MESO-Rx

Anabolic Steroids

Titanium Gear Industries (domestic source)

bolder said:
So would you guys think lifting heavy ass weight over a period of time (say like when bulking, eating a lot, and low reps heavy weight routine) would cause the CNS to suffer more than say lighter weight, less calories, and high reps would?

When I bulk I lift heavy and have a low rep range. After that cycle I usually take a break 3-5 days deloading.
My cut usually consists of lower calories lighter weight and low reps but I also take a break after that cycle.
When cruising I usually just balance the two depending on how I’m feeling on that day. If I’m feeling strong I lift heavy if not I lift a little lighter. Seems to work for me...
Guess I’m just trying to say we all need to take breaks here and there to give the body a chance to heal and recover properly.
Click to expand...
Breaks are good. I took a 10 day vacation with zero gym time. Came back and came very close to hitting a new pr on bench the first day
 
Mac11wildcat said:
In BB sets are typically WELL below 90% 1RM and the giant lifts aren’t usually taken to absolute failure, only mechanical failure (or at least I don’t think they should be).

I think CNS fatigue is much less of a consideration when loads are lower, there’s much more isolation work, and failure and volume happen at higher reps (6-8+). But that’s just my theory.
Click to expand...

You are thinking correctly but it isn't just intensity (%1RM) or training to failure (last mechanical work rep is costly) that fatigues the CNS. It is overall volume.

Now isolation work isn't too bad but try squatting 80 to 85% 5x5 three times a week. This will bury you in a number of weeks. So really it's total workload at significant intensity levels or tonnage moved. I don't really track isolation work but big compounds above 70% absolutely.

One thing that is cool is fitness fatigue theory. Basically the CNS recovers 3x faster than fitness is lost. This is how you get to periodization and undulating workloads. With periods of recovery (generally high intensity low volume) you can tolerate much higher levels of stimulus/workload over a 6 month period (example) than a single sustainable linear program.
 
HIGHRISK said:
Breaks are good. I took a 10 day vacation with zero gym time. Came back and came very close to hitting a new pr on bench the first day
Click to expand...
I personally don't agree with Mike Mentzer's opinions but I followed what he wrote about calves and it worked great for me. Don't call him insane. He was fan of Ayn Rand and it's rare to see a pro guy who read Ayn Rand. (another guy was Nasser for sure)

"For some, even one set for certain body parts may prove more than the individual can tolerate or even need. For instance, over the years, I have had training clients, who informed me at the start that they couldn't stimulate growth in their calves, whether they were training them with 12 sets three times a week or just one set once a week. They took my advice, acknowledging the possibility that even one set may be too much, then ceased training their calves entirely. These individuals reported to me on a regular basis, claiming calf increases of 3/4" to 1 1/2" in several months.

Similarly, I've had clients who gained quite well overall with their greatest circumference increase in the neck. These examples prove the reality of "indirect effect", i.e., when growth is stimulated in one muscle, growth is stimulated through the entire musculature - though to a lesser degree; and the larger the muscle being worked, the greater the degree of indirect effect.
...
Conclusion: If you have a lagging body part, stop training that part entirely for a few weeks, then resume training with a lesser number of sets, or, with calves and neck, stop training them entirely."
 
Monstar said:
You are thinking correctly but it isn't just intensity (%1RM) or training to failure (last mechanical work rep is costly) that fatigues the CNS. It is overall volume.

Now isolation work isn't too bad but try squatting 80 to 85% 5x5 three times a week. This will bury you in a number of weeks. So really it's total workload at significant intensity levels or tonnage moved. I don't really track isolation work but big compounds above 70% absolutely.

One thing that is cool is fitness fatigue theory. Basically the CNS recovers 3x faster than fitness is lost. This is how you get to periodization and undulating workloads. With periods of recovery (generally high intensity low volume) you can tolerate much higher levels of stimulus/workload over a 6 month period (example) than a single sustainable linear program.
Click to expand...
This isn’t a BB work scheme in any way though. And what is “fitness” defined as?

What i care about is minimum workload/volume and intensity to stimulate MPS and adaptation in order to minimize the time to do it again. This is an undefined and trial by error process IMO. If you’ve got sources on relating hard/defined periodization to hypertrophy in trained, enhanced athletes I’ll gladly read.

In general I find this approach, for bodybuilding anyways, WAY too deep in the weeds.
 
adnansanat said:
I personally don't agree with Mike Mentzer's opinions but I followed what he wrote about calves and it worked great for me. Don't call him insane. He was fan of Ayn Rand and it's rare to see a pro guy who read Ayn Rand. (another guy was Nasser for sure)

"For some, even one set for certain body parts may prove more than the individual can tolerate or even need. For instance, over the years, I have had training clients, who informed me at the start that they couldn't stimulate growth in their calves, whether they were training them with 12 sets three times a week or just one set once a week. They took my advice, acknowledging the possibility that even one set may be too much, then ceased training their calves entirely. These individuals reported to me on a regular basis, claiming calf increases of 3/4" to 1 1/2" in several months.

Similarly, I've had clients who gained quite well overall with their greatest circumference increase in the neck. These examples prove the reality of "indirect effect", i.e., when growth is stimulated in one muscle, growth is stimulated through the entire musculature - though to a lesser degree; and the larger the muscle being worked, the greater the degree of indirect effect.
...
Conclusion: If you have a lagging body part, stop training that part entirely for a few weeks, then resume training with a lesser number of sets, or, with calves and neck, stop training them entirely."
Click to expand...
This is great except there are dozens and dozens of professional bodybuilders doing the exact opposite.

There is no set, defined path. Both of these are viable methods. But you don’t default and say it’s THE way to address it.
 
adnansanat said:
I personally don't agree with Mike Mentzer's opinions but I followed what he wrote about calves and it worked great for me. Don't call him insane. He was fan of Ayn Rand and it's rare to see a pro guy who read Ayn Rand. (another guy was Nasser for sure)

"For some, even one set for certain body parts may prove more than the individual can tolerate or even need. For instance, over the years, I have had training clients, who informed me at the start that they couldn't stimulate growth in their calves, whether they were training them with 12 sets three times a week or just one set once a week. They took my advice, acknowledging the possibility that even one set may be too much, then ceased training their calves entirely. These individuals reported to me on a regular basis, claiming calf increases of 3/4" to 1 1/2" in several months.

Similarly, I've had clients who gained quite well overall with their greatest circumference increase in the neck. These examples prove the reality of "indirect effect", i.e., when growth is stimulated in one muscle, growth is stimulated through the entire musculature - though to a lesser degree; and the larger the muscle being worked, the greater the degree of indirect effect.
...
Conclusion: If you have a lagging body part, stop training that part entirely for a few weeks, then resume training with a lesser number of sets, or, with calves and neck, stop training them entirely."
Click to expand...

Mike was on amphetamines (training and work) and did eventually go nuts. If I recall he ran into Golds dressed in robes preaching end of the world shit or something similar.

He and Arthur Jones were on the right track but did everything in a single factor mindset rather than dual factor or fitness fatigue theory understanding the CNS role. They basically took high volume guys, rested them and took credit for the results. Consider the real stimulus was all their previous high volume and that rest period (low volume high intensity) is what allowed for recovery and super compensation (adaptation) to take place.

They were on the right track but this is the modern theory and explains everything. Plus Arthur was trying to sell machines and revolutionize the fitness industry so he had no interest or incentive in alternative and better supported theory.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

sp5der
sp5der - QUALITY US DOMESTIC
30 31 32
Replies
634
Views
29K
sp5der
sp5der
Venom Lab
Venom Lab Boutique - AAS - HGH and Peptides - EU Domestic
25 26 27
Replies
527
Views
42K
Ziath11
Ziath11
Photon
(US) Vendor gear found with dissolved brewing equipment (Plastic)
4 5 6
Replies
113
Views
8K
jpe1
J
P
WWB issue
Replies
10
Views
660
Ziath11
Ziath11
SulekJr
Fairly priced EQ/Boldenone?
2 3 4
Replies
67
Views
2K
Banana Joe
Banana Joe

Sponsors

Latest posts

Back
Top