I’m sure everyone here has heard of EDT, maybe not max-stim. The idea being to increase work load over time while avoiding fatigue (and failure) the end result in mind being hypertrophy. In my knowledge no-one has or has attempted to build an Olympia status physique using a method like this.
Then on the other side we have conventional bodybuilding protocol in which at least one set per muscle group goes to failure, usually proceeded by sets that ramp up toward the final heavy set. As has been discussed many times, this is the method that the largest bodybuilders all seem to use.
The reasoning behind the auto-regulatory method is that if work load is kept constant (using both methods) then the avoidance of cumulative fatigue improves recovery (over the common method) allowing the muscle to be worked with greater frequency theoretically leading to greater hypertrophy. However there are those who will dispute this saying that the effect of cumulative fatigue (the kind that causes a set to fail, reps to slow down etc.) is in part responsible for inducing hypertrophy.
The reasoning behind the common method is that as muscle fibers are fatigued from slow to fast that failure ensures the use of all fibres and that metabolic responses to cummulative fatigue make this method superior for inducing hypertrophy. However there are others who dispute this claiming that muscle fibres do not engage according to this pattern and that CNS fatigue limits the use of motor units, while metabolic responses to cumulative fatigue inducing excercise (in the sense that has been discussed) are not linked to hypertrophy.
So the question is, if you had 2 twins, and put them on nearly identical plans with the intention of getting them to olympia status, and both performed identical workouts except that one avoided fatigue and failure by inserting rest in between reps as opposed to inbetween sets. Who would be bigger at the end of 10 years (everything else being equal).
And the second question is. If the scenario is the same but our “rest-pause/EDT” guy did a greater volume of work assuming his recovery is better. Who would be bigger.
This is just polling opinion as I don’t think we really have the scientific knowledge to know what is better just yet though the anecdotes stand in favor of the common method anyway, but all the same I’m bored and interested in what people have on their minds regarding this.
For now I’ll be continuing my assessment of the common method, which I thought I’d mention just in case anyone thought I was suffering from paralysis by analysis.