have terrible genetics for muscle gain. I'm an ectomorph; my wrist measurement is about 6 inches (that's at the point where the bone juts out... it's a little less below that), and I'm 6 feet tall. I started with perhaps 137lbs of lean mass. (at 6" tall, mind you!) [edit: measurement method was calipers, so take that for what it's worth...]

This is the gist of my workout plan.

You're not kidding: Schwatzenegger would approve. You have insane volume and frequency and he was an advocate of that. I'm amazed you haven't hit a wall yet. But then again your genetics are a lot more favorable than mine. How long have you been working out?

Edited January 29, 2007 by Inspector

[Inspector]

This Nautilus North study seems to be claiming some pretty farfetched stuff (9.3 lbs of muscle in 6 days )

Here, I looked it up:

At the start of the study, Tim weighed 193.2 pounds. At the end of the study he weighed

192.7 pounds. If one were to go solely by the gains on a bodyweight scale, one might be

tempted to conclude that Tim’s Max Contraction workout produced a half pound loss.

However, since we utilized an ultra high tech body composition testing machine (air

displacement plthysomgraph), we found out what spectacular results that one workout

produced! While Tim’s bodyweight actually did go down a pound, his muscle weight

went up by 9.3 pounds and his bodyfat reduced by 9.8 pounds, resulting in a dramatic and

very positive change in his muscular appearance. In addition, this peak in muscle gain

occurred on day 6 of the study – i.e., 6 days after his workout and during which time he

did NOTHING at all, which is exactly what was required for his body to produce the new

muscle growth – after first being stimulated into producing more growth by the Max

Contraction Training system.

[Inspector]

Hunterrose,

Seems like Mr. Peake is about your build, too. So maybe you could see similar gains... The NN study does include his full workout routine. (although if you do decide to use it, remember to take a few weeks off first so that you can recover from that crazy volume training you're doing first)

[BaseballGenius]

I'm 6 feet tall. I started with perhaps 137lbs of lean mass. (at 6" tall, mind you!)

You were so skinny, you couldve died. What do you weigh now? Just as important, what have been your strength gains with Max Contraction.

Do you expect someone to believe that that guy gained 9.3 pounds of muscle from one workout? Do you believe it? That alone makes me skeptical of the whole study. It seems like a marketing fraud.