I find myself reposting all the time as i keep finding stuff to defend myself about here. My stats are as follows - 190lbs 10-13% bodyfat at 5’10" with extremely small joints and bones. So I look pretty good and to be completely honest, I DON’T KNOW what bf% I’m actually at because I don’t have calipers or anything. I just rely on my image in the mirror compared to what other people say is their bf% on the photo’s forum. Tell you guys what, I’ll post a pic with good lighting, no shadowing or bs like that and you can give me a good estimate? I’d like that. Expect a pic by wednesday maybe. Thanks guys.
Dawg, saying “Surge didn’t work for me” is like saying “Proper nutrition didn’t work for me.” It’s food, after all.
Not sure what you expected. It won’t make you blow up in 4 days, it just helps… well nevermind. You can read the “Post-workout Resurgence” article if you need that info. No need for me to rewrite it all here.
Personally, I would not go without Surge or a good low carb protein. Core supps, for sure.
Does anyone that is training more for strength change their “set/rep scheme” like this article says? I was thinking of going back and forth between high and low rep sets like this article but am worried I’ll lose strength during the high rep weeks. Also I’m pretty new to lifting so I can’t really handle that many sets with low reps yet. I tried 6x5 a few times and my nervous system felt shot for a week so I do 4x5 instead which works good for me. When I used to do higher reps though I could do a lot more volume which according to this article it should be the oposite. An example is I used to do 3x8-10 for 4 or 5 different exercises per body part and a workout took about 2 hours. Now doing 4x5 I only do one exercise per body part and superset antagonist muscles and I feel like dying in 45 mins. Does this sound right for a newbie? How would you convert the set/rep schemes in this article for someone with a low training age?
Acutally, this is what the article says. Higher rep training is less neurologically demanding than lower rep training because you can do less sets w/ less weight and get the same total volume (sets x reps). So yes, it is understandable that doing higher repetitions wasn’t as taxing.
During Phase 2, you may want to try doing both AM and PM sessions, only one muscle per workout. This is what I do and it keeps me feeling a great deal fresher beings that I never get that “drained” feeling from being in the gym for an overly long period of time.
Lastly, the issue of losing strength w/ this program is not an issue at all. You will maintain any strength gains from phase 1 and gain more strength w/ phase 2. When you move on to phase three, you’ll still be doing the same exercises, which will further contribute to motor learning. It is likely that you will put on strength in all three phases; however, strength gains will be most evident during phase 2.
Joel
I have to chime in here and say that if you didn’t see better results with Surge than without, I’d imagine it’s because you didn’t bother to really be careful with logging your progress and doing a strict comparison. Most people, when dieting, are very careful, keep good records and so on. But when it comes time to bulk they get sloppier, not maintaining the food log as well, not worrying if they gain a little fat, etc. So you might not notice that something was working better for you. But I can’t imgine that you wouldn’t put on more fat and see less in the way of strength gains from workout to workout using your milk concoction than Surge.