If you read the Mag-10 plan for success, it is recommended that you work out for two weeks at very high intensity and then follow it up with two weeks of recovery training.
If you read the Myostat Part II article, the same workout regimen is recommended. The only difference is to cut calories down to +500 for the gaining phase if you’re not using Mag-10.
There seems to be a very high emphasis on this type of training, at least from the Biotest think tank, and that says a lot. I have used it now myself for the better part of 12 weeks. While my gains have been pretty phenomenal, those two “off” weeks KILL me psychologically.
Although it’s mostly in my head, I feel like I’m losing all my newly gained strength, size and stamina. It’s very depressing, folks! Yet when I go back to hitting it hard, I’ve found that I’m actually STRONGER.
My question is this: I don't know too many people from this forum whose bulking cycle is only two weeks. Most are a LOT longer. Why is there such an emphasis on this regimen? Does the body respond better to two-week bulking cycles and two-week recovery cycles? What if you only work out 3 days per week like I do? Do those principles still apply?
If they’re recommending this type of training program for use with Myostat, there must be a good reason for it. It’s even been said by Biotest that the “specifics” of training in this manner can be left up to the individual, but that the important thing is to hit it hard two weeks and then do two weeks of recovery training.
Any advice and/or sharing of experiences would be helpful.