Natural Progression/Progress Without Training

So - when i was younger, i used to train regularly, 3-4x a week, changing exercises regularly - too often probably - and i got muscular, but lean… This is partly to do with programming, experience, metabolism and diet. But… Bear with me on this one.

Now, I have good calves. But they tire very easily. They are not particularly a high achieving pair, they tire up hills, and fatigue easily in the gym. 6 sets is tons and i usually do 2-4 sets max once a week with another set thrown in a couple days later.

I have always had good calves, and they thrive on 1x a week training and really thrive on 2+ times a week training. If i do them more than twice then i could use one set per session and they would progress.
I had good calves by 15.
People who have poor calves tend to be better at not getting doms, better at recovering that area. But not as good at building muscle.

Maybe this is because mscle is actually bad… if a body can get away with not building it, it certainly will. If the calf for example is really efficient at exercise and doesnt get overloaded by fuck all… thus no doms, then why would it grow? To use more calories for no reason? Fuck no!

I am in decent shape now. Above average at least, with plenty to go. But like in the fashion i began this post, while i was always a muscular lad i was very lean: a true Ecto/Meso-Morph… lucky in a way, not so much in others…

As i got older my recovery began to drop. For example i never ever could get an ache in my biceps when i was around 18. I would do 9 sets regularly and nothing - plus they were shite too one of the worst bodyparts i owned.
Later, as i got to about 24 they began to ache. All i needed suddenly was 6 sets and they would ache for a day or two after… AND THEY GREWW!!
Now a lot had changed in those 6 years obviously, i have had a natural progression of any young trainee - but it seems to me that that was growth brought on by a direct drop in recovery/performance ability - thus, a sudden and intense overload. As per the Gasroc-condition.

Now steroids increase rcovery in more way than one, and this fact one may argue, does lead to a little extra growth. Ahem.
But what about reduced performance, coupled with an unchanged intensity level, leading to sudden overload? That has GOT to induce a growth response.

I mean i suspect strongly that as i got older and more “crap” at being alive, my body became more muscular. (Among all the variables that we know and love, food, training progressions, steroids, lifestyle etc… etc.)
i am not saying go out and drink yourselves stupid until you have no recuperative abilities - as this clearly will not work.

But do you think that over time, as our bodies do become less recuperative (as we know) slightly, little by little and progessively and in those specific ways, (not in the way of drugs or alcohol abuse would affect recuperation) it actually leads to better growth as we continue to increase the loads/workload but our bodies become less efficient at handling it - thus better growth.

I think that it is PART of it. i do think there is something there, maybe small but something.

JJ

I don’t know if it’s that we become less efficient. I think it’s the opposite. As you train more and get better at feeling the muscle, it takes less sets to get the same effect. Plus, you are better are recruiting muscle fibers, so again you can get more out of fewer sets.

Using calves as an example. I have skinny calves naturally. When I first started training them, it seemed like I had to do 10 sets before I even got a decent pump in them and sometimes I had trouble even feeling them working. As my calves improved, my ability to feel them improved and it doesn’t take me as many sets now to get a good pump.

There was an article written about Dorian Yates and he basically explained what Vader just said above. The longer you train, the more experience you get, the feeling of your muscles and the ability to work them harder with less sets and less time in the gym.

I cant remem where the article was but he explains it alot better than I just did. Basically he can go into the gym and accomplish his wworkout in 45 mins as opposed to most taking 2 hrs to accomplish what he has. It also has something to do with your mind to muscle connection, Again that feeling of being able to target the exact muscle and the exact area you are trying to hit. Makes sense!

When we were young (and I will definitely use myself as an example here, not that all of us were like this) I would go into the gym and just throw weights around. Although I went into the gym to work chest, I might have given myself a complete arm workout and accomplished nothing on my chest

[quote]redbull250 wrote:
There was an article written about Dorian Yates and he basically explained what Vader just said above. The longer you train, the more experience you get, the feeling of your muscles and the ability to work them harder with less sets and less time in the gym.

I cant remem where the article was but he explains it alot better than I just did. Basically he can go into the gym and accomplish his wworkout in 45 mins as opposed to most taking 2 hrs to accomplish what he has. It also has something to do with your mind to muscle connection, Again that feeling of being able to target the exact muscle and the exact area you are trying to hit. Makes sense!

When we were young (and I will definitely use myself as an example here, not that all of us were like this) I would go into the gym and just throw weights around. Although I went into the gym to work chest, I might have given myself a complete arm workout and accomplished nothing on my chest[/quote]

Remember though Yates was a fan of HIT style stuff…

When i was 18 i was training a 2 day split 3x a week and deadlifting, squatting and benching. And when i was 20, i was training with some decent knowledge, using a 3-4 day split and a controlled volume and selected rep range, i was also beginning to write down my macro partitioning…

As for Vader, you may well be right (you too bull!), in that the quality of stimulation improves… but what about my calves. They first grew when i did 1 set of calf raises of 100 reps 3x a week or when they stopped aching at 13-14 years old. I had the best in my class… I have never prioritised them until the past couple years, and they were always good - now they are getting balanced too.

I believe in all the progression that we know about, and now that workout quality has been brought up i agree - but i think there is more to it. As we get older, we do need more rest, we do not recover like we did at 16, 18 or 21… our joints, connective tissue… at 35 football (soccer) players are shot. We are in a constant state of degeneration. We cant drink as much, dont have as much energy, our bodies store more of our food as we slow our metabolisms - we all do. And i believe that this has a profound effect on muscle building.

Who has advised a 16 year old who wants to “get big” that all they need to do is eat, train consistent and most importantly wait till 21 then 25 then 30 as at these ages you get metabolic shifts that allow you to put on more weight - and if your training correctly, that weight will be muscle. I have.

Joe

I definitely agree with you on the rest. I took a week off on my last big cycle just so my body could catch up and I actually grew that week. Never had to take a week off when i was younger?