from FT to MDT

[duchaine]

I am 44 and trained total body since 2004, after reading Bryan Haycock (I didn't use his program but trained total body and my volume was very similar to Tier III).
During the last 2 yeas (42-44 years old), maybe because I tried to stay lean all year around, I noticed: a) I was not progressing: b) I was losing some strength; c) I felt my legs* and arms** needed more volume.
So, I switched to Mountain dog training (read: I changed my training scheme after I read  booklet written by John and Scott).
I trained 5 times per week, push, pull, led, rest, push pull+legs rest. I train calves every time I go to the gym according to John.
I trained about 16 sets for bigger muscles and 12 for smaller.
I ate a little bit more but I was very stressed so I didn't count calories.
Compared to total body, the good part is I gave 100% in each set, because I knew I didn't need to "save energy" for other muscle groups.
I got 8-10 pounds of muscle. (my BW is very fluctuating so I can't be precise). 2-3 are fat and 5-7 pond are muscle.
All the guys and the trainers at the gym notice my improvement and make compliments.

Now, I "feel" that it's tome to have more frequent stimuli but do not know what to. do. I really love training total body but It is very hard for me to get a decent stimulus for legs.




*I can't feel my legs when I train so I need low weight, moderate/high reps and more volume to get the sensation that I had a productive training.
** When I had more arm volume, my workouts took too long and my recovery was consequently poor.

[Scott Stevenson]

Why do you feel you need more frequency now?...  Is what you're doing working or are you just getting a bit bored?... 

Why not go back to what you were doing frequency wise, with a nutrition oriented approach?...  

Why not train legs in the way you find most productive for them (Mountain dog style?...) and upper body with higher frequency?...

You could do:

Legs (ala MD)
Push - Triceps Volume Oriented
Pull - Biceps Volume Oriented
Rest
Legs (ala MD) Push (upper
Arms (as you find works best), Pull
Rest


Or this:

Legs (ala MD)
Push - Triceps Volume Oriented
Pull - Biceps Volume Oriented
Rest

Push - Legs (generally) with Quad focus (no direct ham work); Upper Push using compounds for chest and shoulders; Triceps isolation 

Pull: Hams direct work, Back and Biceps, ordered as you see fit.

Rest

-S

[duchaine]

Why do you feel you need more frequency now?...  Is what you're doing working or are you just getting a bit bored?... 

Why not go back to what you were doing frequency wise, with a nutrition oriented approach?...  

Why not train legs in the way you find most productive for them (Mountain dog style?...) and upper body with higher frequency?...

Thanks for your reply, Scott. I was planning to get the best of both world but I was looking for a "placet"   


The problem is that sometimes I overthink...I feel comfortable with what I am doing but a voice inside me says "MPS lasts for 48 hours so you need to train more frequently!".

[Scott Stevenson]

Thanks for your reply, Scott. I was planning to get the best of both world but I was looking for a "placet"   


The problem is that sometimes I overthink...I feel comfortable with what I am doing but a voice inside me says "MPS lasts for 48 hours so you need to train more frequently!".

You're welcome!
Yes, but MPS is not the entire story (and there's more to it than just "MPS lasts for 48hr," of course.  )

-S

[duchaine]

I 

there's more to it than just "MPS lasts for 48hr," of course

I would make a question about it.
The catabolic issue apart, I suppose that we should consider 2 factors: 1) how long MPS stays elevated; 2) how much MPS stays elevated.
Some years ago, I read a paper. 
It measured MTOR after workout, comparing low and high frequency workout (the volume per session was the same while the weekly volume was, obviously, different). The study concluded that the MPS doesn't last for more than 48 hours but in the low frequency group the Mtor levels were higher compared to high frequency group. So, in the 48 hours range, in the low frequency group MPS was  higher than the high frequency group (again, in 48 hours, not weekly).
I can't find the research but would like to know if u think that makes sense.

II

"more room for growth"

I describe my feeling, nothing more.
the pump after a high(er) volume session (MDT style) is better than the pump I get after a total body low(er) body training.
I don't think that pump is good per se but using "pump workout" is  like creating "more room for growth" so it makes sense to me having some high volume sessions during the year.
I remember the ABCDE program guy (he had a strange sweedish name) said that the "pressure" of connective tissue is a limiting factor for muscle growth and suggested that the stretching of connective tissue (using stretching, pumping the muscle, loading the muscle with nutrient) can speed top muscle growth.

[Scott Stevenson]

I 

there's more to it than just "MPS lasts for 48hr," of course

I would make a question about it.
The catabolic issue apart, I suppose that we should consider 2 factors: 1) how long MPS stays elevated; 2) how much MPS stays elevated.
Some years ago, I read a paper. 
It measured MTOR after workout, comparing low and high frequency workout (the volume per session was the same while the weekly volume was, obviously, different). The study concluded that the MPS doesn't last for more than 48 hours but in the low frequency group the Mtor levels were higher compared to high frequency group. So, in the 48 hours range, in the low frequency group MPS was  higher than the high frequency group (again, in 48 hours, not weekly).
I can't find the research but would like to know if u think that makes sense.

Doesn't remind me of a study that I can recall. "mTOR levels" doesn't tell me enough about the methodology that was used.  On the one hand, MPS measurements at the start of a program don't predict muscle growth, e.g., 1.  Mitchell CJ, Churchward-Venne TA, Parise G, Bellamy L, Baker SK, Smith K, Atherton PJ, and Phillips SM. Acute post-exercise myofibrillar protein synthesis is not correlated with resistance training-induced muscle hypertrophy in young men. PLoS One 9: e89431, 2014. 301 Moved

whereas on the other hand, if this was a training study, they'd hopefully have measures of muscle growth.

 

BTW, Training alters MPS:
1.  Kim PL, Staron RS, and Phillips SM. Fasted-state skeletal muscle protein synthesis after resistance exercise is altered with training. J Physiol 568: 283-290, 2005. 

You might find this interesting:
1.  Damas F, Libardi CA, and Ugrinowitsch C. The development of skeletal muscle hypertrophy through resistance training: the role of muscle damage and muscle protein synthesis. Eur J Appl Physiol 2017. 

II

"more room for growth"

I describe my feeling, nothing more.
the pump after a high(er) volume session (MDT style) is better than the pump I get after a total body low(er) body training.
I don't think that pump is good per se but using "pump workout" is  like creating "more room for growth" so it makes sense to me having some high volume sessions during the year.
I remember the ABCDE program guy (he had a strange sweedish name) said that the "pressure" of connective tissue is a limiting factor for muscle growth and suggested that the stretching of connective tissue (using stretching, pumping the muscle, loading the muscle with nutrient) can speed top muscle growth.

Torbjorn Akerfeld, I believe.  So this is an argument by authority?... 

If stretching CT is what you're looking for, why not finish with pump set and stretch safely to increase flexibility

-S