My [Least] favorite training myths.

[MataUm]

Debaser: well, sarcomere fibers are the contractile muscle fibers, the one that actually do the work, yes.

However, look into muscle fiber recruitment patterns for other mechanisms of strength gains.

 

[casualbb]

Yeah I mean that one.

I didn't say that sarcomere hypertrophy doesn't occur while bulking, only that bulking itsn't necessary for it to occur.

Argh! That violates a central law of physics. You can't build something from nothing. Proteins don't just randomly arrange themselves into sarcomeres; that would reduce the universe's entropy, which CAN'T HAPPEN. Your stove doesn't spontaneously heat up; you have to apply a flame. The only way to get it to work it apply enough energy to overcome the tendency for randomness.

 

[MataUm]

I pretty much lump various types of hypertrophy into a similar category. If I'm training for mainly for strength, size, or a combination of both I'm doing just that, and not worrying about contractile proteins. Interesting how I gain strength very quickly from both high rep sets and low rep sets.

Didn't claim that my way was the only way of gaining strength, I am only claiming there are OTHER ways of gaining strength, ways of gaining strength that is more efficient for a given task. Bodybuilders don't compete for strength like OL or powerlifters so just lifting to gain some size is OK. However, to say that because that is how you train and get results, means that it is the only way is a bit shortsighted. I am only offering an alternative.

Why don't you call Dr. Ken, DC, or any of those guys and ask if "fairly high repetition sets...to the point of failure may also inhibit the formation of contractile muscle fibres." In their experience, their trainees as well as themselves have gained enormous amounts of strength through the sole use of high rep sets to failure. Also, note the "may" in the preceding quote.

Yes, but their strength to bodyweight ratio is not so good, now is it? Can these people lift 4 times their bodyweight over their head?

Yes, the may is a good indicator of something else working isn't it? It would be foolish for somebody in the acedemic field to claim an absolute, and doing such reps to failure may not inhibit the formation of said muscle fibers, but may only inhibit their efficency. Which is what many strength athletes need.

Keep doing what you are doing if it works. Since you clarified yourself, that you don't think ST and FT fibers are imaginative like I got the impression you were saying we are on the same level.

 

[MataUm]

Very well then, bolding mine:

Thirty-two untrained men [mean (SD) age 22.5 (5.8) years, height 178.3 (7.2) cm, body mass 77.8 (11.9) kg] participated in an 8-week progressive resistance-training program to investigate the "strength-endurance continuum". Subjects were divided into four groups: a low repetition group (Low Rep, n = 9) performing 3-5 repetitions maximum (RM) for four sets of each exercise with 3 min rest between sets and exercises, an intermediate repetition group (Int Rep, n = 11) performing 9-11 RM for three sets with 2 min rest, a high repetition group (High Rep, n = 7) performing 20-28 RM for two sets with 1 min rest, and a non-exercising control group (Con, n = 5). Three exercises (leg press, squat, and knee extension) were performed 2 days/week for the first 4 weeks and 3 days/week for the final 4 weeks. Maximal strength [one repetition maximum, 1RM), local muscular endurance (maximal number of repetitions performed with 60% of 1RM), and various cardiorespiratory parameters (e.g., maximum oxygen consumption, pulmonary ventilation, maximal aerobic power, time to exhaustion) were assessed at the beginning and end of the study. In addition, pre- and post-training muscle biopsy samples were analyzed for fiber-type composition, cross-sectional area, myosin heavy chain (MHC) content, and capillarization. Maximal strength improved significantly more for the Low Rep group compared to the other training groups, and the maximal number of repetitions at 60% 1RM improved the most for the High Rep group. In addition, maximal aerobic power and time to exhaustion significantly increased at the end of the study for only the High Rep group. All three major fiber types (types I, IIA, and IIB) hypertrophied for the Low Rep and Int Rep groups, whereas no significant increases were demonstrated for either the High Rep or Con groups. However, the percentage of type IIB fibers decreased, with a concomitant increase in IIAB fibers for all three resistance-trained groups. These fiber-type conversions were supported by a significant decrease in MHCIIb accompanied by a significant increase in MHCIIa. No significant changes in fiber-type composition were found in the control samples. Although all three training regimens resulted in similar fiber-type transformations (IIB to IIA), the low to intermediate repetition resistance-training programs induced a greater hypertrophic effect compared to the high repetition regimen. The High Rep group, however, appeared better adapted for submaximal, prolonged contractions, with significant increases after training in aerobic power and time to exhaustion. Thus, low and intermediate RM training appears to induce similar muscular adaptations, at least after short-term training in previously untrained subjects. Overall, however, these data demonstrate that both physical performance and the associated physiological adaptations are linked to the intensity and number of repetitions performed, and thus lend support to the "strength-endurance continuum".

 

[Debaser]

In terms of strength to bodyweight, Dr. Ken can full squat 407 lbs for 23 reps at a bodyweight of 150-160, completely raw. I'd say this isn't too shabby. He could have improved upon that number since then also.

 

[MataUm]

Argh! That violates a central law of physics. You can't build something from nothing. Proteins don't just randomly arrange themselves into sarcomeres; that would reduce the universe's entropy, which CAN'T HAPPEN. Your stove doesn't spontaneously heat up; you have to apply a flame. The only way to get it to work it apply enough energy to overcome the tendency for randomness. [/B]

Yes, but your claim that it takes a lot of energy to form contractile protein chains has yet to be backed by any evidence. The fact that this can happen in short deprevational periods is evidence that large amounts of food is not necessary.

The rest of your post is rather interesting, but not really relevant, I must say that I don't see the connection between an oven lighting itself and a body that is designed to strengthen muscle fibers when they are stressed. Perhaps you could clarify.

 

[casualbb]

With respect to fiber type growth, there seemed to be littler correlation between rep range and growth of fiber type. But I never said anything about strength. Of course the people lifting maximal weights gain more strength (neural adaptation), and of course those lifting with higher reps gained more strength-endurance (trained the glycolysis/oxidative energy pathway). If that's your point, then we are in agreement.

 

[MataUm]

Yes, but is has been shown often that those that can squat 400lbs for 20+ reps often have trouble with as much more weight as 50lbs. Muscular endurance is the same thing as maximal force output.

 

[casualbb]

Yes, but your claim that it takes a lot of energy to form contractile protein chains has yet to be backed by any evidence. The fact that this can happen in short deprevational periods is evidence that large amounts of food is not necessary.

Can happen is different than "does" happen. Animals in the lab can experience severe hypertrophy during starvation conditions, but this is in response to extreme stimulus. We're talking all waking hours spend supported weight in a stretched position. For all intents and purposes, human trainees need to overeat to gain appreciable amounts of muscle. If you use extreme amounts of juice or come from a layoff, you can gain while dieting, but that's the exception, not the rule.

The rest of your post is rather interesting, but not really relevant, I must say that I don't see the connection between an oven lighting itself and a body that is designed to strengthen muscle fibers when they are stressed. Perhaps you could clarify.

Yes, I shall clarify. Despite the fact that everything is infinitely more complicated in biological systems as opposed to inorganic ones, they still must obey fundamental laws of physics. One of which is that particles don't spontaneously find themselves in ordered arrangements out of chaos without an input of energy. What this means is that amino acids don't magically connect themselves to form sarcomeres. There are enzymes and growth processes that exist to assemble new muscle, but it requires energy both to run this cellular machinery and to actually connect the amino acids. Digestion is the breaking of chemical bonds to derive energy, and this is the opposite process. Obviously it requires energy.

 

[MataUm]

Yes, that is true, but it doesn't take massive amounts of energy. Less than a calorie.