What I did years ago is not what I do now.
Apparently people hate opinions and facts. What I have said I have back up with evidence. There just isnāt enough volume for the base program to be OPTIMAL for hypertrophy. There isnāt enough LOAD in the base program for it to be OPTIMAL. There is research pointing to this that you fan boys can find. VOLUME DRIVES HYPERTROPHY AND LOAD DRIVES STRENGTH. Simple as that. I am not replying to any of you ignorant people anymore. If you try to rebuttle fact with āBuT He HaS SOlD BoOkSā and āI RaN IT anD DOinG fInEā or even āYOu DidNT Run ITā when I explained that I have, then that shows ignorance and a lack of general knowledge. In short, fact it fact. Deal with it.
Calm downā¦ if it makes you feel better I agree with some of the things you have said.
There is no base program of which you speak.
2 Likes
I am glad you came here. You have laid out a well thought out rebuttal (or, as you say, rebuttle) that clearly shows that 531 is an inferior way to train.
Could I bother you with a question? Why is ATP, as you say, a āstronger fuelā than ADP? How does breaking the phosphate bond release energy, when bonds are strong and require energy to break? Shouldnāt this be a process that takes energy, and not releases it? Thanks.
1 Like
Iām curious about this whole thing too.
I know that youāre pretty darn good with understanding these things, but Iā a little weak on them, as I never formally studied it like the op and its been years since Iāve really looked at them.
I will gladly answer this. You are overcomplicating it a bit. ATP and ADP are virtually the same. The only difference is one extra phospate being added onto ATP as opposed to ADP (fun fact, that is the main reason for creatine. It offers that phosphate to ADP to make more ATP). There I simply more to it, so it is a stronger fuel. It doesnāt take much to break these bonds either. It is a differwnt reaction when ATP breaks down than ADP, obviously since they are different, but the energy needed to break that one last bond is very easily restored.
I forgot to tag you, but I sparknoted the answer just above.
Wait, so if energy is required to break these phosphate bonds, why does breaking the phosphate bond of ATP to form ADP give off energy? Shouldnāt it consume it if breaking a bond takes energy, even if, as you say, ānot that muchā?
It would consume, but you must remember that energy, like matter, cannot be created or destroyed. The energy you put in is put back out. Most of it is absorbed right back into your body and is ready for use again, while other parts of it are released through a multitude of bodily functions, with one being giving off heat.
Try to think of it more as your body breaking down the fuel, then that fuel is broken down, then both the fuel and energy are used by your muscle. The energy is being converted.
I must be honest with you. I teach organic chemistry for a living, and was toying with you a bit.
Breaking any bond requires energy, as bonding occurs because it lowers the energy of a system. So, breaking a phosphate bond requires energy, and does not release it. I was curious if you knew why ābreakingā the phosphate bond from ATP to form ADP can be a source of energy if you must put energy in to break the bond.
So, shouldnāt forming the phosphate bond and going from ADP ā ATP release energy? Shouldnāt breaking the bond and going from ATP ā ADP consume energy? But thatās the opposite of reality. Why?
You are foregtting that these are two seperate stores. Our bodys can create ATP out of ADP, but that is not how what I am explaining to you works. You have them both stored seperately. They are both at the ready, but your body uses ATP first, then uses other sources that follow the seqence as it deems that it should, which is usually when there are really low amounts of the select fuel source. Almost like a gas tank and a tank of diesel (if there is a new vehicle that can use both). Even if this car can create diesel out of gas, there are already different stores of both fuels. You dont use the gas then created diesel, but instead use gas then use diesel.
Dear sir. I donāt need analogies. I have a PhD in organic chemistry, and have been a professor at the University level for 15 years. I was simply curious how much you actually understood about the process, thus I was asking. It is often explained that energy is produced by breaking the phosphate bond of ATP, forming ADP. This is technically incorrect, though, because breaking a chemical bond consumes energy, and does not produce it. Do you know how to explain this? Again, using scientific terminology and not analogies as if I donāt understand the thermodynamics of chemical transformations.
I wasnāt doing the analogies for you. It makes it easier for me to explain and has been a habit of mine for years that I do not plan on breaking. Before I begin again, I would like to say that I am in several conversations and am not a chemist. I had a chem 1010 course and that is it for chem. Wasnāt needed anymore. I am by no meams a professional there. The way most of this information is taught is by actually explaining it in laymans terms, so I am doing my best for the chem portion. What I was taught in ES classes is that there are these seperate fuels. Our bodies can produce them, but they donāt need to most of the time since there are already full stores available in most situations. I peieced the chem portion together from my understanding of it. It is to my underatanding that when creating ATP (which is not very common in our bodies when talking about consumption of fuel) I could sum up that there needs to be an extra phosphate added to ADP (something I was actaully taught and also makes logical sense), I looked back to what I learned in chem 2 years ago and thought, well it needs the energy to bond, but I know that the energy in that fuel is used when the fuel itself is used. I know that the energy is then released from it as it breaks down the fuel and the muscle uses it for the activity at hand. If the logic behind the chemistry is wrong, then I would actually like it if you could explain the issues with what I said, if you would be willing to do so.
No problem. I am not a biologist, so I can explain the chemical details but not so much the overall processes. For example, I teach lots of bio students (who all need OChem), we talk about the chemistry of vision using molecular orbital theory, which involves a isomerization of a conjugated alkene. They never knew this details from bio, but I donāt have the expertise to know who this causes a cascade of biochemical transformations as the isomerization changes the why the retinal fits in the opsin protein.
For this, breaking the phosphate takes energy. But the reality is that the bond is hydrolyzed, which means split by water. The product is not simply an ADP and broken lose phosphate, but also forms new bonds with the OH and H of the water. The overall process also changes the entropy (randomness) of the system, and the ability of the living body to solvate the resulting products. There are also concentration gradients and other aspects that result, overall, in the hydrolysis of the phosphate group from ATP releasing ~14 kcal / mol of energy. This is actually about the same for ADP to form AMP, as the phosphate groups are essentially the same. I believe, though, the the enzymes we have are specific to the hydrolysis of ATP and we are better at doing this. Enzymes donāt change the overall thermodynamics of the process, just the rate at which the reaction will proceed.
Itās frustrating for chemists, because biology faculty often say ābreaking the high energy phosphate bond releases energyā and students are then confused in chemistry courses where they need to understand that it is impossible for breaking a bond to release energy. Also, calling something a āhigh energy bondā is nonsensical.
Thank you! I obviously donāt understand all of what you said, but I atleast have a little more knowledge as to why this happens.
Iāve read a few articles about this. For instance, Iāve read that quads respond very well to 15-20 reps in a set. My main concern with this is that I donāt think Iād be using enough weight to make any significant difference. The inverse relationship of Intensity vs. Volume dictates that to achieve higher volumes you must sacrifice intensity. I think you touched on it, but Iām looking at it in a slightly different way here: if I tried to do 5 sets of 20 squats, Iād probably have to use about 225lbs, roughly 55% of my 1rm. I donāt think that training 20 rep squats with 55% of a 1rm is anywhere near optimal for someone who is looking to transition back into strength soon.
I think (and this is purely theoretical thinking on my part here) that the 5x10 scheme that BBB uses is one of the better ways to go about achieving hypertrophy for someone who is focusing on strength in the grand scheme of things. It seems so far to be the sweet spot of high volume/multiple moderately high rep sets combined with the ability to allow trainees to use weights that are substantial enough. Not just to create hypertrophy, but substantial in the sense that the intensity can be kept high enough where transitioning back into a strength phase wonāt be quite as much of a shock to my body. Iām sure there are programs (actually, I believe thereās one called āThe Hungarian Oakā or something here on TN) where trainees use extremely submaximal weights and achieve extraordinary results. But, like you mentioned, that really provides zero applicable carryover to strength training. Squatting 115lbs for 8 minutes might sound easy, and it might be, but once your body gets used to the light load and insane TUT, thatās what youāre going to be good at until you struggle to build yourself back up to handle heavy loads and very low TUT situations.
To summarize, I guess everything depends on your goals. For me, BBB seems to be doing the trick. Itās possibly placebo, but I believe my hamstrings, quads, and upper chest (my 3 main target areas) have grown a bit in the last month and a half or so. I guess Iāll see how well this hypertrophy thing plays out once Iām a few months back into true strength training. Alsoā¦ one of the reasons I decided to try BBB is because Iāve heard some good things about it. Itās pretty simple and easy to tweak to accommodate personal preferences. AND because OG 531 worked so well for me, maybe Jimās style of programming is just exactly what my body needs. Who knows
Iām glad you brought this up. I took Bio 1 & 2 last year and Chem 1 & 2 this year along with A&P, and that was one of the things that really threw me for a loop. I thought I was crazy, or that the science world had just changed its mind over the summer before I started chem and anatomy lol
Tracking progress =/= knowing you improved at a better rate using one methodology vs. another. Certainly not in the long term.