Newbie gains again??

[Scott Stevenson]

I took him saying "There is also world outside this " to mean there is a world outside of natural limits i.e. gear. Maybe I misinterpreted though.

I do wonder though, all of those examples are guys on hefty amounts of gear at one point or another. It really does seem like most huge pros have at one point gotten VERY heavy and then cut down. However, it seems almost all natural pros disagree with this approach and when they look back at the periods where they were fatter they say it was a ridiculous thing to do and it shouldn't be done. (Now we could argue that it did indeed help them and they are just not acknowledging that). Alberto Nunez, Eric Helms, Brad Loomis, Layne Norton, Jeff Alberts, Doug Miller, Brian Whitacre, Tom Venuto, etc etc natural pros who advocate never really pushing body weight or body fat too high. Just makes you wonder.

Now if you had a gun to my head and told me I had 3 years to put on the maximum amount of muscle I'd probably bulk like crazy over 2 years and try to put on 50+lb and then spend the last year slowly dieting....but then again I did that and by the time I lost the fat I was back where I started so I do see a discrepancy there in the natural vs enhanced camp. Just an observation.

Yeah, it's hard to know whether there is something categorically different going on with AAS, which we know does obviously greater the potential for much greater growth, so that increases in muscle size, even if just <10%, would be more evident in someone who's using PEDs and pushed the limits and really gone for broke.

Psychologically speaking, there's also that the gains are so much better with AAS, etc. that one would eventually realize that the gains in more muscle are not worth the fat that comes along for the ride. (This is not to say that there might not be some more muscle that comes in going to 250 vs. just a leaner 230, but it's more apparent when someone is comparing going to 310 vs. 270 and the impetus to keep gaining when one is so large is perhaps rooted differently: At 250 a natty guy might not stand out as much as if he were at 310 so he'd want to get down to a leaner BF% more quickly.)

Even then - those last few pounds may not translate on stage in an entirely obvious way. (2-3 lb of stage weight is noticeable to a competitor, but maybe not worth it

There's also that there may be (not true of everyone) a difference in mindset between a natural and drug using competitor: A do at all costs kind of mentality that could differentiate them.

1.
if reading correctly
Bryan - in SD - suggests to use (in next HST cycle) lighter loads (weights) at the beginning of new cycle to start again processes of growing
HST is based on somehow (some zig-zags (for a week or two) are OK) linear progression
and is also based on progressive overload (increases weights) in time - from cycle to cycle
HST utilized same exercises so need of re-sensitization for them

FT is not based on linear progression (in short period of time we are using MR, Pump Sets and Load sets) - as far as I understand and use it
FT uses also some kind of re-sensitization (in my opinion - please correct me Scott) of muscle cells by rotating exercises - so every time there is a new stimulus to muscle cells (during Blasts) - even time is somehow similar - 21 weeks in FT and 14 days in HST
and by reducing volume (Tier) and frequency during IC

I can really say exactly if what you're saying about HST is entirely true, but the progressing in FT is not set out in a pre-determined "linear" or other way, and yes, I would say there could be some re-sensitization coming from IC.

I don't wquite fillow the 21weeks vs. 14 days comparison you make...

2.
I'm not saying HST>FT nor FT>HST
been using HST long time ago
and I love FT right now - many reasons - and I'm 46 and have a best physique in my life right now

just asking
should we use something similar to SD in our FT training?
but if I am right I have (with your help Scott) answered my own question

Well, I think that a layoff, call it strategic b/c it's planned, could and should have a place as a possibilty if someone is just not progressing and regular deloading (I'm speaking generically here, not jsut about FT) isn't sufficient.

I think the crux of the issue is whether, if one is making progress and by all estimates would CONTINUE to do so, whether it would be at that point better to:
• Strategically decondition in some way?...
• Continue making progress?...

(Sorry if I'm creating a strawman argument above... Not my intention.)

I really can't say for sure, as I've never intentionally derailed what I thought was a progressing, fruitful period of training by deloading long enough to intentionally create a deconditioning effect.

I do think - for some folks who perhaps aren't very good at autoregulating - that setting a deconditioning effect in their sites may mean they deload longer and in a way that means they actually do get refreshed enough to start making forward progress again.

A question that Bryan may have answered (I didn't hear it on the podcast) is HOW much deconditioning are we shooting for and how can we measure / quantify this?... Should one have actually lost high load strenght or perhaps just some degree of strength -endurance (able to maintina workload over a workout) or is this really a matter of just some diminution of the repeated bout effect, but without an actual substantial amount of deconditioning from a PERFORMANCE perspective.

In other words, need one actually become "deconditioned" to optimize the resensitization and I would suspect that that's not the case...

... and this is another topic... But one can create this same novelty of stimulus effect (as you intimated kind of above) by simply rotating exercises, using a DUP (as HST does) or even just employing a different trainng sytem altogether. This is why I suggest (and have seen folks have good results with) rotating among 2-3 programs, such as FT, MD and DC. This is would take us off topic, but fits here in that if finding a trainign stimulus one is responsive (sensitive to) is important (I think it is!), then this can be had by variety without a "deconditioning" per se.

3.
Scott you are absolutely right about dedication

as in every aspect of life

you receive what you have given

but as Pumped340 suggested by
'world outside NATURAL limits' I meant drugs
but this drives us to another topic - maybe we should start new post ?

Yeah, I got you now (addressed above).

I'd rather not have a huge drug talk thread, but if we're keeping it scientific and theoretical, and doesn't degrade into which drugs work best, which I think we can do, we can start another thread.

Still, if you have a though connected to this thread, that involves AAS and novelty of stimulus, we'll jsut keep it here.

-S