I said super slow, I meant super long. In other words, 1 set lasts forever because exhausting the muscle to complete failure using varying techniques takes quite a long time, sometimes two or three minutes.
Okay. I've never followed his workouts, so I don't know how far he went beyond momentary muscle failure.
For the most part, I didn't think rep pace really mattered all that much as long as momentum was fully taken out of the equation.
On day#31. Honestly, not much is going on. A few flashes in the pan, here and there, but nothing remarkable. Beginning to wonder if its the quality of the UGL I'm using (supposedly the best in Canada), or I'm a non-responder at these levels. Thing is, there's been no change in appetite, strength or weight. So even if my estrogen is way out of range causing my libido to shutdown, I should still be seeing some kind of strength/appetite/weight/body recomp by now? No high estrogen sides either. Have an appointment with a great specialist in April. So will run this lab for another 5 weeks, then switch to another lab.... Running 200mg/week Test-E. That should put me top-range, or just over top-range. My levels back in May were 260 ng/dl, so current protocol should nearly quadruple my T levels.....
If we assume that sets approaching failure, be they just short of failure or beyond, are optimal, then do submaximal sets have any value apart from oiling the joints and getting into the groove of the exercise?
Of course they do. It's an interesting science because it really doesn't matter. If you followed a 3x10 stopping short of failure routine you will still get results only if however it's 3x10 at 100#s then at some point in the future 3x10 at 110#s. The key to any program is progression. I've gotten just as strong following more of a powerlifting periodization routine as I have taking sets to failure. The common denominator was progression. I just prefer failure. Also if it's short of failure it's not failure. So what deliniates that? If I stop a rep short is that still optimal? What then isn't? How do you really know you're a rep short or 2reps short? I like failure bc I make the attempt and that's how I know lol. Does it really matter what's "optimal" if results can still be attained? Finally, how many people can actually go to failure and want to come back and do it again the next day? In my experience not many hahaha.
You should bump it up to 500mg a week for a few weeks and see if there's any difference in how you feel. I'm assuming you're working out along the way, correct?
It's a reference point. Reference points have value, even if you choose not to adhere to them. I know that the so-called "optimal" would not be the same for everyone, but there is probably an approximation that would include a large proportion of the population. Apart from a single light warm-up set, I continue to do only one set to failure of the exercises that I do, with up to 2 exercises per muscle group, and each set taken to MMF and no further. I'm not likely to change that any time soon, even if it were not "optimal" for me. But it would be nice to know where this routine falls in relation to what is supposedly "optimal," if only as an interesting point of reference. As you can see, I'm bored.
In fact, that is the only way I can do a set in good conscience. I experimented with one rep short of failure for a while, but it just didn't seem right. I tried going beyond failure but, in time, that didn't feel right for me either. Going to simple but absolute momentary failure seems to be the porridge just right. As for doing it again the next day, not a chance.