Please Scroll Down to See Forums Below
napsgear
genezapharmateuticals
domestic-supply
puritysourcelabs
UGL OZ
UGFREAK
napsgeargenezapharmateuticals domestic-supplypuritysourcelabsUGL OZUGFREAK

My [Least] favorite training myths.

  • Thread starter Thread starter Debaser
  • Start date Start date
Olypic lifters are smaller because they train for sarcomere hypertrophy, not sarcoplasmic hypertrophy (the non contractile proteins)

From here: http://staff.washington.edu/griffin/hypertrophy.txt

OPTIMUM, NOT MAXIMUM, HYPERTROPHY

In both Olympic lifting and powerlifting, optimal and not maximal
hypertrophy is a central feature of the game, unlike bodybuilding where it
does not matter whether one is relatively weak or strong with reference to
one's bodymass. All that matters is well-defined, symmetrical muscle bulk
in bodybuilding, but in the lifting sports, your size and impressiveness of
appearance earn you scant respect - all that counts is what you lift.

Optimal hypertrophy means continuing to develop building muscle only as
long as that extra bulk continues to provide you with significant increases
in strength and power. If you add 10kg to your bodymass and your total
increases by only 5kg in a higher bodymass division, then your relative
strength has decreased and that added hypertrophy is wasted on you.

This is a serious problem in contact sports such as football where the
common belief is that virtually any form of added mass is good for the game
(especially defensive players), whereas in reality it would be a lot better
if the added bulk was mainly solid, functional muscle which added strength,
power, speed and agility.

DIFFERENT TYPES OF HYPERTROPHY

Research from Russia even suggests that there are two different types of
muscle hypertrophy: sarcomere hypertrophy (of the actual contractile
components) and sarcoplasmic hypertrophy (of non-contractile proteins and
semifluid plasma between the muscle fibres), with the latter type of
hypertrophy being more in evidence in bodybuilding (Siff & Verkhoshansky
"Supertraining" 1998 Ch 1.12).

MUSCLE GROWTH & PERFORMANCE

To provide some more relevant information on this important and
controversial topic, I have included this fairly lengthy extract from
"Supertraining" (pp 58-60) for those who may be interested:

Other research has found that hypertrophied muscle fibres need a
significantly larger tissue volume to perform a given amount of work. With
the development of non-functional muscle bulk (sarcoplasmic hypertrophy),
the increase in muscle mass outsrtips the development of the circulatory
system, resulting in decreased nutrition and oxygenation of the muscle,
slowing down the metabolic processes in the muscle and less efficient
disposal of metabolic waste products from the musculoskeletal system
(Zalessky & Burkhanov Legkaya Atletika 1981: 1-7).

Furthermore, adaptation occurs more slowly in connective tissue (such as
tendons and ligaments) than in muscle and any increased tension made
possible in the musculotendinous complexes by the increased muscle mass can
cause damage to these structures (Zalessky & Burkhanov, 1981). Thus,
excessive hypertrophy usually leads to slower muscle recovery after
exercise, deterioration in speed, speed-strength and speed, as well as an
increased incidence of injury.

THE ENERGY COSTS OF TOO MUCH HYPERTROPHY

This might suggest that all muscle fibre hypertrophy lowers work capacity.
Hypertrophy is an adaptive response to physical stress and does offer the
benefit of increased mitochondrial surface area, which provides for more
efficient energy processes than would an increased number of mitochondria.
With a rapid increase in loading, the size of the mitochondria continues to
increase markedly, but their number decreases and the concentration of ATP
drops, thereby diminishing the partial volume of the contractile myofibrils.

The resulting energy deficit soon inhibits the formation of new structures
and the decreased amount of ATP stimulates various destructive processes
associated with decrease in the number of myofibrils. This process is
referred to as irrational adaptation.

Growth of any living structure is related to the balance between its volume
and its surface area. When muscle hypertrophy occurs, the surface of the
fibres grows more slowly than their volume and, this imbalance causes the
fibres to disintegrate and restructure in a way which preserves their
original metabolic state (Nikituk & Samoilov, 1990).

It would appear that light and medium increases in loading require less
energy, facilitate cell repair, minimise the occurrence of destructive
processes and stimulate the synthesis of new, non-hypertrophied cellular
structures. Medium loads applied with a medium rate of increase in loading
produce intense muscular development, the process in this case being
referred to as rational adaptation..

The fact that conventional isometric training improves performance in
static, rather than dynamic, exercise may be due to the different
structural effects of isometric training on the muscle fibres, muscle
cells, connective tissues and blood capillaries.

MORE ON OPTIMAL HYPERTROPHY

This work seems to corroborate the hypothesis referred to earlier that
there may be an optimum size for muscle fibres undergoing hypertrophy
(MacDougall et al, 1982; Tesch & Larsson, 1982). The importance of
prescribing resistance training regimes which produce the optimal balance
between hypertrophy and specific strength then becomes obvious. Thus, it
is not only prolonged cardiovascular training which can be detrimental to
the acquisition of strength, but multiple fairly high repetition sets of
heavy bodybuilding or circuit training routines to the point of failure may
also inhibit the formation of contractile muscle fibres.

Therefore, it is vital to monitor regularly changes in muscular structure
and function alongside changes in size and mass. In most cases the taking
of biopsies is not possible or financially practical, so that indirect
assessment of the adaptive processes is necessary. Increase in hypertrophy
of a given muscle zone may be assessed from muscle girth and skinfold
thicknesses at that site, while factors such as relative strength, maximal
strength and the strength deficit (see Ch 1) serve as useful indicators of
functional efficiency.

INDISCRIMINATE WEIGHT TRAINING

Bosco (1982a) cautions against the indiscriminate use of resistance
training that typifies much of the 'cross training' prescribed with weights
and circuits by Western personal trainers and coaches. He emphasizes that,
although heavy resistance training serves as a powerful stimulus for the
development and hypertrophy of both ST and FT fibres, the invaluable role
played by FT development can be impaired by the accompanying growth of ST
fibres, because the latter appear to provoke a damping effect on FT
contraction during fast movement.

This is due to the fact that, during high speed shortening of muscle, the
sliding velocity of ST fibres can be too slow and therefore, may exert a
significant damping effect on the overall muscle contraction. He concludes
that the central role played by the storage and release of elastic energy
by the connective tissues of the muscle complex should never be ignored in
sport specific training programmes.

Dr. Mel Siff
 
Some other links that support my argument and debunk debasers outrageous claims that muscle fiber types and differing types of hypertrophy exist:


http://www.weighttrainersunited.com/hypertrophy.html
http://www.engr.mun.ca/~butt/training/growth2.html
http://www.wannabebig.com/article.php?articleid=106
http://sportsmedicine.about.com/cs/exercisephysiology/a/aa080901a.htm

I can get more. So, whom to believe? Current research, or some guy on a message board that promotes simplicity over accuracy?
 
guldukat said:


To nitpick, that's still a generalization, it's just not a bad one :)

The reason I said "sweeping" is because many competitive lifters do take pains to stay in a certain weight class. They have to curb calories to that end; therefore, to claim they're eating adequately for bodybuilder-calibre growth, and don't achieve as much growth solely because of their training, is a bit hasty.

Obviously Oly lifters as a general rule do not "bulk" like bodybuilders, so in that case you are right, however, the purpose of bulking is to build sarcoplasmic hypertrophy and keep glycogen replentished. So in that case, they eat less. That isn't diet manipulation any more than me not eating at a buffet every day.



I partially agree, though I'd caution against saying "The successful must eat that much because they have to eat that much to succeed." You mentioned arguing in circles awhile back--the above is the very definition of circular reasoning.

I should also note I never said all OLers didn't eat well at all, nor should we look at diet as something so extreme; i.e., "Either you eat 6,000 kcal daily or you only eat the equivalent of a few Twinkies." There's a _huge_ middle ground there, just as there are lifters between Don Knotts' strength and Ed Coan's.

It's really a moot point since I don't claim that diet's the sole reason OLers sometimes have smaller muscles than bodybuilders; it's been some days, but I recall I was the guy who favored the genetics explanation. There are, after all, OLers who *do* have pretty good muscularity, so if they train--and, as you suggested, eat--like their smaller-muscled Olympic cousins, there must be something else to account for said superior development, some other factor at play.

I don't see the problem with that circular reasoning? You classify it as such, but it is no different than saying that a racecar must use lots of gas because going that fast uses a lot of fuel. It isn't false, just worded poorly. There is nothing fallicious about that statement, nor the one above.

The something else that accounts for superior development is genetics. Muscle insertion points, total amount of muscle fibers, both ST AND FT depending on the sport, height, weight, age, all are factors. That is what seperates the guy that competes amateur leve and the guy that made it to the pros, even though their diets and training regimine are identical.

(and yes, I realize that to compete at the high levels olypic level lifters lift at, they too as a general rule, juice)
 
Problem: sarcomere hypertrophy also takes a lot of energy. The purpose of bulking is not merely to produce sarcoplasmic hypertrophy.

outrageous claims that muscle fiber types and differing types of hypertrophy exist:

What exactly did he say? It doesn't sound like any of that is in contradiction to what debaser said.
 
From the OP:

Debaser said:


The whole fiber type thing is a bunch of BS, many trainees worry about it (and other pointless minutae) so much that they lose their focus on important matters and end up not succeeding whatsoever.

I then asked him if his opinion on the two types of hypertrophy and got no response. I took this as a negative.

Sarcomere energy doesn't take that much energy. (relatively) The purpose of bulking is what I said: getting to body to realize there is an abundance of nutriants and to store them. Training the body with high reps and lots of sets gets the body to store lots of extra glycogen and such and that contributes to size.
If building up contractile proteins took that much energy mankind, and down through the ancestors, because much of mammillian physiology/musculature is pretty similar, would not have survived.
 
Okay, first of all, building any sort of macromolecule out of components takes a lot of energy.

And secondly, what are you saying, that bulking will only ever produce sarcoplasmic hypertrophy? If that's the case, then why do the vast majority of trainees find they're stronger when they do a lot of bulking? Obviously not all of it is nonfunctional.

Oh and also the study I posted earlier showed little correlation between rep range and fiber type growth.
 
I didn't mean that various fiber types DON'T exist, I said that it's so irrelevent to the progress of a trainee that many trainees fail because they worry about such things (will certain rep ranges hit certain fibers, etc.).

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. 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.
 
I didn't say that sarcomere hypertrophy doesn't occur while bulking, only that bulking itsn't necessary for it to occur.
 
Is that basically the technical term for the mechanism for strength gain? Or are there other ways to gain strength?
 
casualbb: You mean this study?

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/...ve&db=PubMed&list_uids=12436270&dopt=Abstract

Eur J Appl Physiol. 2002 Nov;88(1-2):50-60. Epub 2002 Aug 15. Related Articles, Links


Muscular adaptations in response to three different resistance-training regimens: specificity of repetition maximum training zones.

Campos GE, Luecke TJ, Wendeln HK, Toma K, Hagerman FC, Murray TF, Ragg KE, Ratamess NA, Kraemer WJ, Staron RS.

Department of Biomedical Sciences, College of Osteopathic Medicine, Ohio University, Irvine Hall, rm 430, Athens, OH 45701, USA.

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".

PMID: 12436270 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
 
Top Bottom