http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jrESOnAJ ... re=related
4:48 he talks about bicep and lats but its the same reason why he advocated pec deck prior to bench press in the superset



Talks about length of time for recovery and growth
http://imbodybuilding.com/articles/nautilusnorth-study/

Diet and sleep are important but time off is what you need, nut you cant out eat or sleep overtraining,

how many extra calories you actually need for muscle growth

http://www.fitnessatlantic.com/muscle-mass.htm


Can you provide some source on whatever you were peddling? Strong lift or whatever

In this case, lat is compared to chest and bicep is compared to tricep. Thus we would be exhausting the chest before performing the bench press so that the tricep is only assisting the chest instead of going to failure. And that is, frankly, garbage:

* Even without pre-exhaustion, the tricep virtually never fails on the bench press as I have shown. There is no need to pre-exhaust the tricep at all.

* In any case, the comparison means exhausting the large muscle first (in this case the chest) so it goes to failure on the compound with the smaller muscle only assisting (the triceps). Your link would actually lead to more chest failure, not tricep failure.

* Even if it were the other way around, and you had pre-exhausted the tricep to make it fail first on a primarily chest exercise (which is bizarre), you would still be discussion a scenario which is completely irrelevant because you have designed it so it goes against the mechanics of the bench press. It would be like me claiming my biceps failed on bent over rows before my back (which should never happen), because I had previously performed a 3 hour bicep routine. That's reasonable, but it's NOT reasonable to claim that by extension, bent over rows primarily lead to bicep failure, as you have attempted to do with the bench press and triceps.

I swear to god man you don't even look at or give any thought to the links you are posting. That link is not only irrelevant and the techniques it advocates unnecessary, but it SUPPORTS MY ARGUMENT. So, yes, I'm still waiting on any link that supports YOUR argument.
Please tell me you're kidding. You just ragged on my bodybuilding materials, and here you are, giving me a study presented by Nautilus? What next, are you going to give me a study about how awesome No-Explode is presented by BSN? I'm disappointed, man. Anyway, I may as well break it down:

* No control group (very basic requirement of ANY scientific experiment)
* Only one workout/diet plan (makes comparison to someone who had trained more or eaten more impossible)

I'm quite willing to bet the weight analysis was flawed, but there's no way to confirm that without other groups involved. Convenient, huh?
If Stronglifts is considered 'overtraining' because it has you train a muscle again before it has FULLY recovered, then... yes, you can out-eat and out-sleep overtraining. I did it. Plenty of others did it. I ate about 500 calories extra a day on good days and tried to rest well, and packed on quite a lot of muscle as a result. I don't have fantastic genetics, my story isn't unique, I didn't take supplements besides protein occasionally and creatine... It was basically a result of good training, good diet, and good rest. No matter what studies you show me that indicate that can't happen, it did happen, so accept that.
That link is garbage:

*Doesn't consider that new muscle would passively require more calories to maintain. It's not as though you just put on muscle and don't have to keep feeding it - why do you think bodybuilders or powerlifters eat so much? If they had it your way, they would simply have to eat their PREVIOUS maintenance to maintain their NEW body,w hich is ridiculous. Your maintenance is constantly going up.

*Doesn't consider the calories needed to work out in the first place. Remember that calories are essentially energy - if you burnt more than 16 calories in your workout, or that limit was tipped by your heightened metabolism for hours afterwards, you would be LOSING weight. So you need far more than 16 to compensate for your workout or metabolism.

*Most importantly, it's assumptions about the way muscle is built are entirely wrong. No matter how good your training routine is, or no matter how quality those calories are, if you eat calories, they do not ALL go towards building muscle. Some go towards energy, some go towards fat, etc. The calories that will actually go towards building muscle comprise a reasonably small percentage of what you actually eat.

It's recommended diet on 3000 calories is actually pretty decent. The problem is, it's decent for someone whose maintenance is about 2500 calories, because that article underestimates how many excess calories you need by at least an order of magnitude, if not more.
http://stronglifts.com/
Feel free to read through the success stories. Pay attention to the mass you can put on! As an example, I took a look for a one-year one (to contrast your study above), and found this bloke:

http://stronglifts.com/forum/f30/one-ye ... 23599.html

42lbs in one year and a very impressive strength gain. No, it's not all muscle, but that's still a HELL of a lot of LBM. And unlike your study, that's not 'projected' or theorised. That actually happened. On a program that according to you, is 'overtraining'.

I'll post a link to the progress of a bloke who followed another strength program, Starting Strength. 46lbs of LBM in 6 months. By 'overtraining'. He put 200lbs on his squat during that time. 'Overtraining'. Now, let's see, was that projected or theorised? No, that's reality, and it was achieved with a good training program, a good diet, and good rest. I'll end with one of your quotes, shall I?
Heh. Tell that to those blokes.

Toothpick we're gonna have to agree to disagree personally I think Ive waisted more than enough time on you. Enjoy your arbitrary sets/reps Im sure youll do well (sarcaism).

Did you miss the success stories I posted? :p