Muscle Failure?

[doctoroxygen]

Originally posted by MindOverMatter
I've already said how cortisol which breaks down muscle proteins into their constituent amino acids and sends them to the liver to be converted to glucose. When glucose is burned for fuel during exercise, it is broken down to a chemical called pyruvate. When you do high volume, you work out for a long period of time, and have high cortisol levels. When your body produces a high amount of pyruvate, there is not enough oxygen to convert all of the pyruvate to carbon dioxide and water.

What does that mean? It means that some of the pyruvate is converted to lactic acid, which builds up in the muscles and overflows into the bloodstream.

In English? Working out in high volume creates more cortisol, which in turn produces high amounts of pyruvate, which in turn causes lactic acid build up.

I've never heard that cortisol creates pyruvate. As far as I know, cortisol is an entirely different stress hormone and has nothing to do with pyruvate. I could be wrong, though.

 

[silverwex]

doctoroxygen: bet ya regret asking the question at the top of this thread! lol

mind: dont wanna sound gay but great shape on your body - what type of split are ya on? how many g's of protein you intake daily, and how many reps do you do per excercise?

Cheers.

 

[MindOverMatter]

I've never heard that cortisol creates pyruvate. As far as I know, cortisol is an entirely different stress hormone and has nothing to do with pyruvate. I could be wrong, though.

It's not DIRECTLY converted to pyruvate. You have to understand tho, the human body is full of chain reactions, think of it as dominos. One domino falls, the others fall too.

How does it work?

Cortisol breaks down muscle proteins into amino acids which then travel to the liver. Then they are converted into glucose, which is used to fuel your energy (i.e. you are stretching your workout time, your body is running out of fuel, you need more energy.)

Now this breakdown of glucose and glycogen is referred to as glycolysis. The prefix “glyco” refers to the sugar glucose (which when strung together and stored in muscle makes glycogen); “lysis” means splitting or breakdown. This produces pyruvate.

Basically, glucose molecule gets cut in half. Glycolysis can proceed so quickly (as when you weight train) that the formation of pyruvate far exceeds the capacity of the mitochondria to accept pyruvate into the Krebs cycle. This excess pyruvate is converted to lactic acid.

In other words, working out for a long time (high volume) gives you higher cortisol levels which eat up your muscle proteins, send their amino acids to the liver to be converted into glucose in which in turn is broken down into pyruvate. Excess pyruvate gets converted into lactic acid.

 

[MindOverMatter]

mind: dont wanna sound gay but great shape on your body - what type of split are ya on? how many g's of protein you intake daily, and how many reps do you do per excercise?

No problem.

I'm on a 3 day split at the moment (mon/wed/fri).

my protein intake is over 250, but less then 300, but that's proportional to my bodyweight. The girl I'm with now is a kinesiology student and she always says I take too much. According to her class notes, the maximum amount of protein a human body can absorb in a day is 2grams/KILOGRAM of weight, and anything more then that is stored as fat in your body. By that knowledge, I should only take in like 190 grams a day. I'll probably try that once I finish this 8 week HIT cycle, so I can compare the gains. If my next cycle is worst, I'll go back to the high protein intake.

As for rep range, it varies. I find that the best hypertrophy (muscle size increase) results have come from when i've trained in the rep range of 8-10. But every once in a while, I like to switch it around to 4-6, 6-8, and sometimes even 10-12.

Now this is for most muscle groups. For small muscles like calves, forearms, and traps, I find that higher rep range has worked better for me.

But when it comes to rep ranges, it's different with each person. Experiment around, find out what works for you, and stick with it as long as it works.

The actual key in the workouts is intensity. Each rep is to be done perfectly, and slowly. I'll use barbell curls for an example. It takes me 10 seconds to finish 1 rep of barbell curls. I'll use 4 secs to bring up the weight, then at the top I will squeze the muscle and hold it contracted for another 2 secs, then lower it back down in 4 secs. And it goes like this until you reach failure. I do all of my exercises slowly, with a full range of motion, and I focus on the contraction.

intensity is key.

 

[MindOverMatter]

Originally posted by semag
Dudes... why don't you both post your routines, MetalFortress with your "high volume" and MOM with your "HIT."

I really don't think you guys have THAT much different beliefs

I think you each have a "thought" in your head about what the other guy is talking about (be it HIT or high volume) and may actually believe the same thing...

At least, that's what I gather from reading MF's posts on other stuff, and MOM's on other stuff. You guys actually agree on a lot, I think terms are getting in the way...

My routine is basically:

3 day split, 6-9 sets on each day. Each set is done with high intensity, and to failure.

high volume tends to use 3-4 sets per exercise, and around 3-4 exercises per bodypart (so 12-16 sets total, some high volumers go for 20-24 sets on a given day).

for example on chest they'll do 4sets of flat, 4 sets of incline, 4 sets of flyes, 4 sets of dumbbell pullovers. they'll train for well over an hour, and usually with a lower intensity. they can't go to failure on every set and do that kind of volume. they'll do each set quickly, so they can go on to the next one. I don't know if MetalFortress trains exactly like this, but this is a normal way for a high volumer to train.

training the chest under HIT methods, I will do 2 sets of flat, 1 set of incline, 1 set of dumbbell pullovers, and maybe 1 set of decline flyes. Each rep will be done slowly. 4 seconds up, 4 seconds down, 2 seconds holding the weight at your chest level, then repeat. Each set is done to failure (i.e. can't do 1 more rep on your own). After that, your spotter helps you do some forced reps. workouts tend to be 20-30 minutes, followed by a day off.

the main reason i got into an argument with metalfortress was because he was pretty much saying that high volume is the best and the only way to train, and that everything else was a dumb way (and he calls me close minded lol). i disagreed with him and he couldn't accept criticism, and tried to argue with no knowledge of the subject, no experiance (that i can tell from his photos) and quickly resorted to name calling once his argument fell apart.

 

[MetalFortress]

Originally posted by semag
Dudes... why don't you both post your routines, MetalFortress with your "high volume" and MOM with your "HIT."

I really don't think you guys have THAT much different beliefs

I think you each have a "thought" in your head about what the other guy is talking about (be it HIT or high volume) and may actually believe the same thing...

At least, that's what I gather from reading MF's posts on other stuff, and MOM's on other stuff. You guys actually agree on a lot, I think terms are getting in the way...

http://forum.bodybuilding.com/showthread.php?p=5652966

This is my ongoing workout log. Today is upper body day, so expect an update tonight.

Anyways, I like all sorts of routines. Right now I am on medium to high volume, medium to high intensity. I've trained low volume, high intensity, high frequency before, as well as high volume, medium intensity, low frequency.Training multiple sets and taking the last set to and beyond failure can be a kickass way to break plateaus, but taking one set to failure isn't a very smart long term workout plan. People who trumpet it as the best ever way to workout are just morons.

Anyways, this dude can't even get the meaning of intensity right. Intensity is really just the % of your one-rep max used. Volume is weight x sets x reps.

http://www.world-of-nintendo.com/nintendo/vgchat_pictures/freddy_g.jpg

For all curious, this is me in 2001, at a weight of 270. I'm not a bodybuilder, nor have I ever tried to be, but I'd say I've made a damn good improvement.

 

[MindOverMatter]

Anyways, I like all sorts of routines. Right now I am on medium to high volume, medium to high intensity. I've trained low volume, high intensity, high frequency before, as well as high volume, medium intensity, low frequency.Training multiple sets and taking the last set to and beyond failure can be a kickass way to break plateaus, but taking one set to failure is moronic.

Anyways, this dude can't even get the meaning of intensity right. Intensity is really just the % of your one-rep max used. Volume is weight x sets x reps.

http://www.world-of-nintendo.com/ni...es/freddy_g.jpg

For all curious, this is me in 2001, at a weight of 270. I'm not a bodybuilder, nor have I ever tried to be, but I'd say I've made a damn good improvement.

No offense, but it looks as if you did cardio for a year. For 4 years of training, those are poor results. I see no muscle mass improvements at all.

Training one set to failure is moronic? Based on what? What evidence do you have that proves this? Your own body does not support your argument! Even the push up guy is in better shape then you.

My results speak for themselves. One or two sets, with perfect form, slow reps, and high intensity is enough to fully stimulate your muscle fiber so it can grow. After that, all you need is rest. Excess sets just burn calories, stretch your workouts, and make your body pump more cortisol.

Oh and for your information, intensity is more then just using a higher % of your 1RM. It can be slow reps, use of supersets, forced negatives, pre-exhaust training, tri-sets, static hold weight pyramiding etc.

I thought you were a bodybuilding.com reader. Did you just happen to skip their articles on intensity? http://bodybuilding.com/fun/bbinfo.php?page=Intensity

I'm not a bodybuilder, nor have I ever tried to be

Yet you are telling us what the best way to bodybuild is.

 

[MetalFortress]

What the hell? Someone who puts form over function is trying to tell me who's in better shape than me?

Guess you missed where I said most of my routines sucked for 3 years, and then after I started learning something, I worked out very irregularly, if at all, anyways.

I have to hand it to you though, MOM (that sounds weird as hell to say). Even though you are a HIT clown, you lit a fire in my belly. Now, I have EXTRA motivation to become freakishly strong, and big and ripped, too. I hope you still post here within a year. My results will leave you crying, unless I get injured or something.. And you can quote me on that in a year, too.

Hell, I might need even less time than that. I do tend to gain muscle mass a lot faster than the average amateur BBer, seeing as I actually know how to do it correctly.

 

[MindOverMatter]

Originally posted by MetalFortress
What the hell? Someone who puts form over function is trying to tell me who's in better shape than me?

I call it like I see it. The guy that does push ups is in much better shape then you. If you look at the photos and compare, it's pretty clear.

Guess you missed where I said most of my routines sucked for 3 years

And they still do...

I have to hand it to you though, MOM (that sounds weird as hell to say). Even though you are a HIT clown, you lit a fire in my belly. Now, I have EXTRA motivation to become freakishly strong, and big and ripped, too. I hope you still post here within a year. My results will leave you crying, unless I get injured or something.. And you can quote me on that in a year, too.

Good for you? Do you want a cookie or something?

Hell, I might need even less time than that. I do tend to gain muscle mass a lot faster than the average amateur BBer, seeing as I actually know how to do it correctly.

If you knew what you were doing, you'd have the results now, not a year from now, considering you started working out in 2001.

P.S. you still haven't explained why high volume is better lol...

 

[MetalFortress]

Originally posted by MindOverMatter
I call it like I see it. The guy that does push ups is in much better shape then you. If you look at the photos and compare, it's pretty clear.


If you knew what you were doing, you'd have the results now, not a year from now, considering you started working out in 2001.

P.S. you still haven't explained why high volume is better lol...

1) Since when did form = function? I know many guys who look like him who I can outlift, outrun, outfight, and outjump. I have extra fat on my bones, but by no means am I out of shape. Figures that a guy stupid enough to think HIT is the best routine ever thinks form = function, but oh well. Dude, even crackheads have 6 packs. Does that make them in shape?

Are you the same kind of guy who would think that Ronnie Coleman in contest form is in better shape than Jouko Ahola, because he looks bigger and more ripped? I wouldn't be surprised.

2) Are you just trying not to pay attention? I would have the results now if I knew then what I know now, ass. How many times do I have to repeat myself before you finally get it?

3) Yes I did. You just ignored it and spouted off some bull about a couple pros who use HIT (nevermind that every pro who didn't used hit, usually used volume) and psuedoscience about cortisol.

Oh, and let me guess your response. "They were on roids, which is why they made gains on that." Yeah? I could say the same about HIT, too. Besides, not every volume workout involves 2 hour workouts 5 days a week, but somehow I don't think that simple fact has gotten through your head yet.

EDIT: Since you like to quote bbing.com, http://www.teenbodybuilding.com/zach8.htm, http://www.bodybuilding.com/fun/mohr32.htm, http://www.bodybuilding.com/fun/mahler64.htm, http://www.bodybuilding.com/fun/drsquat7.htm

 

[MindOverMatter]

Originally posted by MetalFortress
1) Since when did form = function? I know many guys who look like him who I can outlift, outrun, outfight, and outjump. I have extra fat on my bones, but by no means am I out of shape. Figures that a guy stupid enough to think HIT is the best routine ever thinks form = function, but oh well. Dude, even crackheads have 6 packs. Does that make them in shape?

2) Are you just trying not to pay attention? I would have the results now if I knew then what I know now, ass. How many times do I have to repeat myself before you finally get it?

My whole point was that you don't know IF high volume works better then HIT, because you haven't tested it yourself for a long period of time. I.e. You have no results with it, which means you have no experiance in the subject. For all you know, high volume can give you no gains whatsoever. You don't know because you havent tested it for yourself.

That makes your opinion, and your argument worthless.

3) Yes I did. You just ignored it and spouted off some bull about a couple pros who use HIT (nevermind that every pro who didn't used hit, usually used volume) and psuedoscience about cortisol.

No you didn't, you told me that "low volume builds lactic acid and that it stresses the CNS". I responded that it is high volume that does that. And just because you are too ignorant to understand it doesn't make it pseudoscience. It's valid university research.

Oh, and let me guess your response. "They were on roids, which is why they made gains on that." Yeah? I could say the same about HIT, too. Besides, not every volume workout involves 2 hour workouts 5 days a week, but somehow I don't think that simple fact has gotten through your head yet.

Yep, all pros use roids, even the ones on HIT. However if you look at some of the natural bodybuilders on bodybuilding.com, you will notice that most of them use variations of HIT/MAX OT/HST, which are all low volume workouts. If you are on juice, high volume is great because you can hit the muscle all you want, and not have to worry about overtraining and muscle atrophy. Your body has a super high protein synthesis, and as long as you eat well, you have amazing hypertrophy potential.

EDIT: Since you like to quote bbing.com, http://www.teenbodybuilding.com/zach8.htm

Interesting article, I like this part:

The Author of the article: "In order to FULLY take out a muscle, you NEED to take the muscle to the absolute limits, to where it is no longer capable of performing."

MetalFortress: ""Training to failure is training to fail."

LOL, foot, meet mouth!

I thought this article was supposed to help your case?


Now lets move on to his argument:

30-40 sets per workout is generally what I do, and yes, that indeed can be done in 45- 50 minutes

So lets say he does 30 sets in 45 minutes. 45mins /30 sets = 1.5mins/set (or 90 seconds per set).

Now he says he rests less then a minute after every set, lets say 40 seconds of rest (out of 90). That leaves him 50 seconds to do his set. Say he does sets of 8-10 reps. That means it takes him 5-6 secs to do 1 rep. That's not high intensity. A high intensity set takes FOREVER to do, since you are doing it slowly, with perfect form, and focusing on the contraction the entire time / holding the muscle in a static flex as you finish every rep. We're talking 4 secs up, 4 secs down, 2-4 secs of squezing at the moment of full contraction. Doing a set like that would take 80-100 seconds, which would give him no time to rest inbetween sets. In other words, it's impossible.

Also, you say that HIT stresses the CNS. What do you think 30 sets with 45 secs of rest inbetween them do? LOL. Hello McFly?? Anybody home?

HIT-ers will often tell you that intense training at maximal weights stimulates the fast-twitch muscle fibers, and type Iia to be specific, which are most primed for growth. Now while this seems all well and good initially, the problem arises in the fact that a single set on any exercise, as much effort as you put into it, cannot fully tax a muscle. If I go to absolute failure in 9 reps on squats, and even crank out a partial or two with a spotter, I am not done.

I disagree. A good, high intensity set is more then enough to stimulate all the fiber in that muscle group and produce growth, without making you overtrain. Obviously doing a set of squats in 50 secs like he said he does will not stimulate all the fiber. Duh! Low volume does NOTHING if it's not high intensity.

Then he says:

Simply put, Dorian Yates worked out 4-6 days a week, for more than an hour at a time

Which is TOTALLY FALSE. You can see Dorian Yates' routines at: http://dorianyates.net/workout1.html

They were all low volume routines, done in short amounts of time. I have no clue where he got this from.


Finally, I clicked on the author's name and there were several photos of him:

http://www.teenbodybuilding.com/zachbb.jpg
http://www.teenbodybuilding.com/zachdd.jpg

That is pretty much what I looked like before I did HIT, super cut, but a small muscle frame. So far, it looks like those 30 sets didn't pay off for the guy.

 

[MindOverMatter]

the mohr32 and mahler64 links did not work for me, if you can find working links please link them.

As for Doctor Squat's article, it's OLD news. It's already been responded to: http://www.bodybuilding.com/fun/cyberpump8.htm

 

[harwell]

Re: Re: Re: Muscle Failure?

Originally posted by MindOverMatter
Some studies for you to read:

Brillon, et al., "Effect of cortisol on energy expenditure and amino acid metabolism in humans," Am J Physiol 268 (1995) : E501-13.

Fry, et al., "Resistance exercise overtraining and overreaching. Neuroendocrine responses," Sports Med 23.2 (1997) : 106-129.

Rizza, et al., "Cortisol-induced insulin resistance in man. Impaired suppression of glucose production and stimulation of glucose utilization due to a post receptor defect of insulin action," J Clin Endocrinol Metab 54 (1982) : 131-138.

I'm impressed... most people just say "it been scientifically proven" meaning they've heard it more than once, therefore it must be scientific fact. That's the only way to "prove" anything (or perform the experiment yourself and publish your results) in the scientific community. Good work with your references.

 

[MindOverMatter]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Muscle Failure?

Originally posted by harwell
I'm impressed... most people just say "it been scientifically proven" meaning they've heard it more than once, therefore it must be scientific fact. That's the only way to "prove" anything in the scientific community. Good work with your references.

Agreed! and thank you.

 

[Laney]

Metalfortress..... Thank god somebody else has a brain in their wonderful head...

T'other jackass... Shut the hell up Mr HIT Jedi!

 

[TedJustAdmitIt]

MOM:If I'm not mistaken in a very recent post you were singing the praises of HST...what happened there?

Did you try it?
Did you like it?
You said it was top notch and that you'd never go back to 3 day splits again.

I googled it and spent a little time reading up on it,I'd just like to know your thoughts as I'm thinking of giving it a go.....

 

[semag]

I've gotta say....

From my experience, the past year or so I've been doing high volume work. It starts as 3 days a week, then goes to 4, and then 5 as you keep throwing in muscles you wanna hit, and different angles, and different exercises.

Last quarter I was doing 4 sets of flat bench, 3 sets of incline, 2-3 sets of flyes, and following that up with 7 sets of bicep work, and that was just a chest/bi day. After starting my cutting cycle, I came across a couple articles that intrigued me about losing fat and gaining muscle (getting stronger) at the same time. I was intrigued, so I gave it a go.

I can't espouse the benefits of low-volume enough right now. All my stuff has been shooting up, and I've made gains right now consistent w/ like 4 years ago when I was just starting lifting in high school.

 

[MindOverMatter]

Originally posted by Ted,JustAdmitIt
MOM:If I'm not mistaken in a very recent post you were singing the praises of HST...what happened there?

Did you try it?
Did you like it?
You said it was top notch and that you'd never go back to 3 day splits again.

I googled it and spent a little time reading up on it,I'd just like to know your thoughts as I'm thinking of giving it a go.....

I did 2 cycles of HST, and liked it a lot (and HST is also low volume, if you notice, it's 1-2 sets per exercise, and it's also a 3 day split, just a different one). After I finished the first cycle, I made some really good gains on my lats and traps (lagging bodyparts), and decided to stick with HST for good. The second cycle, I made some good gains as well, but by that time I got sick of training with some HST methods, like the use of mechanical loading, (i.e. lesser weights). While I did make gains, I left every workout thinking I didn't train hard enough. After I finished the second cycle I went back to HIT. On HIT, I was making gains, and felt like I accomplished something.

It was a personal preferrence. Both systems are low volume, both systems are high intensity, both work very well. If you are just starting out, I'd say go on HST, it's the easier way to train. If you get used to it now, you wont get bored of it later.

I've gotta say....

From my experience, the past year or so I've been doing high volume work. It starts as 3 days a week, then goes to 4, and then 5 as you keep throwing in muscles you wanna hit, and different angles, and different exercises.

Last quarter I was doing 4 sets of flat bench, 3 sets of incline, 2-3 sets of flyes, and following that up with 7 sets of bicep work, and that was just a chest/bi day. After starting my cutting cycle, I came across a couple articles that intrigued me about losing fat and gaining muscle (getting stronger) at the same time. I was intrigued, so I gave it a go.

I agree on some things you said. When I first started out, I was like 24% BF. I decided to drop my bf% and gain mass at the same time, knowing the only way to do that was to eat clean and lift weights. During that time I used high volume too! 4 exercises / body part, 4 sets /exercise. While I did lose the fat (you can see in pictures 1&2 i linked), I gained very little muscle mass, and became very cut.

One of the studies I linked states that excess sets do not help build muscle, and just burn calories. High volume was helping me burn fat, but I wasn't building size like I wanted to. I stayed on it for another 16 weeks (2 more cycles of high volume). The first cycle I gained almost no size despite eating perfectly (I always did clean bulks). So in my ignorance back then, I decided to do more sets. I increased the volume to like 32 sets, and after the cycle, I noticed that not only did I not gain more mass, it seemed like I lost some. I remember my arm measurements going down by 1/4 of an inch and being pissed off. And my immune system was so shot down after that 2nd cycle that I was sick all the time lol.

I realized more sets were not helping me, and started doing research. I was still in university and had access to electronic journals. I started reading up on sports medicine journals, trying to find out the chemistry behind it all. I also did some research on the internet, and came across a Mike Mentzer interview. He was describing a situation that was very similar to mine in which he had clients on high volume and they made some gains but then hit a wall. Then he put them on low volume and they started making great gains. That made me interested in HIT. So I read up on it as much as possible. Also I've noticed that a lot of the sports medicine studies I looked at seemed to be very compatible with the knowledge Mike Mentzer was teaching. That pretty much sold me on HIT.

I've been making solid gains ever since then. I checked out HST for fun couple of months ago, because it was also based on kinesiology research. Was a very good low volume system, but a bit boring for me. But one thing's for sure, I'll never go back to high volume again.

I can't espouse the benefits of low-volume enough right now. All my stuff has been shooting up, and I've made gains right now consistent w/ like 4 years ago when I was just starting lifting in high school.

That's normal. I worked out in HS as well, made good gains, stopped working out, atrophied. Started again in University, and made the same newbie gains all over again. When you take a break for that long, your body forgets the physical stressors that made it grow. Once you start working out again, it comes a surprise to the body, and makes it grow.

edit - Sooner or later tho, your body gets used to the stressors, and stops making easy gains off them. Once that happens, things like workout duration, cortisol build up, overtraining start to slow you down. Almost every high volume person I know at my gym (that I've been a member for years) has either switched over to low volume systems (max ot, HIT, HST), or stayed on high volume and started taking juice.

 

[semag]

That's normal. I worked out in HS as well, made good gains, stopped working out, atrophied. Started again in University, and made the same newbie gains all over again. When you take a break for that long, your body forgets the physical stressors that made it grow. Once you start working out again, it comes a surprise to the body, and makes it grow.

No... you didn't catch my drift. I've worked out SINCE high school, havne't stopped. Switched to low volume and have begun making gains as if I was a newbie again. Insane stuff...

If you like HST and HIT, go look up Doggcrapp's cycle (unless you have already). That guy knows his shyt.

 

[MindOverMatter]

(nevermind that every pro who didn't used hit, usually used volume) and psuedoscience about cortisol.

Oh, and let me guess your response. "They were on roids, which is why they made gains on that." Yeah? I could say the same about HIT, too. Besides, not every volume workout involves 2 hour workouts 5 days a week, but somehow I don't think that simple fact has gotten through your head yet.

Oh and almost forgot. Not all of the pros that use HIT-style training are on juice. Here is an example of a natural bodybuilding competitor (2001 INBF (International natural bodybuilding federation) Men's Novice tall winner (heavyweight) ): Layne Norton. (http://www.bodybuilding.com/fun/layne.htm)

Notice his workout routines?

http://www.bodybuilding.com/fun/layne9.htm
http://www.bodybuilding.com/fun/layne5.htm
http://www.bodybuilding.com/fun/layne10.htm
http://www.bodybuilding.com/fun/layne12.htm

All low volume, and every exercise is done to failure.

And you were saying that high volume is necessery for growth lol.