Revamping my training, how did you know it was time to jump off of the high intensity, train, and go the higher volume route?

[Aikman56]

Are you going to let the app run your program or are you still going to dictate things yourself? I'm curious to see how you react to the app running things if that is what you chose to do.

I’m not gonna give it full control, but as long as it falls within the realms of what I’m considering to be of reasonable utility, I’ll give it a shot. This point, like I said above, I don’t think anything is going to retard my progress… That progress isn’t really being made.

 

[traininsane11]

Brief and interesting

 

[Mountolympus]

Ah the Moment i use to do one week heavy (low reps), one week medium reps and one week light (low reps) , and then repeat the cycle

 

[luki7788]

Brief and interesting

I have nothing against Jordan, absolutely not. But I’m asking, when did he ever try Mike’s training philosophy? And for several months, not just a short time. I’ve been following him for at least 8 years, and I have never seen a single moment when he trained that way. Maybe I missed something, but I don’t think so, because I’ve been on his forum almost from the beginning.

 

[alfresco]

I made my best gains training 20 to 30 minutes three times a week. I was 21, 22 at the time, had been training since I turned 18.

My training while consistent it was often interrupted by life and all it has to offer. (I recently made a list for a guide I met in Australia, she was interested all the things that I have done in my life. It’s a wonder I found time to train at all.)

Flash forward to a 50 year-old. Got on TRT plus, gains went through the roof like immediately, superseding any gains I had made in my youth. The training volume went up a bit, workouts were typically 45 minutes three times a week.

I also tried training Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday off, Thursday, Friday, the weekend off, and I made some respectable games. All that would not have been possible without the aid of anabolic steroids, 600 mg three times a week at my max dosage, doctor prescribed (WTF?).

Whoever says you can’t make gains at the age of 50, wasn’t paying attention to me , in many regards, probably looked my best in my early 50s.

Now I’m just trying to keep the wheels from coming off, hopefully I won’t have to use the spare.

 

[TheOtherOne55]

I have nothing against Jordan, absolutely not. But I’m asking, when did he ever try Mike’s training philosophy? And for several months, not just a short time. I’ve been following him for at least 8 years, and I have never seen a single moment when he trained that way. Maybe I missed something, but I don’t think so, because I’ve been on his forum almost from the beginning.

He did a brief stint (maybe 8 weeks worth) of using the RIR method. He documented it in his log. He also talked about it on a couple podcasts. Of course he stopped when he said he was getting weaker.

 

[kadafi2]

I keep thinking about Justin’s analogy of a steak versus beef jerky. And while I agree that the pump sarcoplasmic swelling are temporary in the immediate, I think there’s something to the concept/hypothesis of “creating space” for myofibrillar hypertrophy.

except for the emphasis on sarcoplasmic hypertrophy. Probably heresy to say it, but I don’t see solid evidence it exists. We get a pump, sure, but that’s temporary fluid engorgement, and it dissipates. I don’t see a biological reason why the capacity to store fluid would meaningfully outstrip the contractile tissue it’s meant to support. For lasting fullness on stage, I’ve gotten far more from increased glycogen storage thanks to PEDs and improved muscular efficiency and nutrient uptake.

It's probably a language barrier, but it seems you don't separate the terms sarcoplasmic hypertrophy and muscle pump. Sarcoplasmic hypertrophy is the filling of muscle cells with water and glycogen. This is the rapid growth that athletes experience after competitions when they load up on carbohydrates, or when they simply start a heavy steroid cycle. This initial, rapid muscle growth is nothing more than water and glycogen in the muscle cells, and I've always understood it as sarcoplasmic hypertrophy. Of course, you know this, but I wanted to make sure we understand this type of hypertrophy in the same way.

And why is sarcoplasmic hypertrophy important? Because it facilitates myofibrillar hypertrophy. In fact, I don't know if thickening muscle fibers and a positive nitrogen balance is even possible with muscles "washed out" of glycogen and water, maybe someone with more knowledge will comment on this.

 

[TheOtherOne55]

It's probably a language barrier, but it seems you don't separate the terms sarcoplasmic hypertrophy and muscle pump. Sarcoplasmic hypertrophy is the filling of muscle cells with water and glycogen. This is the rapid growth that athletes experience after competitions when they load up on carbohydrates, or when they simply start a heavy steroid cycle. This initial, rapid muscle growth is nothing more than water and glycogen in the muscle cells, and I've always understood it as sarcoplasmic hypertrophy. Of course, you know this, but I wanted to make sure we understand this type of hypertrophy in the same way.

And why is sarcoplasmic hypertrophy important? Because it facilitates myofibrillar hypertrophy. In fact, I don't know if thickening muscle fibers and a positive nitrogen balance is even possible with muscles "washed out" of glycogen and water, maybe someone with more knowledge will comment on this.

You are kindaaa correct.
That insane skin-splitting pump you get after a high-rep set of curls? That’s sarcoplasmic hypertrophy in real time. Over time, consistent training like this expands your muscle cell’s ability to store glycogen and water — making you look fuller even at rest. Sarcoplasmic growth doesn’t directly make you stronger, but it supports performance by increasing glycogen storage, buffering capacity, and recovery.

Also, the post show rebound is not sarcoplasmic hypertrophy, that's supercompesation. Sarcoplasmic hypertrophy is a long-term structural adaptation. Over weeks/months of high-volume training, the muscle cell increases its baseline capacity to hold glycogen, enzymes, mitochondria, etc. Supercompensation is a short-term phenomenon. You’re just maxing out glycogen storage and overshooting a bit after being depleted. It’s not a permanent change in muscle cell — though if you consistently train/eat in a way that expands glycogen capacity, that becomes sarcoplasmic hypertrophy.

 

[hawkmoon]

Pretty much everything you’ve said here is the conceptual paradigm under which I’ve been operating for years… And the reason I’m thinking of switching isn’t clinically evidentiary , it’s more empirical/observational.

Piggybacking on what was being said by you and previous members around Justin Harris’ comments, I went back and listened to a couple of his interviews and I think I’m going to follow logic, and go for a mixture of styles…

With regard to sarcoplasmic hypertrophy, (to quote Carl Sagan) “absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence.”

Someone said that on Paul Barnett’s recent Instagram post about the pump not just being downstream evidence of hypertrophic stimulation, but being one of severalcausal factors. While I subscribe wholeheartedly to mechanical tension being the primary driver of myofibrillar hypertrophy, I also believe and contend that sarcoplasmic hypertrophy DOES exist.

Either that, or volume is another way (or perhaps a more complete way) to stimulate lower threshold motor units. Well, I’m quite certain body does not necessarily work this way, I think about a teenager in a six speed muscle car winding 1st and 2nd gear up to 6500 RPMs and then skipping 3rd gear to slide directly into 4th.

Then I think perhaps volume allows us to “go back” and spend some time in 3rd.
And I know, clinically intellectually, that’s an idiotic thought on its face because motor unit recruitment occurs from low threshold to high threshold, in sequence. Henneman has been telling us that since ‘57 and that has long been the accepted wisdom.

However, in 2005 Gregory and Bickel published “Recruitment Patterns in Human Skeletal Muscle During Electrical Stimulation”. There, the authors contended:

“electrical stimulation recruits motor units in a nonselective, spatially fixed, and temporally synchronous pattern. Furthermore, it synthesizes the evidence that supports the contention that this recruitment pattern contributes to increased muscle fatigue when compared with voluntary actions. The authors believe the majority of evidence suggests that EMS-induced motor unit recruitment is nonselective and that muscle fibers are recruited without obvious sequencing related to fiber types.”

Now, I realize that this was done with the MS, but I can’t help but think that something similar must be taking place in the day-to-day physiology of what we do.

I keep thinking about Justin’s analogy of a steak versus beef jerky. And while I agree that the pump sarcoplasmic swelling are temporary in the immediate, I think there’s something to the concept/hypothesis of “creating space” for myofibrillar hypertrophy.

Maybe I’m right, maybe I’m wrong, maybe I’m just an old dude on the toilet at 5AM with nothing to do.

What I do know is that I’m turning 50 in January, my muscle-building window is closing, and at the worst, these changes aren’t going to HURT my progress.

I hope my earlier comment didn’t come across as argumentative — that wasn’t my intention at all. I was just sharing my own path of going from high volume to HIT and finding it suited me best. I thought it might be interesting considering I started higher volume and ended up more HIT, making some of my best gains in my late 40s. You are more accomplished than I and probably more disciplined so I would not suggest my way is better, just sharing. IME the happy medium of intensity and volume gives the best results for most.

On sarcoplasmic hypertrophy: I don’t deny the role of acute fluid shifts, glycogen storage, and transient inflammation in creating fullness or “the pump.” But I haven’t seen convincing evidence that there’s a durable, independent hypertrophy mechanism separate from contractile growth. In my view, as myofibrils increase, supporting sarcoplasm and interstitial fluid necessarily scale up with them. Glycogen capacity increase is real, but I’d put that in its own category and largely attributable to PEDs.

About the Carl Sagan quote, it actually comes from The Demon-Haunted World, which I recently revisited. It’s an excellent read on the problem of people believing rather than knowing — of choosing fantasy over evidence. If anything, it feels more relevant today than when it was written. But I think it’s important to note the quote is often inverted: Sagan’s point was that “absence of evidence is not evidence of absence” does not validate a claim by default — otherwise we’d have to accept UFOs just because we can’t disprove them. In this case sarcoplasmic hypertrophy is the UFO. And I’d also gently push back on the beef jerky analogy, I saw it on Justin's IG last week (?). Human muscle isn’t desiccated to begin with; it’s already highly hydrated. So the “rehydrated space” metaphor doesn’t quite hold up biologically.

That said, I respect your approach. As meticulous as you are with your training, diet, and execution, you absolutely owe it to yourself to change gears if you feel you’ve hit a wall. I’d actually encourage it and be interested in your findings.

 

[Sectør]

Would it be fair statement that generally, the best program would involve some degree of both myofibrillar hypertrophy and sarcoplasmic hypertrophy, based on Justin Harris’ program description?

Maybe starting the workout with more strength oriented (myofibrillar) work to target strength and progressive overload metrics—preferably on compound movements for more muscle fiber recruitment

Then moving on to more higher rep or pump oriented work to drive blood flow and nutrient delivery into the muscle (sarcoplasmic hypertrophy)—with these more suited to isolation types of movements, but also being applicable to compound movements as well (such as people mentioning training legs in the higher rep range)

Then you would just have to dial in the ratio of myofibrillar vs sarcoplasmic sets, and scale Overall workout volume to allow for sufficient recovery between workouts? Does this sound about right?

 

[grammo13]

Would it be fair statement that generally, the best program would involve some degree of both myofibrillar hypertrophy and sarcoplasmic hypertrophy, based on Justin Harris’ program description?

Maybe starting the workout with more strength oriented (myofibrillar) work to target strength and progressive overload metrics—preferably on compound movements for more muscle fiber recruitment

Then moving on to more higher rep or pump oriented work to drive blood flow and nutrient delivery into the muscle (sarcoplasmic hypertrophy)—with these more suited to isolation types of movements, but also being applicable to compound movements as well (such as people mentioning training legs in the higher rep range)

Then you would just have to dial in the ratio of myofibrillar vs sarcoplasmic sets, and scale Overall workout volume to allow for sufficient recovery between workouts? Does this sound about right?

To be honest, it's how John meadows workouts are typically structured and how myself tends to organize things
Activation work
Strength/explosive/overload exercise
Pump stuff
Stretch movement

 

[qbkilla]

To be honest, it's how John meadows workouts are typically structured and how myself tends to organize things
Activation work
Strength/explosive/overload exercise
Pump stuff
Stretch movement

I also think milos trains people like this and many powerbuilding programs have basic componds for lower reps then high reps stuff...in a single workout. Then many people alternate low volume high intensity programs with higher volume programs..doing this now.

 

[Big Dave Smith]

The unmentioned variables…

1- Are you using full ROM exercises?

2- Are there any limiting factors in the exercises you select? Ex: Barbell Rows make you tired overall, and the load fatigues your posterior chain to where it takes away from your lats? Do barbell squats make you overall just tired, or do your quads actually fail first?

3- Are you choosing exercises with complete resistance profiles and not leaking tension when performing them? Is the muscle you’re training the first thing that moves the weight?

4- Do you control the tempo? Slow to medium negatives? Killing all momentum in the stretch and in the contraction?

It’s often not the volume or “intensity”. When your priority is load, technique suffers a bit when trying to hit PR’s on reps and new load thresholds. Those little thrusts, rapid changes in direction, and lack of ROM wind up really taking their toll.

If you saw the movie “Days of Thunder”, there’s that scene where Tom Cruise drives like a madman, and his tires are all ripped to shreds. His pit crew boss teaches him a way to drive without doing ripping them apart and he winds up driving faster. Similar analogy here.

I currently adjust volume based on recovery, time, frequency of training, and whether or not I’m on cycle. It’s never high or low, it’s scheduled based on what I can recover from according to the week I have planned. No more aches and pains, no injuries, and I’m still gaining at 40 going on 41.

 

[Big Dave Smith]

5- Are you managing systemic fatigue based on exercise selection? Systemic fatigue = the amount of effort you need to stabilize the resistance profile to target a muscle.
Ex: from high to low
Squats- require you to control the entire ROM
Smith Squats- The path is set, but you’re still moving up and down with the weight.
Hack Squats- More if you is resting on a machine.
Leg Press- You move the weights through space while laying/sitting.
Leg Extension- The only thing moving is your knee.
All exercises hit quads, but offer varying amounts of overall effort.

 

[alfresco]

The unmentioned variables…

1- Are you using full ROM exercises?

2- Are there any limiting factors in the exercises you select? Ex: Barbell Rows make you tired overall, and the load fatigues your posterior chain to where it takes away from your lats? Do barbell squats make you overall just tired, or do your quads actually fail first?

3- Are you choosing exercises with complete resistance profiles and not leaking tension when performing them? Is the muscle you’re training the first thing that moves the weight?

4- Do you control the tempo? Slow to medium negatives? Killing all momentum in the stretch and in the contraction?

It’s often not the volume or “intensity”. When your priority is load, technique suffers a bit when trying to hit PR’s on reps and new load thresholds. Those little thrusts, rapid changes in direction, and lack of ROM wind up really taking their toll.

If you saw the movie “Days of Thunder”, there’s that scene where Tom Cruise drives like a madman, and his tires are all ripped to shreds. His pit crew boss teaches him a way to drive without doing ripping them apart and he winds up driving faster. Similar analogy here.

I currently adjust volume based on recovery, time, frequency of training, and whether or not I’m on cycle. It’s never high or low, it’s scheduled based on what I can recover from according to the week I have planned. No more aches and pains, no injuries, and I’m still gaining at 40 going on 41.

Good info. Tx.

I spent two summers working as pit crew for a friend of mine (driver) on a local race track.

I will always remember him saying that if your car does not break down after you cross the finish line you didn’t drive it hard enough. Inversely if it broke down prior to crossing the finish line, you drove it too hard.

 

[fisther69]

How injured I am

 

[tenny]

3 PLUS decades?....i would say improvement is long gone. best to hope for is maybe more detail/3D look.

i would honestly consider hanging up the trunks.

 

[Massive G]

The unmentioned variables…

1- Are you using full ROM exercises?

2- Are there any limiting factors in the exercises you select? Ex: Barbell Rows make you tired overall, and the load fatigues your posterior chain to where it takes away from your lats? Do barbell squats make you overall just tired, or do your quads actually fail first?

3- Are you choosing exercises with complete resistance profiles and not leaking tension when performing them? Is the muscle you’re training the first thing that moves the weight?

4- Do you control the tempo? Slow to medium negatives? Killing all momentum in the stretch and in the contraction?

It’s often not the volume or “intensity”. When your priority is load, technique suffers a bit when trying to hit PR’s on reps and new load thresholds. Those little thrusts, rapid changes in direction, and lack of ROM wind up really taking their toll.

If you saw the movie “Days of Thunder”, there’s that scene where Tom Cruise drives like a madman, and his tires are all ripped to shreds. His pit crew boss teaches him a way to drive without doing ripping them apart and he winds up driving faster. Similar analogy here.

I currently adjust volume based on recovery, time, frequency of training, and whether or not I’m on cycle. It’s never high or low, it’s scheduled based on what I can recover from according to the week I have planned. No more aches and pains, no injuries, and I’m still gaining at 40 going on 41.

Great post I was hoping you would share your thoughts on point as always.

 

[kadafi2]

You are kindaaa correct.
That insane skin-splitting pump you get after a high-rep set of curls? That’s sarcoplasmic hypertrophy in real time. Over time, consistent training like this expands your muscle cell’s ability to store glycogen and water — making you look fuller even at rest. Sarcoplasmic growth doesn’t directly make you stronger, but it supports performance by increasing glycogen storage, buffering capacity, and recovery.

Also, the post show rebound is not sarcoplasmic hypertrophy, that's supercompesation. Sarcoplasmic hypertrophy is a long-term structural adaptation. Over weeks/months of high-volume training, the muscle cell increases its baseline capacity to hold glycogen, enzymes, mitochondria, etc. Supercompensation is a short-term phenomenon. You’re just maxing out glycogen storage and overshooting a bit after being depleted. It’s not a permanent change in muscle cell — though if you consistently train/eat in a way that expands glycogen capacity, that becomes sarcoplasmic hypertrophy.

A wealth of knowledge. I'm very impressed. And once again I've learned something new, thank you.

 

[primobolan]

I'm over here by the leg ext. fist fighting Mike Sommerfield using increased torque by managing my systemic fatigue focusing on sarcoplasmic hypertrophy with 2.756RIR trying to super compensate my myofibrils into hyperplasia. If I can get his nose strip off I think he'll go down.