muscle fibers

[einstein1]

Cackerot69: these are 2 quotes from you on this same thread:

"One set to concentric failure is enough for EVERYONE to stimulate muscle growth. Additional sets have little benefit (not statistically significant)."

"One set to concentric failure is not enough to stimulate ALL available fibers because more than one rep range is needed. This is the problem with 1 set to failure training. "

Before you start attacking someone, why don't you get a clue about logic before criticizing me.

 

[Belial]

Einstein, look back at that. Hypertrophy (growth) does not require maximal stimulation of all muscle fibers. What Cack has been saying all along is perfectly consistent: To stimulate the type I fibers (Low growth/hypertrophy potential) you will require more reps, and potentially more sets. However, sufficient type II stimulation (for hypertrophy) can occur after a single set.

Now, guys, group hug.

 

[Cackerot69]

Hahaha....

 

[GenetiKing]

Cackerot69: these are 2 quotes from you on this same thread:

"One set to concentric failure is enough for EVERYONE to stimulate muscle growth. Additional sets have little benefit (not statistically significant)."

"One set to concentric failure is not enough to stimulate ALL available fibers because more than one rep range is needed. This is the problem with 1 set to failure training. "

I was thinking the same thing.

What Cack has been saying all along is perfectly consistent: To stimulate the type I fibers (Low growth/hypertrophy potential) you will require more reps, and potentially more sets. However, sufficient type II stimulation (for hypertrophy) can occur after a single set.

...and I suppose that's "not statistically significant"...?

Einstein, to build definition you need less weight and more reps, right?

You cannot "build definition." Muscular definition is a function of bodyfat and, to some degree, water retention.

Once you stimulate growth, you don't need to keep doing it over and over. That is overtraining in the literalist meaning of the word.

Ah......nevermind.

Originally posted by Cackerot69
each fiber can hypertrophy in two ways - increased number of myofibrils, or growth of the sarcoplasm.

The latter method (sarcoplasmic expansion) is the generally accepted definition of muscular hypertrophy. I was under the impression that increasing the number myofibrils (muscle cells) was still debatable. I thought that had never actually been proven. If I'm wrong, I'll stand corrected...

Cackerot,
You still have yet to prove to that one incidence (per workout) of momentary concentric failure will always result in hypertrophy regardless of an individuals biochemical individuality, training experience, age, anabolic drug usage, diet, recovery ability, etc. You guys don't have to explain H.I.T. or low-volume training to me, I've read all about it. Einstein1 used the analogy of a light switch. It would be nice if the human body was that simple but unfortunately it's not.

 

[Cackerot69]

"The latter method (sarcoplasmic expansion) is the generally accepted definition of muscular hypertrophy. I was under the impression that increasing the number myofibrils (muscle cells) was still debatable. I thought that had never actually been proven. If I'm wrong, I'll stand corrected..."

No, myofibrils and muscle fiber are not the same thing. Inside of the muscle fiber there are contractile protein filaments, called myofibrils. These myofibrils are made up of actin and myosin filaments which cross-bridge and set off a contraction. Myofibrillar hypertrophy is the increased number of myofibrils INSIDE of the muscle fiber, which causes the muscle fiber itself to expand creating a larger muscle. Hyperplasia is completely different.

"You still have yet to prove to that one incidence (per workout) of momentary concentric failure will always result in hypertrophy regardless of an individuals biochemical individuality, training experience, age, anabolic drug usage, diet, recovery ability, etc. You guys don't have to explain H.I.T. or low-volume training to me, I've read all about it. Einstein1 used the analogy of a light switch. It would be nice if the human body was that simple but unfortunately it's not."

Yeah, the light switch comment was funny. The thing is, when you reach concentric failure all available fibers are fatigued and twitching at max frequency. The build-up of phosphate and hydrogen ions as a muscle fatigues is thought to contribute to the growth stimulus. It is only logical to conclude that training to failure would result in a larger accumulation of these metabolites and, therefore, produce a greater growth response. Since it is clear that muscles grow in response to tension and the time that they are required to produce this tension (resulting in microtrauma being done to the fibers), anything that prolongs the time under which they are contracting hard will also increase the growth stimulus. In this light, training to failure is definitely more efficient at stimulating muscular gains than stopping short of failure. Training to failure, in itself, IS a stimulus for muscle growth, although is not essential. If consistent overload is applied, and the nutritional support is there, you will grow.

There have been TONS of studies proving this true as well, although I don't usually like to rely on studies because they are often contradicting. But, there has been 35 studies done on one set VS multiple set training, and 33 of them showed one set training to be just as effective. The two that showed mutiple sets to be effective have been severely scrutinized for the poor research design.

 

[Drigo]

Hi, I'm kinda new to this board but I would like to comment on this subject. This is my own personal opinon(so don't flame me) but...

IMO one set training could work in theory and in practice for some people. The reason I say in theory is because it takes total concentration and intensity to go to complete and total absolute concentric failure in one set. I think the tendency is to hold off your strength a liitle for alot(not all) people. I have been training for 12 years and I still do 3-4sets per exercise(But NOT 10 I believe that is overtraining) I read an article a few years back in Muscle and Fitness and they were interviewing Dorian Yates about one set training (maybe one of you columbos can find it) And Dorian said the same thing he said one set training works for him because he has the concentration and intensity to do it. He also said (and this is not a quote I am paraphrasing from memory)
that it is difficult for novices to do one set training and achieve proper muscle stimulation. Because alot of people (myself included) have reserve strength that they subconciously keep.

I do 3-4 sets becuase by the third set I am so fatigued that there is no reserve strength left (that works for me).

So I guess I am on the proverbial fence on this topic but I thought that I would give you my 2 cents

 

[GenetiKing]

"The latter method (sarcoplasmic expansion) is the generally accepted definition of muscular hypertrophy. I was under the impression that increasing the number myofibrils (muscle cells) was still debatable. I thought that had never actually been proven. If I'm wrong, I'll stand corrected..."

No, myofibrils and muscle fiber are not the same thing. Inside of the muscle fiber there are contractile protein filaments, called myofibrils. These myofibrils are made up of actin and myosin filaments which cross-bridge and set off a contraction. Myofibrillar hypertrophy is the increased number of myofibrils INSIDE of the muscle fiber, which causes the muscle fiber itself to expand creating a larger muscle. Hyperplasia is completely different.

Yeah, as my school days become more of a distant memory, I have forgotten some of this stuff. Sorry...

"You still have yet to prove to that one incidence (per workout) of momentary concentric failure will always result in hypertrophy regardless of an individuals biochemical individuality, training experience, age, anabolic drug usage, diet, recovery ability, etc. You guys don't have to explain H.I.T. or low-volume training to me, I've read all about it. Einstein1 used the analogy of a light switch. It would be nice if the human body was that simple but unfortunately it's not."

Yeah, the light switch comment was funny. The thing is, when you reach concentric failure all available fibers are fatigued and twitching at max frequency. The build-up of phosphate and hydrogen ions as a muscle fatigues is thought to contribute to the growth stimulus. It is only logical to conclude that training to failure would result in a larger accumulation of these metabolites and, therefore, produce a greater growth response. Since it is clear that muscles grow in response to tension and the time that they are required to produce this tension (resulting in microtrauma being done to the fibers), anything that prolongs the time under which they are contracting hard will also increase the growth stimulus. In this light, training to failure is definitely more efficient at stimulating muscular gains than stopping short of failure. Training to failure, in itself, IS a stimulus for muscle growth, although is not essential. If consistent overload is applied, and the nutritional support is there, you will grow.

There have been TONS of studies proving this true as well, although I don't usually like to rely on studies because they are often contradicting. But, there has been 35 studies done on one set VS multiple set training, and 33 of them showed one set training to be just as effective. The two that showed mutiple sets to be effective have been severely scrutinized for the poor research design.

OK.

 

[Tuna Guy]

What if all fibres were recruited all at once. Apart from type IIc fibres what other types are there?

 

[Tuna Guy]

I thought that if the weight was heavy enough all fibres were recruited.