Sangoma wrote: Blaidd Drwg wrote:
Blaidd Drwg wrote:OTOH most people don't do enough volume.
Sorry kiddos. That's science not giving a shit about your feels.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1 ... 73480/full
Decent and fairly evenhanded nuanced explanation of same
Whether you think you are a special snowflake or not, the answer almost never leads one down the road of "get more results by doing less",....it's maximize the amount of recovery capacity to do more .....by doing more.
Hard gainers and the gender wage gap belong together..... in the myths we cling to because of that one time things were really hard.
The study quoted above is about endurance training. You reckon the same applies to all training goals, such as strength and hypertrophy?
I do because it's ibservably true.
Lemme clarify some bullet points.
Subject declares themselves a hardgainer, makes little or progress
First Issue: how's nutrition, make them record diet. Turns out they eat barely at maintenance...(wants to not Lose abs).
Second issue;..what's recovery like? ."life is too stressful, recovery is poor" turns out they stay up until all hours playing Xbox.
Third question: how's technique and exercise selection? Turns out technique is shite, they can't execute basic bb movements effectively enough to progress, they have a technique limitation, not a muscular one.
I've seen this exact scenario dozens and dozens of times in both cycling and strength training.
Now once you correct for these (you've made all things equal) you have two distinct possibilities left.
One, they have a very low tolerance for discomfort. This is very real and not uncommon. They have no barometer for understanding the correct amount of effort. This cuts both ways as you saw in th Nuckils write up, some people just push right past their recovery capabilities. So what we see here is someone who appears to need less volume to progress... which is possible but the more likely observable truth is that they are just an idiot with a poor sense of regulating discomfort.
The second possibility is simply they are weak for another reason, age, overall health, sedentary childhood... they are non hackers because they have so much further to go. I've never seen a hardgainer who had played other sports or was active outside of the gym.
These are patterns I've observed. As to the difference between endurance and strength, I see no physiological reason why they should be different. We're trying to get past first tier adaptations (motor learning) and start developIng changed to the physiology, bone density, golgi tendon disinhibition, increased RFD.. or otoh, changed in enzymatic activity supporting aerobic metabolism, cardiac hypertrophy, etc... the speed at which second tier adaptations CAN take place is alarmingly similar whether we are talking about the aerobic system or the Phos/creatine energy system and the rate at which muscle fibers can adapt (outside of short term changes to mitochondrial density from glycolysis efforts) is about the same. Obviously there's a major difference in how long it takes to put on 20 pounds of lean muscle or to develop very high level endurance but the fact it's a 5 year MINIMUM proposition for most people is probably not coincidence.