The "pump" may be real after all . . .

[majutsu]

A newly released article suggests the pump may exist after all. In a recent study, subject animals were operated on to produce a venous blockage. Since blood goes into the muscle through the arteries and leaves via the veins, blocking veins will generally lead to the engorgement of the muscle with blood.

This is very similar to the "pump". In this scenario, the bodybuilder performs many repetitions of a light weight with little rest. The effect in to cause localized swelling in the muscle, which when coupled with the mechanical effects of the repeated movement, produce a "tightness" and venous occlusion with blood engorgement. Also, when blood becomes stagnant, oxygen flow is poor, and there is a build-up of lactic acid. The tightness, blood engorgement and burning sensation is colloquially called the "pump".

Many modern pseudo-scientists, professing knowledge not yet certain in fact, have been fond of brow-beating experienced bodybuilders who value the pump based on their experience. "The pump has nothing to do with building muscle," they scream.

In a recent study, a pump was produced surgically by venous occlusion. The pump group showed significantly more weight gain in the muscle. Furthermore, it was protein, real muscle, not just water weight as some have alleged. Interestingly, the mechanism seems to have nothing to do with IGF. The authors suspect myostatin as the causative agent.

The abstract and reference is attached below:

Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2005 Jul;37(7):1144-50. Related Articles, Links


Skeletal muscle hypertrophy after chronic restriction of venous blood flow in rats.

Kawada S, Ishii N.

Institute of Environmental Studies, Graduate School of Frontier Sciences, The University of Tokyo, Kashiwa-shi, Chiba Prefecture, Japan. [email protected]

PURPOSE: Some previous studies have shown that resistance exercise training with venous occlusion causes an enhanced hypertrophy in human muscles. To investigate the effects of blood flow on muscular size at either cellular or subcellular level, we developed an animal model in which several veins from hindlimb muscles of the rat are surgically crush-occluded. METHODS: Twenty-four male Wister rats were randomly assigned into either a group for sham operation (sham group) or a group for venous occlusion (experimental group; N = 12 for each group). Fourteen days after the operation, plantaris, soleus, gastrocnemius, extensor digitorum longus, and tibialis anterior muscles were dissected from hindlimbs and subjected to morphological and biochemical analyses. RESULTS: Fourteen days after the operation, the muscles expect for soleus showed similar increases in wet weight/body weight (by 7-12%) as compared with the sham-operated group (P < 0.05). Further analyses on the plantaris muscle showed increases in muscle dry weight/ body weight (by 10%) and the concentrations of myofibrillar protein (by 23%), glycogen (by 93%) and lactate (by 23%) after the operation (P < 0.05). Mean fiber cross-sectional area was larger by 34% in the experimental group than in the sham-operated group (P < 0.01). The content of HSP-72 increased, whereas that of myostatin protein decreased (P < 0.01). The expression of nitric oxide synthase-1 (NOS-1) mRNA increased (P < 0.01), whereas that of IGF-1 mRNA showed no significant change (P = 0.36). Although the muscle nitric oxide (NO) concentration tended to increase, but the change was not significant (P = 0.10). CONCLUSIONS: Changes in muscle blood flow may affect the muscular size through actions of HSP-72, myostatin, and NOS-1.

 

[Singleton]

Bump for the pump.

 

[Madcow2]

1) Majutsu - I'm assuming you did not write the top piece and just typed in what you found

2) Rats, untrained, single occurence.

Will this work in a trained rat or trained human (i.e. a lot of shit works for untrained on a one-off type stimulus that just doesn't do crap and quite a few studies find occurances in animals that are unrepeatable in humans). If the pump alone worked can it continue to work i.e. provide this stimulus 1x per week for a year. Do you have very large rats now or after a few sessions is the effect largely decreased? If the pump is independently effective - there should be some sustainable and measurable effect.

The bottom line is that the non-abstract at the top is someone who really wants to believe that the pump plays a significant role in long-term hypertrophy in trained individuals. He believes that this provides some evidence that substantiates a very baseless claim that's been thrown around for a long time in BBing circles. Hell, I can support all kind of lunacy by digging through pubmed. That doesn't mean it's pertinent, related, or implementable. Hell how many guys (including Arnold) have throw out the phrase, if I did lower reps my muscles would take on the bulky shape of a powerlifter's? What about spot reduction and all the morons that believed and still believe that?

Now really, who knows - maybe the pump can be shown to be tied in and matter someday. The abstract certainly isn't drawing that conclusion. It just presents the facts. Maybe the facts will come to support this. I haven't seen much else and like I said, this doesn't point any type of lazer beam at that conclusion despite what some would like to believe.

Interpreting studies like this is best done as critically as possible. Even the conclusions of the authors at times are just horrid or wishful thinking or the result of poor design.

So I've done a lot of research in certain areas (totally unrelated to this) and maybe it's useful to speak about how I approach it. First, it's a good idea to have a solid understanding of the entire field before you conclude or formulate any opinion. Once you have some background and understand the things you are looking at (which is just ultra-rare for any BBer that I generally see quoting studies and pubmed) you then get faced with a study that is on a topic that interests you (maybe you know about the topic in depth, if not you'll be reading a lot more than just this study and repeating this process for all of them). Anyway, you check out the abstract and see what he authors are testing etc...for fun look at their conclusion but don't buy into anything or believe anything. Now start reading the whole study, look at design, look for possible biases or issues, look at methods used, are there issues here, look at the results and statistics obtained - does this demonstrate the conclusion or just demonstrate something and then the authors drew a conclusion about that something from there. Once you get some ideas it's time to look at other work done on the same area and compare (use keywords, look at the references, find papers that cite the one you are reviewing). Same process. Why are the results different. What was done differently. Is anything the same. Commonalities in process, subjects, results. It goes on and on. I do this for areas that I have some very significant expertise in - to be honest, if you aren't seriously involved in the field, you had better talk to people that are. Find the researchers and experts in this area. See what they think of the study, your conclusion, and if they can suggest some other avenues to look at.

This is a long process. This is a matter of getting a comprehensive understanding of the field and formulating your own educated opinion. And this is just if you disagree with the authors and their conclusion or want to fully understand the area. Some random Joe reading an abstract and extrapolating all kinds of crap out of it just because he'd like it to be true - I don't even know where to start. This is like someone being bitter about man being kicked out of the garden of eden in the Bible, taking Newton's work on gravity, concluding that one should avoid apples because they are evil since one hit him on the head and ignoring all the other work on apples that show them to be edible and nutricious. Maybe apples are evil - but this is really really loose and I'd bet the researchers would have a shit fit if they saw this.

 

[blut wump]

I think any bastard who'd go occluding veins in that poor rodent would probably also be prone to attaching electrodes to the its gonads for the fun of it. It was the electro-stimulation that produced the hypertrophy but he didn't dare to mention that in his report.

 

[majutsu]

madcow, nice post.

odd emotional reaction on your part. . .

and why would you assume I didn't write the post (the first half)? Of course, I did. As others know, but you do not, as your reappearance on the board is fairly new, I am a medical doctor and researcher, and I write many articles for both journals and lay reading. That whole language style and manner of explaining is very typical for me. Like many who haven't met me yet, you probably object to the very layman-like and speculative interpretation of this study. Yes, I am very aware (probably more than you, son ) about peer-reviewed quality interpretation of studies with group charactistics and effect size. But after posting these kind of things in 2003 to no reaction, it was clear to me that most non-scientists can not understand the implications hidden in most study designs. Lay people cannot read a scientific abstract and understand what real world issue is being explored. I like to show what the "point" is to a study.

At no point did I claim a greater conclusion for the study than the authors did. I just fleshed out (very loosely) the ramifications of such ideas. As the authors concluded, blood flow does affect hypertrophy (to some yet undetermined degree and extent).

I think my exposition was clear and honest -- maybe a little like the old "Omni" magazine in it's sensationalism and speculativeness, but honest enough over all. I will admit that my occasional posts are aimed at people like you, since we who research human physiology and medicine are amused by internet gurus like you who derive so much certainty from our research that, oddly enough, we ourselves can't find.

That being said, I really think your contributions to this board and others are fantastic. I really applaud your scientific approach to training. And the biggest endorsement yet --- this geeky, old man here is going to begin my first "Madcow 5x5" routine after I return from a Carribean vacation! I'm sure I will go from 120lbs to 135lbs, and end up being the Don Juan of the test tubes! lol Keep up the good work as a positive influence on the health of countless individuals. You should be very proud of your impact and efforts.

 

[Mr_Sinister]

this got ugly fast...

 

[Singleton]

if I did lower reps my muscles would take on the bulky shape of a powerlifter's? What about spot reduction and all the morons that believed and still believe that?

Straw man.

The bottom line is that the non-abstract at the top is someone who really wants to believe that the pump plays a significant role in long-term hypertrophy in trained individuals.

Hasty conclusion.

 

[Madcow2]

madcow, nice post.

odd emotional reaction on your part. . .

Not really emotional. Just seen too many extrapolated conclusions and from the style of writing I got the feeling that it was a case of someone looking for any piece of evidence to support a pet view (i.e. attachment to the conclusion and without objectivity). Mainly, I'm hoping people will understand that you can't just take an abstract that may lend some credence and stamp it as fact. Too many people buy into anything that has an abstract attached (namely another thread a few weeks ago).

and why would you assume I didn't write the post (the first half)? Of course, I did. As others know, but you do not, as your reappearance on the board is fairly new, I am a medical doctor and researcher, and I write many articles for both journals and lay reading. That whole language style and manner of explaining is very typical for me. Like many who haven't met me yet, you probably object to the very layman-like and speculative interpretation of this study. Yes, I am very aware (probably more than you, son ) about peer-reviewed quality interpretation of studies with group charactistics and effect size. But after posting these kind of things in 2003 to no reaction, it was clear to me that most non-scientists can not understand the implications hidden in most study designs. Lay people cannot read a scientific abstract and understand what real world issue is being explored. I like to show what the "point" is to a study.

I don't disagree. It just sounded like something I'd read in Flex which makes me go "oh shit" but a lot of people probably can't digest anything more complicated. I'm just used to more objective conclusions or discussions and what you is sensationalistic. I can certainly see how it might lead on down that path - and it's a really neat path to boot, but there's just nothing to support that this can work under that application. If everything is legit in the study, it basically spawns further research along those lines. Probably a much harder study because getting a viable reasonably homogenous sample of trained humans (or even animals) is hard enough, to get them to go through this repeatably to prove something is probably a whole different world of hassle.

BTW I was here in 2000-2001ish originally. I just didn't post for years and forgot my password.

At no point did I claim a greater conclusion for the study than the authors did. I just fleshed out (very loosely) the ramifications of such ideas. As the authors concluded, blood flow does affect hypertrophy (to some yet undetermined degree and extent).

I think my exposition was clear and honest -- maybe a little like the old "Omni" magazine in it's sensationalism and speculativeness, but honest enough over all. I will admit that my occasional posts are aimed at people like you, since we who research human physiology and medicine are amused by internet gurus like you who derive so much certainty from our research that, oddly enough, we ourselves can't find.

You're right. I reread. It's open ended and possible. Sort of a sensationalist - "check this out, it might be right".

You should know that I'm no guru. I'm not even really what I consider to be competent in the training field. I've said so on multiple occasions. I understand and can implement basic blocking and tackling style training. The fact that I might seem to know a fair amount about the topic is mostly indicative to the very sad state of training knowledge in the general population. The stuff I put out is basic building blocks and foundation - this should be training 101, 102, and maybe touching on 103. Nothing more and everyone with a good background can recognize it as such. If I have any talent, it's in persistence and willingness to explain and make available the information. Plenty of good books out there that can take people light years beyond what I can do for them (i.e. Siff, Verkhoshansky, Zatsiorsky). My info is all long published in textbooks and in long ultra-prevalent use around the world. You'll never see me quote studies or come close to cutting edge - I avoid this because I don't have a comprehensive enough understanding of this area to really interpret and review to the degree that I feel comfortable doing such (sort of a standard that I like to have which I just don't in this area - comes from too much academics but this is why when I see sensationalistic tones and loose interpretations I'm sensative to them). Probably more a utilitarian person for training than research inclined.

Like I've said, the basics that I present are how the world trains its athletes, this has been going on for a long time. I consider Weider mags (i.e. his promotion machine) near criminally unethical in not presenting good training information and IMO over the past 20 years his machine has played a serious role in the spread of performance enhancing drugs in our youth - yeah, they've grown the "sport" of BBing but their shameless bullshit has come at a cost. You look at the anabolic board and how many posts are "I'm 18 (maybe) been training seriously for a year but have plateaued at 6' 165lbs. Diet and training are perfect. What's a good cycle." This kid doesn't know the first thing about training. When he posts his program, most of the people looking at it don't know crap either. It's a lot easier to say no when you are moving forward at a good predicatble clip than when you are stationary and frustrated. My rant.

That being said, I really think your contributions to this board and others are fantastic. I really applaud your scientific approach to training. And the biggest endorsement yet --- this geeky, old man here is going to begin my first "Madcow 5x5" routine after I return from a Carribean vacation! I'm sure I will go from 120lbs to 135lbs, and end up being the Don Juan of the test tubes! lol Keep up the good work as a positive influence on the health of countless individuals. You should be very proud of your impact and efforts.

That program isn't mine, I played zero part in its creation. It's Starr's base that was modified by a few guys who are lightyears beyond what I can do and actually are very competent in the field (obviously it's pretty basic and didn't take all their talent). All I did was bring it here and explain why it works and tell people to try it (and that was actually damn hard because it doesn't look anything like what most people are doing - and even when what they are doing doesn't work, it's still a tough sale). I then expounded and showed them how to setup training and programing. Like I said my contribution is willingness and persistence.

Don't get me wrong I appreciate the compliment and this is really what I was trying to achieve (have a positive impact on people, show them how to achieve their goals without resorting to drugs). I started around 6 months ago because I wanted to do something good and give something back but in starting up a business I didn't have any capital to donate. I did have some time though and figured I could maybe pull this off. Lately, looking at the board and seeing everyone posting PRs, putting on slabs of muscle, making consistent progress, generally learning and feeling happy and empowered I'm pleased with the result.

Anyway - I think we are on the same page but I kind of felt bad because in rereading this morning (i.e. not at 4am last night) it is sensational and proposing a somewhat loose conclusion but it's not a black and white ascertation of near-fact as I took it for last night. I think it was actually the psuedo-scientist thing juxtaposed with a non-scientific sensationalist tone and interpretation making a case for one of the traditional BBing myths (instead of pump - burn, shape, spot reduction etc...).

 

[majutsu]

fair enough, and k for ya.

See folks, not so ugly after all.

And, btw, while I really am a researcher and MD, I actually am 220lbs and just jerking your chain with the images of the professor from Futurama. I really am going to try Starr's 5x5 after vacation, however. I am no great bodybuilder, but I found my research really became alive after I tried to actually apply what I know to myself. I really did start at 140lbs in 2003, though I, like you, found Zatsiorsky and dual factor ideas to be the key to successful growth for this ectomorph.

I understand your issues with the culture of misinformation. I really do.

I said you had made an emotional response because, without basis, you in essence accused me of plagiarism, a self-image which flatly contradicts my view of myself as an individual of intellectual integrity. So you jumped to conclusions because of emotions about other threads, weiderism, misinformation, and 4AM fatigue. I had a somewhat emotional response because my pride was attacked. Furthermore, I have an emotional bias against the (s)HIT crew who dogmatically and uninformedly state "scientific" principles of weight training that don't exist, constantly beating to death their opponents with scientific facts that are not so. DC online, and Darden and many others fall into this, and so does Haycock at times. I have thought in the past that you have too. But this may be in error.

I am very skeptical of any training expert who discounts the experience of good bodybuilders or the real successes of the golden age of bodybuilding. Statements like: "The pump doesn't matter." "One set is all you need." "You can't work out twice a day/week/month and grow." etc. etc. Says who? To me, a more fruitful question would be something like, "Old bodybuilders talked a lot about the pump. I wonder what contribution, if any, blood flow makes to muscle growth?" This is how we learn. Science is not about making any a priori assumptions. Anything is possible. What kind of Jedi mind trick is this?, to wave your hand before my face and say, "There was no muscle growth with the golden age of bodybuilding. It did not happen. Nothing needs to be explained."

Interestingly enough, it is the human control of emotional response that is the basis of science and the growth of knowledge. In fact, the main benefit of the scientific method is the weeding out of emotional responses and unscientific environmental influences and prejudices by the repeated testing of ideas by means of independent controlled experiments. Also essential to science is the mindset that anything is possible and everything we now think we know may be wrong.

I like the idea of Quine's web of belief. Science is a web of concepts and definitions to hold together all experimental observations known. Periodically, an observation pops up that makes us realize that the web is inadequate. We try to prune the most outer and newest strands of the web to make it fit again. We make the smallest alterations in the web mostly for the sake of efficiency and to limit the emotional pain and loss associated with altering our belief structure by necessity. Unfortunately, there is no guarantee (like in relativity or quantum physics) that the most central, oldest and most precious beliefs are safe. No belief is safe. Under certain circumstances, our whole web of belief may suffer an apocalypse. This is science. Science is not a hammer to hit other people in the head, or to discount their experience.

Scientists do not alter or disregard other people's observations, they alter their own beliefs.

 

[guldukat]

Straw man.

Actually, I don't see that: he didn't seem to distort what Majutsu nor the people who conducted the study claimed.

Rather, the mistake--if you could even call it that--might be shoe-horned into a red herring; e.g., "Other, over-eager studies have given us 'false positives,' so this study must be suspect, too."

But even that's stretching it. Since it doesn't really deal with the main thrust of MC2's argument, I didn't bat an eye at that. I found myself responding to (and sharing) his skepticism instead. To claim the study supports "pumping up" as a means to appreciable growth would be to risk context-dropping.

Hasty conclusion.

Probably foremost an appeal to motive, but since Majutsu did say:

"Many modern pseudo-scientists, professing knowledge not yet certain in fact, have been fond of brow-beating experienced bodybuilders who value the pump based on their experience. 'The pump has nothing to do with building muscle,' they scream."

and later:

"I will admit that my occasional posts are aimed at people like you, since we who research human physiology and medicine are amused by internet gurus like you who derive so much certainty from our research that, oddly enough, we ourselves can't find."

...I can't blame MC2 for thinking that. Majutsu, you could've been a little more clear about your intentions, man (Come on: you knew people would want to know what this means in terms of training! .) And no need to posture. "Internet guru" and the like, especially and unnecessarily contrasted to professional researchers, reads like a flame.


As far as the study itself goes, I'm not surprised an effectively 2 week long pump could result in growth. I'm am surprised no one has mentioned fascia stretching yet, though. IIRC, that was the favored conclusion in a study based on weighing down birds' wings in a ~10-12 year old study.

So, while interesting, I, too wonder what if anything practical we might take from the study. We know maintaining a constant pump for any period isn't doable. It's also clear that what we do--pump up for a couple of hours on a daily basis (if anywhere near that)--is of a much lesser magnitude; to duplicate the conditions of the study faithfully, there'd be no "down-time"--no real respite from pumping up. Might we pump up intermittently, then tie our limbs off for a time afterwards?

What I'd really like to see is a study that tests lower-limits, and perhaps in subjects that are more metabolically similar to us--a monkey, say. The idea would be to test the minimum amount of time a "pump"/analogue might have to be sustained to positively affect LBM. But how to design such an experiment...?

 

[majutsu]

very good post, quldukat. Good thoughts.

 

[guldukat]

fair enough, and k for ya.

See folks, not so ugly after all.

And, btw, while I really am a researcher and MD, I actually am 220lbs and just jerking your chain with the images of the professor from Futurama.

Hey, come on...the guy's something like 140 years-old! Give him a break

I said you had made an emotional response because, without basis, you in essence accused me of plagiarism, a self-image which flatly contradicts my view of myself as an individual of intellectual integrity. So you jumped to conclusions because of emotions about other threads, weiderism, misinformation, and 4AM fatigue. I had a somewhat emotional response because my pride was attacked.

Understandable, but MC2's reaction, if initially harsh, is also. Your post could read like an attack on the people who say pumping is inconsequential; and generally speaking, when a poster comes out of the woodwork with such an attack, they're dismissed as trolls. Expecting to be given the benefit of the doubt, especially when you don't post often/are unfamiliar with an "opponent," is...a little optimistic

I am very skeptical of any training expert who discounts the experience of good bodybuilders or the real successes of the golden age of bodybuilding. Statements like: "The pump doesn't matter." "One set is all you need." "You can't work out twice a day/week/month and grow." etc. etc. Says who? To me, a more fruitful question would be something like, "Old bodybuilders talked a lot about the pump. I wonder what contribution, if any, blood flow makes to muscle growth?"

Agreed.

Contrarily, you know we can't appeal to these "golden age" bodybuilders' authority. Since people have developed theories that do not consider pumping yet, in practice, provide reasonably consistent results, it's not surprising that the pump is deemed an unnecessary term--and the old-timers' observations, dismissed as false causality.

That's unfortunate, but you also know that amending a theory to include "Oh, but pumping might be important, too" isn't how it's done. We need some real, quantifiable data (ok, that's redundant) if we're going to turn the progressive loading paradigm on its head.

The study's a step toward that, but we need far more--and on a more applicable scale, at that.

This is how we learn. Science is not about making any a priori assumptions. Anything is possible. What kind of Jedi mind trick is this?, to wave your hand before my face and say, "There was no muscle growth with the golden age of bodybuilding. It did not happen. Nothing needs to be explained."

Sounds like something Mace Windu cooked up

Seriously, I don't think anyone ever suggested that. I'm certain Madcow didn't. I'm sure he would say they attributed gains to pumping that were better owed to lifting ever-heavier weights.

I like the idea of Quine's web of belief. Science is a web of concepts and definitions to hold together all experimental observations known. Periodically, an observation pops up that makes us realize that the web is inadequate. We try to prune the most outer and newest strands of the web to make it fit again. We make the smallest alterations in the web mostly for the sake of efficiency and to limit the emotional pain and loss associated with altering our belief structure by necessity. Unfortunately, there is no guarantee (like in relativity or quantum physics) that the most central, oldest and most precious beliefs are safe. No belief is safe. Under certain circumstances, our whole web of belief may suffer an apocalypse. This is science. Science is not a hammer to hit other people in the head, or to discount their experience.

Nicely said, though in more pragmatic terms, I don't see that the current model is inadequate. For example, what about the Starresque 5x5 requires that we add terms to it?

Scientists do not alter or disregard other people's observations, they alter their own beliefs.

With all respects, what makes you think MC2, DC et al. simply ignored these observations?

That's perhaps more presumptuous than thinking you a troll. It's far more likely that Madcow and others regard pumping as incidental for the reason I touched on: in their own observations, they observed extensive pumping during periods of unproductive training and a distinct lack of pumping during highly productive periods.

 

[guldukat]

very good post, quldukat. Good thoughts.

And yours, too--please don't get me wrong. I'm damn glad to have you back. If there's more to pumping than I've thought, believe you me, I'm first in line to listen

 

[Madcow2]

I said you had made an emotional response because, without basis, you in essence accused me of plagiarism, a self-image which flatly contradicts my view of myself as an individual of intellectual integrity. So you jumped to conclusions because of emotions about other threads, weiderism, misinformation, and 4AM fatigue. I had a somewhat emotional response because my pride was attacked. Furthermore, I have an emotional bias against the (s)HIT crew who dogmatically and uninformedly state "scientific" principles of weight training that don't exist, constantly beating to death their opponents with scientific facts that are not so. DC online, and Darden and many others fall into this, and so does Haycock at times. I have thought in the past that you have too. But this may be in error.[/B]

Ahh - this is where we went wrong.

When I said I assumed you didn't write the actual post I was making an assumption not about plagarism but someone finding something like this on a board or article somewhere and just copying it over for informational purposes or to get other's thoughts (and there was even the winked eye smiley whatever in the subject so I was really lost as to the intent - I honestly thought for a bit it could even be someone waiting for all the pro-pump BBers to jump on the bandwagon and then slaughter them for it. That's why I wrote the "1) I'm assuming you didn't write this" because I didn't want it to seem like I was attacking you but merely showing a lot of skeptism to the conclusion reached from a single abstract.

I guess my qualification taken as an accusation of plagarism was an attack all on it's own. Not the intent though and I hope that's clear. If you reread in that light the purpose of my post was really to illustrate that a single abstract or extrapolation of data to support a conclusion that was not tested and may be very loosely related is a dangerous thing and this is typically what goes on when people cite this stuff. Very very few of the people out there have done anything more than read the abstract or searched pubmed for material that could possible by linked to support a pet theory. I wanted to give them an idea of what really goes into research and what it takes to evaluate it (very painful process as you know even when someone is very familiar with the area).

Regarding brow beating people with science - I generally punt and provide a link or give a layman's explanation so they can logic it out. My whole purpose is to get them out of a single dogmatic view (i.e. 7 days before training a muscle again, frequency is constant, training to failure is required, a program is just exercises and a split) and present reason. I've never said, my way is the only way - actually I don't even have a way, if I did it would be to understand training and programing and then design around a specific trainee - obviously I'm totally unwilling to devote that kind of effort and over the net it's almost impossible. I wrote this earlier to someone else, probably a good overview of my thoughts and motives which from what you say, I think you're going to find we are on exactly the same page with regards to training: http://www.elitefitness.com/forum/showpost.php?p=5141977&postcount=16

Welcome to text forums, intents, meanings, and motives can be so obscured that it takes 30 times the effort to untangle them.

 

[Island Son]

... well now we know who the researchers are. Cheers!

..., I actually am 220lbs and just jerking your chain with the images of the professor from Futurama. I really am going to try Starr's 5x5 after vacation, however. I am no great bodybuilder, but I found my research really became alive after I tried to actually apply what I know to myself. I really did start at 140lbs in 2003, though I, like you, found Zatsiorsky and dual factor ideas to be the key to successful growth for this ectomorph.
[/B]

maj, please edit your post when you're back from vacation.
otherwise I'm going to read that as gaining 80 lbs in 2 years

 

[majutsu]

I didn't start my vacation just yet.

I gave my starting stats in my first elite post answered by a vet named muscleup. My wife will back me up too. I did not mistype.

Most of the journey is documented in my anabolic board posts and training board posts.