In the last SB post Whopper said something about doing the minimim necessary when you work out to force an adaptation if you are trying to put on size. This made me think that when we INCREASE RESISTANCE (yes, Im still going on about this) the reaction maybe a strength adaptation, a size adaptation or both, probably depending mostly on reps used. HOWEVER, if we are not in caloric surplus when a size adaptation is triggered, we wont grow and will need to further increase resistance before another size adaptation is forced. And given the law of diminishing returns in terms of size and strength, forcing the next size adaptation will be harder. If this were right and a persons desire is maximum size (as is there perogative), they should avoid increasing resistance UNLESS they are in a caloric surplus (and probably never when in caloric deficit). Does that seem right???
Dre that’s a good point you’ve brought up and something I’ve often though about myself. That’s basically the theory behind the argument that says “If you’re not gonna eat right there’s no sense going to the gym and wasting your time training.”
Also I think it takes a lot less volume and intensity in training to force an adaptation then people realize. I don’t want to sound like Mike Mentzer but it’s true. If one eats enough and eats correctly, it’s really amazing how little training it takes to make good gains. But anyway, as far as the adaptation level of the body I’ve heard this called the exercise setpoint theory. It basically says that one can not make gains above and beyond what one already has unless one exercises at a level above and beyond what he is currently doing. I agree with this for the most part, but Ian King mentioned this once…if one were to take a month or 2 and do no training…the body will quickly try to revert back to it’s original homeostatic self and any muscle and strength that is kept will be part of the body’s new strength and muscle setpoint.