Oh I mean more in sense of being scientifically proven to have a benefit. I can’t prove it does anything, and I know I really feel the effects of the increase dose after 3 weeks, so I let it run an extra week before adding more
I have no backing to this either, so maybe you can add some knowledge onto this idea. I personally don’t want to just run my top doses of a blast for the whole 16 weeks for example. I don’t want to put my body under that much stress the whole time. In my mind, it makes sense to slowly ramp it up, as I’ll be making serious gains the whole time, while only being under full drug load for say 4-6 weeks.
I also find the increases add a new “spark.” I can physically feel the change each time (I’ve never blasted crazy amounts to the point of diminishing returns so I can’t comment on that end of the curve.) It almost feels as well like when I run the same doses for 16 weeks straight, my body adapts and becomes used to it after 10 weeks and stays that way. I don’t feel like I make as many gains either. could be due to becoming used to that feeling though. The “spark” gives me motivation to push harder, so that could be it as well.
I agree with everything you wrote so I can't add much to that post other than we could go into the details deeper and then I could throw around a bunch of big words that might give an impression of some knowledge. That knowledge deeper would be 99% unnecessary in anything practical that most of us do though. IOW the "backing" is out there but why bother, just accept the compliment and have confidence in the thinking process that brought you too your conclusion.
With some digging and hypothesizing we could unearth enough solid science to claim proof that what you are doing is valid but it's easier to just say that at some point "my cup runneth over", kinda what I explained as my philosophy in my other post. Let's take it to the extreme - would you get
significantly more hypertrophy from 20 grams a week than 1 gram? I strongly suspect not. So yeah I think having anymore than you are effectively using is not just a waste of product but the unneeded stress really makes the decision simple.
I already read
@DeeKnows 's post, I'm still only offering an opinion here, nothing that you or I have said invalidates anything he says either. I've frontloaded and recommended it to others many times too, it all depends on the situation.
One thing you touched on that gets dismissed far too often - Test makes effort feel good, satisfying. Another one of things we probably don't need to go into detail about, I recall Huberman describing the mechanism nicely if anyone was interested.
I should have said this in my first post - IMO the differences in these methods is probably very small, in fact if individual responses are considered they might not even be statistically significant. Also about that individuality please note I said those numbers I posted were "Typical".
And how could you measure the difference between the protocols anyways?
