Originally Posted by why
Water and IMTG vary a lot. Equating poundages to calories for muscle is just so wrong. Compare london broil to a porterhouse, then turn the london broil into beef jerky for further comparison.
It's just wrong...don't do it. Especially since muscle proteins aren't metabolized anything like fat since they're not a ready fuel source and need a whole lot of conversion.
Apples to oranges (cooked/dehydrated versus muscles in the body). Like I said we're just going to have to agree to disagree. The poundage loss was a guestimate based on those numbers. I don't agree with such a large defecit because muscle wasting becomes a big concern imo. That's the last I'm going to say on this subject. Everyone is different and behaves differently, so anything must be taken with a grain of salt. Try different things and find what works best for you. This thread is just about what has worked for me in the past. I state everything as fact because it's simpler to get my point across that way.
Originally Posted by Kas
You advocate training to failure while many influential writers oppose that idea. Could you give your reasoning?
Honestly, like everything else -- it depends. Complete failure would be like the point where you have absolutely no glycogen left and lifting any amount of weight becomes nigh impossible. I personally don't go to that point any more, though I do know a few people who do and have had a lot of success with it. A few years ago I tried it with a friend for a few months and while we had some success with it, it generally left us feeling like dogshit for the rest of the day and the next (specifically referring to leg days).
I suppose fatigue would be the more opt word choice when discussing rep ranges. Failure to me seems to imply higher rep work. When discussing 6-8 for example, I'm referring to using a weight you can perform between 6 and 8 repetitions using strict form (not cheat or forced reps). Some will choose 8-12 or 6-10 -- this was just trial and error for me. Experiment. I have a tiny frame (6.5" wrists. waist when dieted down is typically between 25 and 27". This is part of the reason I look much larger on camera than my weight would imply.) so I get a lot of benefit from the lower rep ranges with respect to muscle growth. Some heavier built people might benefit from 8-10 or 8-12 more. It's quite hard to say for sure without meeting with the person and at least get a general idea of their build and exercise history.
With respect to the drop sets, I've only included them once before several years ago. It was fun to get the pump and I walked out of the gym feelings more accomplished (say it's an arm day and you can curl 115. by the end of the set you struggle to curl a 45 lb bar even a few times.), but I can't honestly say I noticed any significant difference in growth. I've incorporated it again just to try something different and beat down some of the monotony in the gym. I can see how it could be moderately useful to pre-exhaust as well.
If you could give an example of a writer advocating not
training to failure, I would be happy to give a comment or opinion on the matter. There are correct ideas on both sides of the fence on this topic imo.