I hope it goes well with your endocrinologist. Remember that initial gains come the quickest. It gets harder and slower as you progress. You may wish to consider taking a flyer and giving lower volume, lower frequency, higher intensity a try. Just saying. If, after a few months, you're worse off, then you can take comfort knowing that your way is better, and you can get back to it, having definitively proven it to yourself. But if your results are just as good, then you'll be able to choose which approach appeals more to you. And what if the alternative actually gives you a better outcome?
Sams Club now has 24 size packs of cage free hormone free eggs. I’ve also been using the house brand Pesto as a universal condiment - it’s delicious on everything from eggs to meat and has only 4 grams of Carb in a quarter cup. I also get the fresh baby French green beans, broccoli florets and the Spring greens mix out of the produce cooler.
Thanks, but I have a feeling this guy is gonna be a waste of time. The training is not the problem, the hormonal imbalance is. Try building muscle with free T at the bottom of the range.
Apart from your individual biology, as I understand it, overtraining can reduce testosterone levels. So there is a window, where some exercise boosts it, but beyond which it causes it to diminish. You may wish to look into the possibility that you're overdoing it. I'm not saying you are, but it's worth some consideration. The thing about ~high volume training but not to failure, is that you're depleting your recovery resources without necessarily activating your higher order type IIb muscle fibers. So, theoretically, you get all of the cost (and then some) but not all of the benefit for your effort. If you get to a point where you're not pleased with your progress, you may wish to consider scaling back on some of the volume and frequency while dialing up the effort to concentric failure (while focusing on deliberate rep cadence to minimize momentum on both the concentric and eccentric side of each rep). You won't lose anything trying it for a couple of months, and you just might be pleasantly surprised. Whatever you choose to do, I hope your issue resolves. Good luck.
Thanks for your concerns. The possibility of overtraining definitely exists. Overtraining what though? If u do 100 sets on your chest but only 3 sets on your legs, well u might be overdoing it on the chest but definitely not on the legs. You see my point, overtraining relates to specific muscle groups. I keep logs of every workout i do. Evidence of overtraining might be if i was losing strength in a a particular area. My data show that my reps and weight have been consistently increasing in all exercises. No evidence whatsoever of any overtraining. With regard to training to failure, I go one rep to failure. Going all the way to failure is not worth doing. The cost of the exponentially increased levels of ammonia in the brain and other side effects are not worth a relatively small amount more muscle activation. I'm sure we have discussed this before.
Your example is rather extreme but, as I understand it, overtraining can also be systemic. I don't think it needs to be limited to a single muscle group. I've never heard about this brain ammonia thing from training to failure, or come across it in any of the literature I've read. What I did come across is that training to failure has been found to be the most efficient way to stimulate all of the muscle fibers without having to deplete the body's energy reserves too much (with unnecessary volume) to compromise full recovery between workouts. In any event, I think we've reached an impasse. I think we're each set on our chosen path. A key difference between you and me, however, is that I tried both.
The people that worry the most about overtraining are the ones that don't train hard enough and aren't strong enough to need to worry about it - Ben Bruno The mind always fails first not the body. The secret is to make your mind work for you, not against you. - Arnold Schwarzenegger
It has been rightly said that "carb" is the new "fat". The past few decades have seen vapid demonization of fats which is actually an essential nutrient that regulates a number of metabolic functions. The problem is people think that if they eat fats, they will get fat - and this fallacy has led many crash dieters to plunge into unhealthy fad diets. Most fad diets advocate one thing - remove fats. However, recent studies have revealed that it is not the fat that makes you fat it is the carbs. Glucose or sugar present in starchy foods such as refined sugar or potatoes cause blood sugar spikes, disturb the insulin production, and cause weight gain (along with other chronic illnesses such as diabetes). Gradually reducing carbs and compensating it with increased fat and protein intake is that mantra to healthy and sustained weight loss. Ask any keto diet follower and he/she will agree. No wonder, low-carb diets such as Keto and Atkins have become trending diet patterns that actually help people lose weight in a healthy manner.
I think this approach peaked in the 1990's with the Snackwell generation and hs been correct in the 2000s. the problem is, the diet industry simply cares about making money not keeping people healthy so they jumped on the gluten-free, paleo/keto focus and turned it into a fad and people are eating just as bad as they were wolfing down Snackwells with gluten free pastas and cookies or loading up on unlimited bacon and eggs. The Diet/Nutrition section of the bookstore is the best measure of how much misinformation and hype is out there haha.