MAX-OT

[iMToMMy]

has anyone tried this? im in my second week and wow it is intense

if you have tried it has it worked for you what gains did u get?

[bennyhanna1]

I have never tried it, but i have heard bad things about it...

[BlindFury]

i haven't done the actual Max-OT program, but i have implemented various components of it into my training regiment. Their warm-up philosophy is awesome, no wasted energy anywhere.

[B.A.M.]

[ QUOTE ]
has anyone tried this? im in my second week and wow it is intense

if you have tried it has it worked for you what gains did u get?

[/ QUOTE ]

Maybe you should search around the forums at www.bodybuilding.com (http://www.bodybuilding.com) a lot of people over there have used it and have had huge success with it.

[macho999]

I did the whole six month max-ot thing, followed it exactly. I made good gains and got a lot of strength. I still use max-ot principles but that 5 days a week stuff was killing me.

[B.A.M.]

Yea, that's the one thing I don't agree with Max-OT on, their program is aimed at natural bodybuilders. 5 days a week w/ the intensity that max-ot calls for IMO is rough on any natural BBer.

[PiZ56]

i tried max ot... pretty awesome stuff, but i dont like the split. tried it for a month and got some size out of it but more strength

[**DONOTDELETE**]

[PiZ56]

deleted by me

[**DONOTDELETE**]

[BlindFury]

[ QUOTE ]
keep the muscle active until its ATP stores are completely exhausted.

[/ QUOTE ]

why is completly depleting ATP stores neccessary for muscle growth?

also is ATP stores depletion the same as glycogen depletion?

[**DONOTDELETE**]

[Fireproof]

Great info, Yu. I don't know much about the program, but it doesn't sound like it takes into account red vs. white fiber ratios in different muscles either. Or time under tension.

Why look anywhere else when all the knowledge we need is just a click away at ABC!?

[Adam Knowlden]

Max-OT = Glorified HIT

A program structured heavily on 4 and 5 reps is a powerlifting protocol.

Low rep sets do not recruit as many muscle fibers as higher repetition sets.

Body building relies heavily on time under tension. 4-5 reps is not optimal for hypertrophy. This will cause more nervous system adaptions than muscular hypertrophy.

The President summed it up in his muscle fiber article...

"Also the contractile proteins in a cell are responsible for most muscular growth. These must be exposed to enough stress or they will not be damaged enough to overcompensate by increasing in size.

Therefore it is not enough to recruit a muscle fiber, you must also damage the actin and myosin filaments if it is to grow."

Don't get me wrong 4-6 reps is good to imploy, but not as a sole workout structure. Used as a shock, 3-5 repetition sets can stimulate hypertrophy in the fast twitch IIB fibers. But a program based solely on that range is undermining hypertophy.

The time under tension that 6-15 reps stimulates much more hypertophy.

Dr. Antonio states, “According to the size principle of motor unit recruitment, the smallest motor units (i.e., slow-twitch or type I) are recruited before the larger motor units (i.e., fast-twitch—type IIa, type IIb) Data derived via glycogen depletion methods show that both fast and slow units are scattered in a heterogeneous manner across a muscle. This would suggest that one could activate a muscle fiber (for instance in a slow motor unit) while an adjacent fast fiber remains inactive.”(1)

4 and 5 reps are not going to favor this principle.

I've also heard many things about MAX-ot that are truely mind boggling. Such as you can not shape a muscle. /forum/images/graemlins/crazy.gif And blood pumps are only for show.

[B.A.M.]

[ QUOTE ]
I've also heard many things about MAX-ot that are truely mind boggling. Such as you can not shape a muscle. /forum/images/graemlins/crazy.gif And blood pumps are only for show.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm looking at the max-ot program directly downloaded from AST and this is what it says in the program:

Concerning muscle shaping:
[ QUOTE ]
Let me make this perfectly clear, you can not change the genetic shape of your muscle.

[/ QUOTE ]

[B.A.M.]

And for anyone else who does not know anything about Max-OT, I'll quick fill you in on the other principals.

Max-OT says that:
1.Each workout should last approximately 30 to 40 minutes.
2.Train only 1 or 2 muscle groups per workout/day.
3.Do 6 to 9 total heavy sets per muscle group.
4.Do 4 to 6 reps per set.
5.Rest 2 to 3 minutes between set.
6.Train each muscle group once every 5 to 7 days.
7.Take a 1 week break from training every 8 to 10 weeks.

Also Max-OT states that it is essential that you go for absolute positive failure in the 4 to 6 rep range, there's a few exercises that use a higher rep range though. Like OS posted, this rep range might not be optimum for hypertrophy. I think it's generally accepted you want 30 seconds to 1 minute time under tension for hypertrophy, and you have to bang out some slow sets to reach that with the 4-6 rep range.

[BlindFury]

[ QUOTE ]
Yu Yevon said:

Under resistance, the largest motor units are activated first, and the smaller ones later

[/ QUOTE ]

but,

[ QUOTE ]
Old School said

“According to the size principle of motor unit recruitment, the smallest motor units (i.e., slow-twitch or type I) are recruited before the larger motor units

[/ QUOTE ]

now i'm confused. Using heavy weight brings you to failure in the 4-6 rep range causes which motor units to be activated first?

[Adam Knowlden]

[ QUOTE ]
Let me make this perfectly clear, you can not change the genetic shape of your muscle.

[/ QUOTE ]

And this would be dead wrong!

You can not change insertion points. You can shape a muscle.

The top science journals prove this.

I believe you can change every aspect of a muscle group, including shape, height, contours etc. The only thing you cannot manipulate is your insertion points.” - John Parillo

[ QUOTE ]
Skeletal muscle is a complex tissue that shows a prodigious capacity for growth. The notion that an individual muscle is just a compilation of muscle fibers that traverse from origin to insertion is simplistic and egregiously flawed. There are obvious differences between muscles with regard to size, architecture, and fiber composition. Moreover, within the same muscle, one can find regional differences in fiber size and fiber composition. Within a single fiber, one can find differences in MHC isoform expression and diameter.

Thus, it would make sense that the response of skeletal muscle to resistance training would be a nonuniform hypertrophy. In fact, the idea that a muscle would respond in a uniform fashion would seem implausible in light of the fact that there are distinct physiological/anatomical differences within a single muscle.

An individual muscle is more than just a collection of muscle fibers spanning the entire muscle belly with a single muscle–nerve interaction. Instead, a muscle can be divided into neuromuscular compartments, which are distinct regions of a muscle, each of which is innervated by an individual nerve branch and therefore contains motor unit territories with a unique set of characteristics. In other words, different portions of a muscle may be called into play depending on the task demands of the situation(

It would seem plausible that different exercises would stress different parts of muscle fibers. Perhaps this could alter gene expression within that particular myonucleus, resulting in the expression of particular MHC isoforms. Nonetheless, it is evident that skeletal muscle is heterogeneous between muscles, within a muscle, and within single muscle fibers( 39 ).

Interestingly enough this statement about expressing particular mhc isoforms( which again hinges on the fact that several muscle fibers have been shown to have type IIA, IIB, and type I combinations within them! )of a muscle fiber has been shown through studies as well. In fact Klitgaard, H., M. Zhou, and E.A. Richter in 1990 using bodybuilders as participants showed decreased coexpression of fibers with IIA/IIB combination fibers then compared with sedentary individuals( 49 ) and this was also duly noted in a similar study on the quadriceps in 95( 48 ). Furthermore Antonio also states:

The notion that a particular resistance exercise will cause the entire muscle belly to grow in a uniform manner is at odds with the fact that muscles and muscle fibers are themselves heterogeneous( 39 ).



[/ QUOTE ]

ANTONIO, JOSE. 2000: Nonuniform Response of Skeletal Muscle to Heavy Resistance Training: Can Bodybuilders Induce Regional Muscle Hypertrophy? The Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research: Vol. 14, No. 1, pp. 102–113.

[ QUOTE ]
As for the pumps, there's a whole section on it, it does not say that pumps are for show. It says that having a muscle pump is not necessarily an indicator of optimum muscle overload.

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course they will say that. How pumped are you going to get doing 4 and 5 reps for calves! Especially the soleus which is 90% slow twitch! To say that is to completely ignore proven time under tensions for stimulating hypertophy in a manifold number of muscle fibers.

It basically says pumps are not an indicator for growth.

And again, they are wrong.

The secretion of endogenous, anabolic hormones, is high after a intense shocks. After a muscle has been subjected to intense stress, these hormones help to instigate the growth process. As a rule, the greater the amount of circulating anabolic hormones, the greater the potential for increases in muscular hypertrophy.

Lactic acid plays a central role in exercise-related hormonal excitation. Although many people tend think of lactic acid as an impediment to exercise, it is actually a potent anabolic facilitator. Lactic acid is generated as a byproduct of glycolysis, the energy system that is the primary fuel source used during moderate-repetition training. When lactic acid accumulates in large amounts, there is a corresponding surge in anabolic hormone levels.

Conversely, because low-repetition training predominantly relies on the short-term phosphocreatine system for energy—not on glycolysis—only a limited amount of lactic acid is produced. Hence, the secretion of endogenous hormones is somewhat blunted.

Testosterone levels, for example, are significantly higher after a 10-repetition set when compared with the case after a 1-repetition maximum. Although the exact mechanism is still unclear, lactic acid somehow potentiates the release of cyclic adenosine monophosphate (cAMP)—a chemical messenger that acts a catalyst in cellular function. cAMP, in turn, promotes the secretion of testosterone, which then directly acts on the muscle cell to stimulate growth.

In addition, lactate has a significant impact on growth hormone (GH) secretion. A 10-repetition set has been shown to produce large increases in circulating GH—much greater than in a lower-repetition protocol. Moreover, these effects are fairly well sustained; they are seen for more than an hour after the workout. And the benefits of this are twofold: not only is GH itself a powerful stimulator of muscular growth, but it also mediates the release of insulin-like growth factor (specifically, IGF-1), perhaps the most potent of all anabolic hormones.

Furthermore, moderate-repetition training augments myofibrilar hydration. During training, the veins taking blood out of working muscles collapse. However, the arteries continue to deliver blood into the muscles, creating an increased concentration of intramuscular blood plasma. This causes plasma to seep out of the capillaries and into the interstitial spaces (the area between muscle cells and blood vessels). The buildup of fluid in the interstitial spaces causes an extracellular pressure gradient, which causes a flow of plasma back into the muscle. The net result: blood pools in your muscles, causing the phenomenon commonly referred to as a "pump."

People tend to think of a pump as a temporary condition that is strictly cosmetic. However, this belief is shortsighted. Numerous studies have demonstrated that a hydrated cell stimulates protein synthesis and inhibits proteolysis. In this way, muscles are provided with the raw materials to lay down new contractile proteins—the basis for muscle tissue growth. Unfortunately, during low-repetition training, the time under tension simply isn't sufficient to generate a pump. Consequently, cell volume is relatively constant, and the impetus for protein synthesis is thereby reduced.

Also, by increasing time under tension, a moderate-repetition set maximizes muscle damage—a fact that has been shown to be imperative to increases in muscular hypertrophy. Theoretically, the longer that cross-bridge formation is maintained during training, the greater the potential for damage to the tissue. Because the duration of cross-bridge formation is shorter in a low-repetition set than in a moderate-repetition set, there is less time for myofilamental damage to take place.

It is important to note that these concepts are predicated on the overload principle, which states that a muscle must be taxed beyond its present capacity for growth to occur (. Hence, all sets (excluding warm-ups) should be performed at a high level of intensity. This is an essential factor for promoting gains in size and strength. Clearly, without muscular overload, results will be compromised.

As discussed, time under tension optimizes fiber recruitment, increases hormonal response, enhances cellular hydration, and heightens myofilamental damage. These factors work synergistically, combining to stimulate muscular growth.

1. Atha, J. Strengthening muscle. Exerc. Sport Sci. Rev. 9:1–73. 1981.

2. Evans, W.J. The metabolic effects of exercise-induced muscle damage. Exerc. Sport Sci. Rev. 19: (-HD-). 99–125. 1991.

3. Hakkinen, K. Acute hormonal responses to two different fatiguing heavy-resistance protocols in male athletes. J. Appl. Physiol. 74:(2)882–887. 1993.

4. Häussinger, D. Cellular hydration state: An important determinant of protein catabolism in health and disease. Lancet. 341:(8856)1330–1332. 1993.

5. Hellebrandt, F.A. Mechanisms of muscle training in man: Experimental demonstration of the overload principle. Phys. Ther. Rev. 36:371–383. 1956.

6. Kraemer, W.J. Hormonal and growth factor responses to heavy resistance exercise protocols. J. Appl. Physiol. 69:(4)1442–1450. 1990.

7. Kraemer, W.J. Endogenous anabolic hormonal and growth factor responses to heavy resistance exercise in males and females. Int. J. Sports Med. 12:(2)228–235. 1991.

8. Kraemer, W.J. Changes in hormonal concentrations after different heavy-resistance exercise protocols in women. J. Appl. Physiol. 75:(2)594–604. 1993.

9. Lu, S.S. Lactate and the effects of exercise on testosterone secretion: Evidence for the involvement of a cAMP-mediated mechanism. Med. Sci. Sports Exerc. 29:(8)1048–1054. 1997.

10. Millar, I.D. Mammary protein synthesis is acutely regulated by the cellular hydration state. Biochem. Biophys. Res. Commun. 230:(2)351–355. 1997.

11. Roemmich, J.N. Exercise and growth hormone: Does one affect the other?. J. Pediatr. 131: (1 Pt 2). 75–80. S. 1997.

12. Rooney, et al. Fatigue contributes to the strength training stimulus. Med. Sci. Sports Exer. 26:(9)1160–1164. 1994.

13. Waldegger, S. Effect of cellular hydration on protein metabolism. Miner. Electrolyte Metab. 23:(3–6)201–205. 1997.

14. Wilmore, J.H. Physiology of Sport and Exercise. (2nd ed.). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics, 1999.

15. Zehr, E.P. Ballistic movement: Muscle activation and neuromuscular adaptation. Can. J. Appl. Physiol. 19:(4)363–378. 1994.

16. Schoenfeld, Brad. Repetitions and Muscle hypertrophy.


We can also discuss their protocols outright ignorance of increasing mitochondrial density, capillaries, angles, etc.

I recommend this for understanding the motor recruitment principle:

http://www.abcbodybuilding.com/magazine/musclefiberspart2.htm

[TMack40]

Great post Old School. I believe max-ot has some very useful aspects to it, but is certainly lacking in the grand scheme of things. I like to take a program such as this and take what I like and add it to other things that ive learned along the way. The things I like about max-ot are the short/intense type of workouts and the lower amount of sets per workout, as well as the concnetration being put on major compound lifts. If your dead and squat are going up in weight consistently your gonna grow.

[President Wilson]

[ QUOTE ]
The notion that a particular resistance exercise will cause the entire muscle belly to grow in a uniform manner is at odds with the fact that muscles and muscle fibers are themselves heterogeneous

[/ QUOTE ]

Great Quote from Dr. Antonio. Its sad how people make unscientific statements such as, you cannot stimulate a certain type of muscle growth, and yet fail to back what they say up with studies. Dr. Antonio backed the above statement with well over 100 of the top and most recent studies in scientific literature.

Dr. William D. Mchardle, Dr. Frank Katch and Dr. Victor Katch are all regarded as world authorities in how the body, including the musculo skeletal system responds to exercise stress. They are published, and well known. Here is a quote from them in their dissertation on exercise physiology

[ QUOTE ]
During the course of resistance training, one should not assume that a single exercise creates uniform strength or hypertrophic responses in the muscle activated. Biceps curls performed at close to 1 RM do not produce equal strength gains from the muscles origins to its insertion. If they did, then the maximal force generating capacity of the muscle should show similar percentage improvements throughout its ROM. This however, does not occur. Similarly, electical activity measured by EMG or MRI to assess a muscles cross sectional area does not show a homogeneous response within the entire muscle during maximal activation.


Furthermore, the fact that a single muscle compartemantalizes into disctinct regions incicates that the muscles different areas can respond differently to the impossed stress.

<font color="red"> In essense, this means that skeletal muscle remodels its internal architecture, potentially reconfiguring external orientation and hence its shape with specific resistance exercises. </font> The overall lack of homogeneity in skeletal muscles response to overload, coupled with intramuscular differences in fiber tpe and composition, probably govers the training adaptation to specific resistance exercise. The non uniformity in response to skeletal muscle to overlaod training also occurs in animal models with considerable molectular differentation


[/ QUOTE ]

And he backed this up with countless references.

In other words, the statement made at AST was unscientific, and contradicts what both scientific Journals, and specialists in the field state.

[Venom]

[ QUOTE ]

now i'm confused. Using heavy weight brings you to failure in the 4-6 rep range causes which motor units to be activated first?

[/ QUOTE ]

The recruitment pattern can be reversed under various circumstances [1]. So they are both correct. The main point is activities will preferably recruit specified muscle cells.

For clarification on low and high threshold fibers, fiber recruitment, and much more, refer to, Muscle Fibers Part Two. (http://www.abcbodybuilding.com/magazine/musclefiberspart2.htm)

Reference:

1. Craig, Bruce W., 2001: BRIDGING THE GAP: Explosive Training and Muscle Calcium Usage. Strength and Conditioning Journal: Vol. 23, No. 6, pp. 47–48.

[Adam Knowlden]

Defenietly Jacob.

Here's how it works. Their program is going to produce strength results. If you train in the low repetition ranges, you will increase strength, and perhaps gain some muscle. However, this is going to be short lived, as plateus will come. By then, they've sold you all kinds of AST products and their programs.

They are primarily marketing to younger athletes, and are taking advantage of their limited understanding of the sport.

How often do we see these, "gain 10lbs in a day!" routines. And people soak it up. These types of marketers appeal to the "Get rich quick scheme" mentalities.

Body building is a life long sport, and they are defenietly not promoting a long term body building career by leaving their clients in the dark regarding the latest science of body building.

[ QUOTE ]
I believe max-ot has some very useful aspects to it, but is certainly lacking in the grand scheme of things

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree. We should do low rep sets to increase strength and progressively push to lift heavier weights under longer time under tensions. Defenietly, 4 and 5 reps have their places. And let's face it, 1 rep maxes are fun.

But to build an entire routine around that as the only way to body build, and ignore the latest science, is robbing kids of the knowledge they need to make body building a life long sport.

[**DONOTDELETE**]

[Fireproof]

Awesome discussion guys!

[ QUOTE ]
In other words, the statement made at AST was unscientific, and contradicts what both scientific Journals, and specialists in the field state.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm glad I don't use their supplements. /forum/images/graemlins/wink.gif Thank you Mr. Wilson

[iMToMMy]

well now that i know the gains are mainly in strength cant i build muscle up and then cut them and shape them?



keep note ima noob lifter and just really got into it this year

[B.A.M.]

[ QUOTE ]
Of course they will say that. How pumped are you going to get doing 4 and 5 reps for calves! Especially the soleus which is 90% slow twitch! To say that is to completely ignore proven time under tensions for stimulating hypertophy in a manifold number of muscle fibers.


[/ QUOTE ]

Not to be nitpicky, but the calves are one of the muscle groups Max-OT uses the higher rep range on. /forum/images/graemlins/tongue.gif

But other than that, all the mods have shown why Max-OT is not optimum for hypertrophy.

[President Wilson]

Here's a quote from a ghost writter on their site on calves

[ QUOTE ]
Q: Will training calves only once per week be sufficient enough to make someone with weak ones like mine grow?



A: No matter how tempted you may be to add more work to your calves training, you must remember that more is not necessarily better when it comes to training and stimulating muscle growth. I know that it's difficult at times to understand this concept&amp;#8212;especially for calves. The bodybuilding and fitness magazines often preach that calves need to be trained more often in order to effectively stimulate muscle. It&amp;#8217;s stated so often that you should use lighter weight and do 12 to 15 repetitions per set that it must be the truth, right?

Until this the past year-and-a-half of following the Max-OT Training Principles exactly as they are outlined, I trained my calves twice a week in the often-preached 12 to 15 rep range just like most people do.

I recently saw a good friend of mine who has closely followed my development throughout my career. "What have you done with your calves? Are you pumping those things with synthol?!" he jokingly said to me.

What I've done differently over the past year-and-a-half is train my calves as the Max-OT guidelines suggests. Heavy weight, once a week, and in either the 4 to 6 or 6 to 8 repetition range.


[/ QUOTE ]

They present virtually no references for any of their answers, and yet claim to be a top scientific resource.

But lets say this isn't ghost written, and analyze his statements


[ QUOTE ]
Until this the past year-and-a-half of following the Max-OT Training Principles exactly as they are outlined, I trained my calves twice a week in the often-preached 12 to 15 rep range just like most people do.


[/ QUOTE ]

Translation - My successful career has been built on training calves twice a week with higher reps. This is the type of training which got me a job with AST.

[ QUOTE ]
I recently saw a good friend of mine who has closely followed my development throughout my career. "What have you done with your calves? Are you pumping those things with synthol?!" he jokingly said to me.


[/ QUOTE ]

LOL, That is a reference for you!

[ QUOTE ]
What I've done differently over the past year-and-a-half is train my calves as the Max-OT guidelines suggests. Heavy weight, once a week, and in either the 4 to 6 or 6 to 8 repetition range.


[/ QUOTE ]

If this wasn't a ghost writter then the explanation is simple.

He uses the same rep range, and the same style of training for countless years, and finally switches it up and wonders why he get gains?

Again, however it was stated that

1. You should never adjust the frequency of calf training, no matter what.

Why? In other words, can he back this scientfically

2. The calves are extremely complex, with several muscles. He treats them as if they are a single unit, yet they can be divided into several compartments, with numerous movements. It would have been of great benefit to address the posterior, lateral, and anterior aspects of the leg. This is rarely covered though

3. Why work the calves in only the 4-6 repetition range? Is their a study to back this?

This is why the site is unscientific. They give no valid reasons for their methods, yet preach them as fact. I.E. You cannot do this to a muscle. And its all for one purpose

Look at their questions and answers section

[ QUOTE ]
I read you wake up and have VP2, GL3, GABA and skim milk in the middle of the night. Don't you need to have carbs at that time too?

[/ QUOTE ]


[ QUOTE ]
/28/2003 I am taking VP2 with skim milk before bed and I was wondering if Ny-Tro PRO-40 would be a better choice at that time?

[/ QUOTE ]

My advice would be to save your money, and to stop getting ripped off

Look at this question

<font color="red"> Question </font> In addition to Micronized Creatine and GL3 L-Glutamine do you continue to take your other supplements like R-ALA 200, CLA 1000, MultiPro 32X and ProFlex 750 as normal up until the contest?


Gee I wonder what his answer will be?

<font color="blue"> Answer: Yes, I continue taking all supplements as normal all the way up to the show. As Paul says, whether you stay on the exact same supplement schedule or not is not going to make or break your performance the last couple days before a show but there is no reason to stop taking anything.


</font>

Of course thats what he says!

Here is the clincher of their science however!

They ask a question on evolution!

<font color="blue">Question: Hi Paul, thanks for posting your awesome articles, keep &amp;#8216;em coming! My question is of a biological/evolutionary nature. As humans, are we carnivores (meat eaters) or herbivores (plant eaters)? I have heard rather convincing arguments for both cases, what&amp;#8217;s your view on this? </font>

What does this have to do with evolution?

Answer

[ QUOTE ]
Our teeth are less able to tear flesh than those of meat-eating animals (carnivores) and less able to grind than those of vegetarian animal (herbivores).

[/ QUOTE ]

However, our brains are able to use tools to cut the flesh with a knife and fork!

[ QUOTE ]
Humans are less powerful than most carnivores &amp;#8211; making us less capable to catch and kill,

[/ QUOTE ]

Once again, you forgot to leave out the brain Paul. Humans have no problem catching and killing anything. In fact, we do more killing than any animal on earth. Your evolutionary religion has clouded your thought patterns.

[ QUOTE ]
Therefore, biologically speaking, we appear to be somewhere in the middle and are mixed eaters - omnivores.


[/ QUOTE ]

Wow, great conclusion. A five year old could have come to the conclusion that he eats both meat and potatoes.

[ QUOTE ]
I too have heard convincing arguments for both sides of this evolutionary debate.

[/ QUOTE ]

Pray tell...

I have never heard anything but " long ago and far away stories "

[ QUOTE ]
Survival is a practical matter. It makes perfectly good sense that during millions of years of evolution, climatic changes and migrations, our ancestors ate whatever they found within their climate.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is laughable. Yet, you have zero evidence of this in the fossil record. Nor do you have a clue of anything in the paleoanthropological studies. Yet, you authoritatively comment on the subject with absolutely zero back up.

[ QUOTE ]
In our current state of affluence, we can afford to debate and be speculative. In a state of hunger, we eat what we can, when we can.

[/ QUOTE ]

Debate and speculate? Simply present a scientfic argument, and leave your religion out of it. Once again, zero references! Had you posted any, you would find that humans have always been humans, there is no evidence to support your metaphysical beliefs.

Evidence For Human Evolution (http://www.abcbodybuilding.com/forum/showflat.php?Cat=&amp;Board=bodybuilder&amp;Number=560585&amp; Forum=bodybuilder&amp;Words=fossil&amp;Match=Entire%20Phra se&amp;Searchpage=1&amp;Limit=25&amp;Old=1week&amp;Main=560561&amp;Sea rch=true#Post560585)

[nozzle]

[ QUOTE ]
Defenietly Jacob.
Here's how it works. Their program is going to produce strength results. If you train in the low repetition ranges, you will increase strength, and perhaps gain some muscle. However, this is going to be short lived, as plateus will come. By then, they've sold you all kinds of AST products and their programs.

They are primarily marketing to younger athletes, and are taking advantage of their limited understanding of the sport.

How often do we see these, "gain 10lbs in a day!" routines. And people soak it up. These types of marketers appeal to the "Get rich quick scheme" mentalities.

Body building is a life long sport, and they are defenietly not promoting a long term body building career by leaving their clients in the dark regarding the latest science of body building.

[/ QUOTE ]

Which is what makes ABC great...just the cold, hard facts. /forum/images/graemlins/grin.gif

Thanks again, guys!

[Vash]

I use Max-OT and have made excellent progress, however I don't feel that it is the "best" program or anything. What is best is whatever you can stick with while continually pushing yourself to your limits, whatever programs keeps giving you results. I personally like working with lower volume, I've tried other programs but I just get burnt out and frustrated. I guess I am not "hardcore". It is very obvious to me however (by pictures of our members especially) that the programs here at ABC work quite well too!

The Max-OT program on the site is out of date. If you look through the Q &amp; A section Paul Cribb recently discussed that research is showing that it is indeed possible to shape a muscle. That is just one example. I think the program on the site needs to be updated, though I never really looked at it much anyway, just followed the guidelines.

AST is a business and obviously the bottom line is making a profit, so duh, they are going to market. Out of all the companies though I really feel that they give you the lowest level of BS, and unfortunately that is all you can really ask for these days.

Anyway, getting back to the original question, yes, I have found Max-OT to be effective program. Most people say it is mostly for strength, and if that makes me a powerlifter I guess I don't care. Bottom line is that I've put on around 40 pounds of muscle since May of 2002 and the gains are still coming. Give it a shot for 8 weeks then decide what you want to do from there. Maybe it is your thing, maybe it isn't.

I've learned time and time again that ABC and AST/Max-OT just don't mix, so I tend to keep my mouth shut about it. Someone should just put a sticky about Max-OT at the top of the forum or something so this discussion doesn't have to take place every month or two.

My two cents.

[iMToMMy]

alot of great info in this thread

[ricky2]

Great thread

[Son of Shem]

[ QUOTE ]
But Max-OT does not embrace some of the essential hardcore shocking principles that are needed to enduce significant hypertrophy and subsequently hyperplasia as well.

[/ QUOTE ]

i thought hyperplasia is impossible to acheive through weightlifting? hyperplasia is creating new cells, right?

[Vash]

Hyperplasia is discussed on the AST site in relation to their program. Run a search.

[**DONOTDELETE**]

[Adam Knowlden]

Good point Yu.

Here is a discussion we held some time ago:

[ QUOTE ]
it does occur but not on a grand scale. your not going to add 3" on your quads from hyperplasia, it will be from hypertrophy...


[/ QUOTE ]

I don't feel this statement protrays an accurate picture of the role of hyperplasia.

It is obvious, no single training session is not going to produce 3" of growth from hyperplasia in the thigh region. That would mean the rapid addition of millions of new or split muscle fibers.

Nor is one training session going to add 3" of hypertrophy.

I theorize that one who has been training 15-20 years ,and has achieved continuous gains, has great reason to believe that several inches of their total growth in the thigh region is a result of new or split muscle fibers that have been hypertrophed.

Looking back on the 15 years of training, the real question should be, "how much of my thigh growth is due to pre-existing muscle fiber hypertrophy( hypertrophy of the set number of muscle fibers before I ever set foot in the weight room) ,and how much of that hypertrophy of muscle fibers came from an increase of the total number of muscle fiber via hyperplasia?"

As Yu pointed out critical mass is why hyperplasia is so vital. Theoretically without hyperplasia there is a maximum limit to size. However, in the observable world the only blockade that prevents continuous gains is age, injuries, handicaps, mental limitations, or a combination of the factors.

Wagner, D.R. Skeletal muscle growth: Hypertrophy and hyperplasia. Strength Cond. J. 18:(5)38–39. 1996.

stated:

[ QUOTE ]
Wagner suggested that high-intensity exercise would initially force the muscle to grow via hypertrophy. Once the muscle fiber reaches its anatomical maximum, it continues to grow by increasing muscle fiber numbers. This is similar to the current theory concerning fat cell (adipocyte) numbers in humans. Scientific dogma has always said that you are born with a set number of adipocytes (the same theory holds for muscle) that does not change with age. Research has shown, however, that adipocytes enlarge with overfeeding but the number stays constant until they reach a critical size. At that point new cells are made (hyperplasia) and the individual progresses into morbid obesity.

[/ QUOTE ]

Before we put a cap on hyperplasia I think vital questions need to be answered through research.

A few are:

1. What is the stimulus for activating hyperplasia?

- critical mass of current muscle fibers. As Wagner theorized:

[ QUOTE ]
Once the muscle fiber reaches its anatomical maximum, it continues to grow by increasing muscle fiber numbers

[/ QUOTE ]

,or is it a result of a certain type(s) of training stimulus. Meaning it is possible that all present existing muscle fibers have not reached critical mass, yet hyperplasia specific training can still be induced, or is it a combination of both?

2. What is the limit of hypertrophy of hyperplased muscle fibers? Are the fibers hypertrophed to critical mass upon formation, or are they subject to the same type of hypertophy capabilities of presently existing muscle fibers?

[ QUOTE ]
large fibers can split into two or more smaller fibers (i.e., fiber splitting) (6,25,39). Second satellite cells can be activated (11,16,17,43,44).

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
Moreover, an interesting observation has been made in hypertrophied muscle which suggests the occurrence of muscle fiber hyperplasia (13, 17, 28, 47). Individual small fibers have been seen frequently in enlarged muscle. Initially, some researchers believed this to be a sign of muscle fiber atrophy. However, it doesn't make any sense for muscle fibers to atrophy while the muscle as a whole hypertrophies. Instead, it seems more sensible to attribute this phenomenon to de novo formation of muscle fibers (i.e., these are newly made fibers ). I believe this is another piece of evidence, albeit indirect, which supports the occurrence of muscle fiber hyperplasia.


[/ QUOTE ]

What is the extent of this?


3. How many muscle fibers can be activated for splitting per session? To what limit can satellite cells be activated? And what, if any, are the limitations of these?

Dr. Antonio states:

[ QUOTE ]
So the question that needs to be asked is not whether muscle fiber hyperplasia occurs, but rather under what conditions does it occur. I believe the the scientific evidence shows clearly in animals, and indirectly in humans, that fiber number can increase. Does it occur in every situation where a muscle is enlarging? No. But can it contribute to muscle mass increases? Yes.


[/ QUOTE ]

4. Is the term "gentic limitation" a fact or fallacy?

[ QUOTE ]
There is now convincing evidence which has shown the importance of eccentric contractions in producing muscle hypertrophy (15,24,45,46). It is known that eccentric contractions produces greater injury than concentric or isometric contractions. We also know that if you can induce muscle fiber injury, satellite cells are activated. Both animal and human studies point to the superiority of eccentric contractions in increasing muscle mass (24,45,46). However, in the real world, we don't do pure eccentric, concentric, or isometric contractions. We do a combination of all three. So the main thing to keep in mind when performing an exercise is to allow a controlled descent of the weight being lifted. And on occasion, one could have his/her training partner load more weight than can be lifted concentrically and spot him/her while he/she performs a pure eccentric contraction. This will really put your muscle fibers under a great deal of tension causing microtears and severe delayed-onset muscle soreness. But you need that damage to induce growth. Thus, the repeated process of injuring your fibers (via weight training) followed by a recuperation or regeneration may result in an overcompensation of protein synthesis resulting in a net anabolic effect (12,31).

[/ QUOTE ]

We also know that if you can induce muscle fiber injury, satellite cells are activated. Both animal and human studies point to the superiority of eccentric contractions in increasing muscle mass.

Eccentric contractions produce DOMS which is a possible key to hyperplasia.

[ QUOTE ]
For instance, one study showed that elite bodybuilders and powerlifters had arm circumferences 27% greater than normal sedentary controls yet the size (i.e., cross-sectional area) of athlete's muscle fibers (in the triceps brachii muscle) were not different than the control group (47). Nygaard and Neilsen (35) did a cross-sectional study in which they found that swimmers had smaller Type I and IIa fibers in the deltoid muscle when compared to controls despite the fact that the overall size of the deltoid muscle was greater. Larsson and Tesch (29) found that bodybuilders possessed thigh circumference measurements 19% greater than controls yet the average size of their muscle fibers were not different from the controls. Furthermore, Alway et al. (3) compared the biceps brachii muscle in elite male and female bodybuilders. These investigators showed that the cross-sectional area of the biceps muscle was correlated to both fiber area and number. Other studies, on the other hand, have demonstrated that bodybuilders have larger fibers instead of a greater number of fibers when compared to a control population (23,30,36). Some scientists have suggested that the reason many bodybuilders or other athletes have muscle fibers which are the same size (or smaller) versus untrained controls is due to a greater genetic endowment of muscle fibers. That is, they were born with more fibers. If that was true, then the intense training over years and decades performed by elite bodybuilders has produced at best average size fibers. That means, some bodybuilders were born with a bunch of below average size fibers and training enlarged them to average size. I don't know about you, but I'd find that explanation rather tenuous. It would seem more plausible (and scientifically defensible) that the larger muscle mass seen in bodybuilders is due primarily to muscle fiber hypertrophy but also to fiber hyperplasia.

[/ QUOTE ]

Before we put limitations on hyperplasia a lot more research needs to be done.

In the mean time, body builders keep growing and surpassing what people tell them are genetic limitations.

[RGKfit]

This is ironic that this discussion is going on, and great info for me. I happen to be having the same discussion on another board about this very topic. He is for it, I am trying to get him to see the marketing virtue of it as compared to what really works(sound science and research).

[President Wilson]

[ QUOTE ]
This is ironic that this discussion is going on, and great info for me. I happen to be having the same discussion on another board about this very topic. He is for it, I am trying to get him to see the marketing virtue of it as compared to what really works(sound science and research).

[/ QUOTE ]

You are a warrior RGKfit!

[Adam Knowlden]

Nice trophies RGK!

[RGKfit]

Thanks OS, have more! Hope to have a new one come March.

I found this in relation to changing the shape of a msucle, just the abstract here, full text available. Have used it in similar arguments about this subject.

J Appl Physiol 88: 1127-1132, 2000;
8750-7587/00

Form follows function: how muscle shape is regulated by work

Brenda Russell, Delara Motlagh, and William W. Ashley
Department of Physiology and Biophysics, College of Medicine, University of Illinois at Chicago, Chicago, Illinois 60612

What determines the shape, size, and force output of cardiac and skeletal muscle? Chicago architect Louis Sullivan (1856-1924), father of the skyscraper, observed that "form follows function." This is as true for the structural elements of a striated muscle cell as it is for the architectural features of a building. Function is a critical evolutionary determinant, not form. To survive, the animal has evolved muscles with the capacity for dynamic responses to altered functional demand. For example, work against an increased load leads to increased mass and cross-sectional area (hypertrophy), which is directly proportional to an increased potential for force production. Thus a cell has the capacity to alter its shape as well as its volume in response to a need for altered force production. Muscle function relies primarily on an organized assembly of contractile and other sarcomeric proteins. From analysis of homogenized cells and molecular and biochemical assays, we have learned about transcription, translation, and posttranslational processes that underlie protein synthesis but still have done little in addressing the important questions of shape or regional cell growth. Skeletal muscles only grow in length as the bones grow; therefore, most studies of adult hypertrophy really only involve increased cross-sectional area. The heart chamber, however, can extend in both longitudinal and transverse directions, and cardiac cells can grow in length and width. We know little about the regulation of these directional processes that appear as a cell gets larger with hypertrophy or smaller with atrophy. This review gives a brief overview of the regulation of cell shape and the composition and aggregation of contractile proteins into filaments, the sarcomere, and myofibrils. We examine how mechanical activity regulates the turnover and exchange of contraction proteins. Finally, we suggest what kinds of experiments are needed to answer these fundamental questions about the regulation of muscle cell shape.

sarcomere; myofibril; assembly; hypertrophy; cardiac and skeletal muscle

[Vash]

From Paul Cribb's Q &amp; A:

[ QUOTE ]
Due to my back ground in exercise physiology, I thought the notion that certain exercises can “shape” a muscle was a crock. However, the literature presented in an article by prominent bodybuilding researcher, Jose Antonio provides a fair case that “site-specific” training is capable of altering a muscle’s shape (J. Streng Cond Res. 14;102-113, 2000).

Muscle appears to be much more complex than a simple bunch of fibers that attach to bone and create movement. There are unique differences within each muscle and within single muscle fibers. Within a single muscle fiber there can be varying degrees of size, metabolism, contraction characteristics, and protein composition. Electromyographic activity (EMG) data shows that varying an exercise can alter the recruitment of certain fibers along an entire muscle. In other words, different portions of a muscle maybe called into play depending on posture, position of the limb and range of motion of an exercise.

From the research available on this subject, muscles do appear to adapt in a region-specific manner. Muscle is a very malleable component and the area that is stressed is the area that changes! From this point of view, varying exercise selection appears important to maximizing muscle growth.

With specific training, a bodybuilder may be able to alter the shape of their muscles. However, never forget that overload is the dominant principle that leads to size increases. Vary your exercise selection, but never at the sacrifice of maximal overload. The trick is to select only from those exercises that allow for maximal overload. See our Exercise Execution section and the Max-OT program for a definitive list of the better exercises to utilize.

[/ QUOTE ]

ABC is obviously ahead of AST when it comes to some stuff.

[Adam Knowlden]

[ QUOTE ]
ABC is obviously ahead of AST when it comes to some stuff.

[/ QUOTE ]

What stuff are we not ahead of them on?

They are just now admitting muscles can be shaped? If so, they are years behind current research and ABC! We have gone far beyond this notion, and describe muscle fiber manipulation, rep ranges for each group, fascial stretching, increasing sarcomers, EMG, and this is just the tip of the iceburg.

[ QUOTE ]
However, never forget that overload is the dominant principle that leads to size increases.

[/ QUOTE ]

They charge money to sell people the overload principle?

[Vash]

[ QUOTE ]
They charge money to sell people the overload principle?

[/ QUOTE ]

They charge just as much as ABC does- nothing. Obviously supplements are going to cost money, but all the information on the site is free, and there is a lot of good info there. AST may not be the ultimate resource that ABC has come to be, but, despite marketing, it is still a pretty useful site.

[Adam Knowlden]

[ QUOTE ]
AST may not be the ultimate resource that ABC has come to be, but, despite marketing, it is still a pretty useful site.


[/ QUOTE ]

It's defenietly heavily influenced by marketing, and indeed that is the sole purpose of the site.

Nothing is free, the sale of AST supplements, is what pays for the site, and the info presented.

ABC and AST are not comparable in this regard and what you provided was a false analogy.

Marketing 101:

The info is "free" in the sense that you can go read anything without initial cost. But they aren't providing the site out of the goodness of their hearts. /forum/images/graemlins/wink.gif

If you're buying AST products, you're paying for the info and the site.

[CKD]

i have a question about the original topic: wouldnt max-ot workout well for optimal mass if you kept time under tension between 30-60 seconds at 6 reps for each set?

[**DONOTDELETE**]

[Floods]

In the language of the leet...

Volume &amp; Split training PWNS Max-OT.

/forum/images/graemlins/grin.gif

[RawIron]

Max-OT works great! My bench press has gone up 50 pounds since i started working out this way. I wish i knew about this years ago.

[DeadliftSmith]

[ QUOTE ]
Max-OT is still far inferior to volume and split training.

[/ QUOTE ]

I can say that I did a 12 week Max OT cycle........ it was an experience, I know that. All my lifts went up, and they went up almost every week to boot. I gained the most size I have ever gained also. I am off the program right now for a little higher volume, and a little change....... however, I will be back on it many more times in my upcoming BBing career.
Also, the biggest guy I know is a STRICT follower of Max OT. He's systematic, and he's HUGE.

[Tanuki]

I think what it can come down to is what you feel works best for you. I train low-volume not necessarily because I think it is superior, but because I just can't keep the same focus and intensity following a higher volume workout. I've tried lots of different programs and I have had the best success performing Max-OT-esque workouts, but I think it as a mental thing more than anything else. Bust your butt, eat right, and recover and you will grow. Use whatever program keeps you having fun and working hard. That's my two cents anyway. /forum/images/graemlins/smile.gif

[**DONOTDELETE**]

[Tanuki]

[ QUOTE ]
Suit yourself. You probably don't know how to make a proper volume routine. It's more than just a lot of sets. I guarantee gains better than Max-OT on my programs.

[/ QUOTE ]

I can't say I disagree at all Joe. I am coming up on an off week here though, maybe you guys could help me design a proper volume routine during that time. /forum/images/graemlins/grin.gif It would be quite the change after 2 1/2 years of low volume. /forum/images/graemlins/blush.gif

[Kitosho]

Eh, I'm weary of any program that claims to be the program rather than a program. Whatever floats your boat, though - if you're making good progress on it, I can't think of any good reason to stop using it.

[sucramdw]

[ QUOTE ]
Eh, I'm weary of any program that claims to be the program rather than a program. Whatever floats your boat, though - if you're making good progress on it, I can't think of any good reason to stop using it.

[/ QUOTE ]
hmmmmm...good progress vs. better progress....This seems like a good reason to me.

[DeadliftSmith]

[ QUOTE ]
Eh, I'm weary of any program that claims to be the program rather than a program. Whatever floats your boat, though - if you're making good progress on it, I can't think of any good reason to stop using it.

[/ QUOTE ]

MAX OT claims to be THE program, and Joe claims that his workouts are THE workouts....... you must be very weary of both.

[Kitosho]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Eh, I'm weary of any program that claims to be the program rather than a program. Whatever floats your boat, though - if you're making good progress on it, I can't think of any good reason to stop using it.

[/ QUOTE ]

MAX OT claims to be THE program, and Joe claims that his workouts are THE workouts....... you must be very weary of both.

[/ QUOTE ]


And indeed I am! /forum/images/graemlins/cool.gif

[**DONOTDELETE**]

[Kitosho]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Eh, I'm weary of any program that claims to be the program rather than a program. Whatever floats your boat, though - if you're making good progress on it, I can't think of any good reason to stop using it.

[/ QUOTE ]

MAX OT claims to be THE program, and Joe claims that his workouts are THE workouts....... you must be very weary of both.

[/ QUOTE ]

No where did I say my workouts were the "end all be all." Don't put words into my mouth. I stated my workouts will work better than Max-OT, but that is not to say that something might work even better for your individual needs.

[/ QUOTE ]




It's okay, Yu, we still love you.







But not in that way. /forum/images/graemlins/blush.gif

[corey22]

i have used max-OT exclusively for almost six months now, and i have made great gains in my core lifts. the only problems i have found in the program are like old school has already said, doing 4 sets of 6 w/ heavy weight on a calf excercise doesn't cut it. i think max-OT is a great way to train, and i will continue to use it, but not exclusively. i want to try some of the new trainig techniques i have leaned from this is site and see if they are better than OT.

[**DONOTDELETE**]

[Jedi]

Wow, this thread is old.

[President Wilson]

Mr. Deadlift,

congradulations on your gains.

From my analysis and expertise of chronic training variables I would suggest that the Max OT program resembles what is known as a peak or realization cycle.

According to the dominant adaptation theory, adaptation is the constant growth and decay of two intervening variables. One of positive and denoted fitness, while the other is negative and denoted fatigue. While the difference between the two is equal to performance.

Fatigue has a higher amplitude than fitness, but fitness has a slower decay rate.

In this context a peak cycle attempts to lower volume, while maintaining or increasing intensity. With lower total work output, the organism is able to mainatin the fitness gains, while allowing the fatigue to decay.

During this decay process the fitness which was being masked is now revealed, and performance increases.

Therefore the first immediate gains you would make on a peak cycle would be predicted through a tapering effect.

See this article

click here (http://www.abcbodybuilding.com/taper3.php)

Now, periodization has been defiend as programmed variation in in training means (content) and methods (load) on a cyclic basis.’ Kraemer (2004) adds that along with variation, periodization includes planned rest periods to augment recovery and restoration of an athletes potential.

In this conext a peak cycle is necessary.

Science suggests that linear training however is inferior to non linear training (periodization).

Therefore if you were to continue the max ot program you would
accomidate to the given stimulus.

In line with sequencing theory, athletes will vary their training cycles accross a macrocycliic basis.

I.e. a hypertrophy cycle ( high volume, low intensity), followed by strength and power cycle.

Evidence now suggests however that as the athlete advances that this variation should occur at the microcyclic level, and eventually and perhaps optimally at the daily level.

For example day one light, day two moderate and 3 heavy, repeat cycle.

This allows high frequency, low accomidation, and an ability to avoid conditioning reactive inhibition.

This is one reason why I do not feel it is optimal to train that heavy every workout, and I believe evidence backs this.

I suggest reading this article

http://www.abcbodybuilding.com/periodization3.php

This shows how to fit peaking cycles, strength cycles, and hypertrophy cycles all together. It also discusses how variation should occur.

I hope this helps and good luck with future success!