The 4-Hour Body Part 24

Feel free to lift together, but fail alone.

WHAT ABOUT DROP SETS, REST-PAUSE, AND OTHERWISE EXTENDING FAILURE?.

This isn't needed and screws up your ability to control variables. Keep it simple and follow the rules.

Most advanced trainers who use one-set-to-failure methodologies have observed better results from not extending failure. If you cannot move the resistance, it means you have failed. Extending it just consumes resources that could be applied to growth.

ISN'T X BETTER THAN Y? CAN I [INSERT CHANGE TO PROTOCOL]?

If you want to be a compet.i.tive powerlifter, you will need another program.

If you want to be outstanding in other lifts, you need another program.

For the purposes of gaining 10+ pounds of fat-free ma.s.s in four weeks, however, this program does not require any modification whatsoever.

If you want something else, choose something else. Otherwise, don't change it.

CAN I JUST WORK OUT EVERY 12 OR 24 DAYS AS GURU X SUGGESTS? I'M STILL GETTING STRONGER.

There are some trainers who advocate training as infrequently as possible to produce strength gains. This can mean one workout per month in some cases.

This isn't a bad thing, but let us make an important distinction:

Doing the least possible possible to to experience experience strength gains strength gainsvs.Doing the least necessary necessary to to maximize maximize size gain size gain The latter is the objective of Occam's Protocol.

Tissue growth is our highest priority, even though there will be significant strength gains. Doubling and tripling of your lifts in one to two months, as Neil and other trainees have experienced, is not uncommon.

To support a high rate of fat-free growth, we need to overfeed and direct those excess calories to muscle. This is accomplished by stimulating protein synthesis and increasing the insulin sensitivity of muscle tissue itself through activation (translocation) of the GLUT-4 glucose transporters. Recall from "Damage Control" that the latter is best done through exercise, as we don't want to overdose on insulin.

If you work out just once a month, this might represent one whole-body GLUT-4 window per month for effective overfeeding. This is unacceptable for us, and we'll aim for one workout per week at a minimum.

WHAT TO DO IF YOUR GAINS SLOW WITH ONE SESSION PER WEEK?.

Rather than doing one full-body workout every 1014 days, for example, test a split routine to facilitate strength gains while increasing your GLUT-4 windows to at least two per week.

This is how you get very big, very fast without getting very fat.

I've successfully used the following three-workout split, most notably in 1997:

Session 1: Pus.h.i.+ng exercisesSession 2: Pulling exercisesSession 3: Leg exercises If you are unconditioned or deconditioned (atrophied), take one day between workouts (e.g., pus.h.i.+ng, one day off, pulling, one day off, legs, one day off, ad nauseam) for the first two weeks, two days between workouts for the next three weeks, then move to three days between workouts.

The exercises I used, all performed at 5/5, were: Push: * Incline bench press* Dips (add weight when possible)* Shoulder-width grip shoulder press (never behind the neck)

Pull * Pullover* Bent row* Close-grip supinated (palms facing you) pull-downs* Slow Slow shrugs with dumbbells (pause for two seconds at the top) shrugs with dumbbells (pause for two seconds at the top)

Legs * Leg press with feet shoulder width (do higher reps on this; at least 120 seconds before failure)* Adduction machine (bringing the legs together as if using the Thighmaster)* Hamstring curl* Leg extension* Seated calf raises

In retrospect, I believe this volume of exercises to be excessive for most trainees. Using the first two exercises listed for each workout will produce at least 80% of the desired gains with less risk of plateauing.

[image]

[image]

"It's just water weight."

This dismissive comment is common in the lifting and diet worlds.

Now, carrying so much subcutaneous water that your head looks like a Cabbage Patch Kid is bad. However, purposefully putting more fluid and substrate in specific parts of muscle tissue can be incredibly useful. There are two different types of muscular growth that you can use to your advantage with a bit of inside knowledge.

The names of both sound complicated-myofibrillar and sarcoplasmic-but the difference is really very simple.

[image]

Let's start with a basic primer on muscle fibers.

Every muscle fiber has two main parts: myofibrils, which are cylinder- shaped filaments that contract to create movement, and the sarcoplasm, which is the fluid surrounding the myofibrils that contains glycogen stores and mitochondria to provide energy (ATP).

Myofibrillar hypertrophy20 can be thought of as growth for maximal strength. The myofibrils in the muscle fiber increase in number, adding primarily strength and some size to the muscle. This kind of muscle growth is achieved by high tension-doing one to five reps at 8090% of your one-repet.i.tion maximum, for example. The strength output is limited to brief intervals, as you're developing fast-fatiguing type 2 muscle fibers. can be thought of as growth for maximal strength. The myofibrils in the muscle fiber increase in number, adding primarily strength and some size to the muscle. This kind of muscle growth is achieved by high tension-doing one to five reps at 8090% of your one-repet.i.tion maximum, for example. The strength output is limited to brief intervals, as you're developing fast-fatiguing type 2 muscle fibers.

Sarcoplasmic hypertrophy can be thought of as growth for maximal size or anaerobic fatigue resistance. The volume of fluid in the sarcoplasm increases instead of the myofibrils, adding primarily size and some strength to the muscle. This kind of muscle growth is achieved through metabolic adaptations-doing 812 reps to failure at a submaximal 6080% of your one-repet.i.tion maximum, for example.

But which is better? Is sarcoplasmic hypertrophy useless, nothing more than water?

First things first: the claim that it's "nothing more than water" doesn't square with the science. Dehydration of even 4% bodyweight can decrease muscular endurance 1517%. More relevant to tissue growth, researchers such as Dr. Clyde Wilson of UCSF School of Medicine believe that water effectively acts as a transcription factor-much like testosterone or growth hormone-for protein production. There is evidence that growth factors are triggered by cell volume regulating elements (CVRE) that, in effect, tell DNA to replicate when intracellular hydration is optimal. If that weren't enough, as Dr. Doug McGuff has pointed out, when the water-containing interior of the cell is maximally hydrated, receptors for hormones, "sitting as they do on the surface of the cell membrane, become maximally convexed into the environment where the hormones are circulating, thus allowing for maximal hormonal interaction with the receptor sites."

Just water. Bah. water. Bah.

Second: the sarcoplasmic volume increase is not just a fluid (water) increase. It also corresponds to more mitochondria, more glycogen, and larger stores of both adenosine triphosphate (ATP, the energy currency of cells) and phosphocreatine (PC, a high-energy reserve). Not to mention increased capillarization from such training, which results in more efficient nutrient delivery through additional blood vessels.

This is why Neil gained an average of 48.65% strength on his exercises (100% on one) in four weeks using what would be considered a sarcoplasmic lifting protocol. These strength increases are impressive by any measure, myofibrillar or otherwise.

Will Occam's Protocol give you more strength than a protocol specifically designed for maximal strength? No, that's what the chapter "Effortless Superhuman" is for. But can Occam's make you much, much stronger and allow you to surpa.s.s most people in the gym? Yes.

The conclusion: to decide on the best program for you, you need to know your objective.

As usual, the more specific your goal and the more precise your training, the better your results will be.

[image]

[image]

End of Chapter Notes 19. "(f/2)" indicates "fast but controlled" on the lifting portion and a two-second lowering. "(f/2)" indicates "fast but controlled" on the lifting portion and a two-second lowering.

20. Also called Also called sarcomeric sarcomeric hypertrophy. hypertrophy.

IMPROVING s.e.x.

THE 15-MINUTE FEMALE o.r.g.a.s.m.

Part Un The pleasure of living and the pleasure of the o.r.g.a.s.m are identical. Extreme o.r.g.a.s.m anxiety forms the basis of the general fear of life.-Wilhelm Reich, Austrian psychologist (18971957)An o.r.g.a.s.m a day keeps the doctor away.-Mae West, American actress and s.e.x symbol (18921980) 9:00 P.M., OSHA THAI RESTAURANT, SAN FRANCISCO.

My Thai food hovered between my plate and my mouth, broccoli dangling off the fork. Then it fell. I was focused more on the conversation than the eating.

"For almost all women, the most sensitive part of the c.l.i.t will be the upper-left-hand quadrant from their perspective, around one o'clock from the man's perspective."

Tallulah Sulis, a specialist in female e.j.a.c.u.l.a.t.i.o.n, paused to take a sip of water and raised her eyes to meet mine: "Sometime you should really try and meet Nicole Daedone."

Tallulah was an old friend, and had now become my first o.r.g.a.s.m consigliere. I wrote the name down on a note, and we meandered from our love-life catch-up to other topics.

Two hours later, we settled the bill and I walked her to her car. As we ambled over the crosswalk, I turned to her and joked: "Now all I need to do is find a beautiful single girl who's never had an o.r.g.a.s.m."

It was a funny ending to a funny night.

Little did I realize how important the note in my pocket would become.

The Quest Exactly 24 hours later, serendipity entered stage left.

I was enjoying French food and a bottle of Bordeaux with a 25- year- old female yoga instructor new to San Francisco, fresh from the Midwest. Talk drifted to the singles scene and then to her culture shock in places like the Castro, where drag queens and transs.e.xuals have dinner next to dot-com millionaires. Nothing is taboo, and she was just getting acclimated. SF is, after all, the world's capital city of s.e.xual exploration.

Several gla.s.ses further into the evening, she casually admitted that she'd never experienced an o.r.g.a.s.m. How we got to that topic, I don't remember, but I looked around to see if G.o.d was playing a trick on me. I've never won the Powerball lottery, but I felt like I had.

My daydream was interrupted when her follow-up comment slapped me back to reality: "It's fine, though. I've realized that s.e.x just isn't that important."

Time-out.

"What?!" I blurted, a little too loudly. (Thank you, wine.) This gorgeous woman in her prime, let's call her Giselle, had compartmentalized s.e.x as an unimportant and uninteresting activity. As the drinks flowed and we continued to talk, it became clear that this rationalization was a direct product of her inability to fully enjoy it.

And so it came to be that I made her a drunken promise: I would fix her inability to o.r.g.a.s.m. Not that night, not necessarily through me,1 but somehow. but somehow.

In retrospect, it was a foolish and overconfident promise. But with alcohol- induced optimism on my side, I viewed it as a watershed moment, an opportunity to harness my OCD for the greater good.

Most men a.s.sume they kinda-sorta understand female anatomy, but-the upper-left quadrant at one o'clock? That was a new one.

Tallulah had given me a glimpse of a different world altogether.

Later that evening, somewhere between Wikipedia and p.o.r.nHub, I realized Giselle wasn't alone. s.e.x researcher Shere Hite had long ago concluded that 70% of U.S. women couldn't experience o.r.g.a.s.m from intercourse, and Alfred Kinsey's data suggested that up to 50% of U.S. women weren't able to achieve o.r.g.a.s.m at all.

My quest for the elusive female "O" had begun.

The outcome, four weeks later, was better than I ever could have imagined.

I was able to facilitate o.r.g.a.s.ms (the word facilitate facilitate will be explained later) in every woman who acted as a test subject. will be explained later) in every woman who acted as a test subject.2 The results: those who'd never experienced manual-only o.r.g.a.s.m were able to do so, and those who'd never experienced penetration-only o.r.g.a.s.m were also able to do so. The success rate was 100%.

Here is what I learned.

The Process The morning after wine with Giselle, I wrote down a number of questions that seemed like good starting points. Several of them related to extending male endurance, if that were to prove a limiting factor. I figured I might need to train men to become Energizer bunnies.

Some of the a.s.sumptions, reflected in the wording, turned out to be totally wrong, but here are my original questions:

1. How do you tweak the most common s.e.xual positions to make it more likely that the woman will o.r.g.a.s.m?

2. How can you reduce the refractory periods (the erection- impossible period after e.j.a.c.u.l.a.t.i.o.n) for men? This would allow more sessions per night.

3. Is it possible for men to have multiple o.r.g.a.s.ms without ejaculating?3 4. How do you keep it it-the hoo-ha, that is-from stretching out over time? (A female friend insisted I throw this one in.)4

Once I had questions, I needed some answers. For that I would need two things: experts and lots of practice.

First things first: experts.

There is no shortage of how-to s.e.xual information. From Chigong p.e.n.i.s (competes with the Iron p.e.n.i.s Kung-Fu school, not kidding) to o.r.g.a.s.m training on elaborate vibrator-saddle machines like the Sybian, it's a paradox-of-choice problem. Considering the options, I started to think that I might be reenacting The Snow Leopard The Snow Leopard by Peter Matthiessen. by Peter Matthiessen.