Newbie gains again??

[Scott Stevenson]

Thanks Scott for deep analysis

if I am reading this correctly by using Intensive Cruise we are getting best of both worlds
- some re-sensitizing
and
- some training stimulus for future gains

Well, I'm just speculating here that there could be some re-sensitization going on during an IC, but the taper is really where I think the magic lies, if done properly. The idea there is that you've set into motion adaptive processes that are counterbalancing the insult of the training sessions. Then, when you drop the volume (Tier) and frequency of training down a bit, and give time (and adequate rest, calories, etc.) for the adaptive processes to occur, you come back at the start of the next Blast having rebounded.

I think in the FAQ of the book I note that folks can use the Tiers to periodize and/or, of course, adjust per the current state of recovery. The notion of pyramiding into a new Blast - starting initially with a lower Tier - is rooted in this idea of getting the most from the least, or in the context here, that there's some re-sensitization to the training stimulus, so a lower amount of training insult is plenty to create an adaptive stimulus at the start of a Blast.

Simply the re-sensitization (if occurring) would suggest that one should reduce training load (volume) somewhat, but ALSO, if one has rebounded well is not capable of incurring a greater training insult (training loads a/o reps have gone up, which could in some degree be a matter of CNS recovery), then this would also be a reason to reduce training volume.

and there is no real to take REGULAR breaks from trainings (of course this also mean that vacations can also be useful

Thank you again Scott

You're welcome!

There can be many reasons to take regular breaks from training and a lot of guys do this with success. (IT can be simply for joint and connective tissue health, which seems to degrade faster and recover more slowly than sk. muscular tissue.)

I don't know how well folks are having success employing HST, but it seems there would be a sweet spot (which Børge Fagerli talks about as well) where you've not optimized the re-sensitization without any loss of muscle size and capacity in the gym.

One thing that was happening back in the days when I was the official DC Trainer for Dante was some guys were coming back after a cruise where they didn't do any training having lost strength somewhat substantially. this wasn't everyone, but it seems to be a function of how well they were able to auto regulate a cruise (and perhaps how long to blast, etc.) Literally, some guys would regress strength-wise (some of which was perhaps psychological from having taken 2 full weeks off from the gym) so much that they'd spend half or more of their next Blast returning to the strength levels at the end of the previous Blast. So, it was like 3 steps forward, 2 steps back, which is something I feel like I've remedied in large part with the Intensive Cruise aspect.

Still, as Haycock suggests, strength is not really goal in bodybuilding, but I'm a bit dubious of the idea (and I don't think Haycock is saying this to this extent) that one could, over the long haul of creating someone who is monstrous in size, largely uncouple gains in strength from gains in size. More specifically, if someone where, let's say hypothetically, losing all of their strength gains obtained during a previous Blast during a strategic de-conditioning (but not losing size), such that they were getting stronger and then the weaker over the course of many years such that there was no gain in strength overall, that that person simply could, by means of a re-sensitization, end up getting substantially larger.

Rather, i'd bet on there being better growth if someone were using a IC (taper) type of approach, getting progressive strength gains (with unchanging form) and eating to support growth.

So, again, I'm not saying Haycock is saying this, but let's compare:

• Scenario where over 3-4 years, strength has gone up 50% on all lifts
• Scenario (at the risk of arguing via reductio ad absurdum) where someone makes no strength gains, but trains less and relies on strategic deconditioning / resensitization to manifest gains.

I think there needs to be some progressive overload, and taking time off and using the renewed novelty of stimulus (re-sensitization) can play a role here, but I personally would favor the approach that leads to greater performance. For SOME - this is ENTIRELY POSSIBLE - the time off could be a way to foster greater performance gains in the gym, b/c they tend to overdo things a bit. The question becomes (and again, I defer to those who have been using HST) as to how much / how long one would take time off to produce this.

---

about genetic limits
I have similar feelings like Pumped340 - we can't bypass our limit naturally
but ..
there is also world outside this

Well, that's an entirely different topic, as I don't think that most folks really test what is genetically possible and your'e dead on as far as the comment about a world outside bodybuilding. Imagine this, for example:

You have a brain tumor driving appetite, and have been hypnotized to beyond what you would typically do, and literally focus your entire life, every waking moment, on becoming the muscularly largest human you possibly can.

• Think folks like Dante when he was pushing up over 300lb
• Jordan Peters, who was able to put down 10,000 kcal / day when we were working together.
• The phenomenon of the guys who go over to the middle east and are enlisted in the Oxygen gym bodybuilding boot camp. (Yes, there are drugs involved there, but in talking / listening to one of the Pros who has been there - in person and uncensored - it's really not anything extraordinary in terms of amounts of exotic chems. They guys are just constrained to simply eat, train and rest. Literally, they are on a militaristic regimen without time for any personal endeavors, social life, relationship time, etc.

So, I think the governor for how good someone becomes as a bodybuilder is ultimately genetic, but that how good one becomes is realistically a matter of what one is willing to do, and very few people are willing to put themselves in a life position where they can pull out all the stops.

-S