Training for fiber type is false

[Tom Treutlein]

http://www.hypertrophy-specific.com/cgi-bin/ib3/ikonboard.cgi?;act=ST;f=13;t=21

and

http://www.thinkmuscle.com/articles/haycock/hst-07.htm

 

[resonator]

Very interesting!

Kramrak to you

 

[Tom Treutlein]

No one had anything to say about this, huh?

 

[Aeoleon]

. . .
I would not base my opinions upon internet forums or articles.
I do however believe in the different types (I, IIa, IIx) type of fibers and support the theory.

 

[casualbb]

. . .
I would not base my opinions upon internet forums or articles.
I do however believe in the different types (I, IIa, IIx) type of fibers and support the theory.

Normally I'd agree except this article is based on an experiment published in a peer-reviewed medical journal:

Campos GE, Luecke TJ, Wendeln HK, Toma K, Hagerman FC, Murray TF, Ragg KE, Ratamess NA, Kraemer WJ, Staron RS. Muscular adaptations in response to three different resistance-training regimens: specificity of repetition maximum training zones. Eur J Appl Physiol. 2002 Nov;88(1-2):50-60.

 

[Shark01]

No one had anything to say about this, huh?

Because its BS

And as far as peer reviewed medical studies, there were lots of those in the 70s that stated gear didn't work. Tests can be biased (compromised) in any number of ways.

 

[resonator]

Normally I'd agree except this article is based on an experiment published in a peer-reviewed medical journal:

which means what...

 

[casualbb]

Which means that when it comes to body-stuff, it's as close to the truth as you can get. If you don't accept that as truth, then you can't accept anything.

 

[casualbb]

Because its BS

And as far as peer reviewed medical studies, there were lots of those in the 70s that stated gear didn't work. Tests can be biased (compromised) in any number of ways.

So what should we take as truth, then, anecdote?

 

[b fold the truth]

The only thing that REALLY works...is what YOU can get to work for YOU.

All this science is worthless unless you can make it work for you.

B True

 

[Cuthbert]

This stuff is irrelevant. All of the strong people I know (and I know quite a few) pay NO attention to training for fiber types, etc. I'm not saying it's true or false, but you probably don't need to concern yourself with it.

 

[Dave949]

The only thing that REALLY works...is what YOU can get to work for YOU.B True

Hallelujah !!!

Pump on .....

 

[BOOEY]

Scientific tests also show Cell-tech is 1887% better than regular creatine. So it must be true, right?!

Regardless of the subject, tests can easily be manipulated, biased, and in most cases, methodically innaccurate. I base most of my beliefs on what I see from my own progress and from evaluating others' progress.

 

[anthrax]

No one had anything to say about this, huh?

This is theory

You don't train to stimulate any specific type of fiber but to build mass/gain strength, no ?

 

[Debaser]

So what should we take as truth, then, anecdote?

 

[wnt2bBeast]

The only thing that REALLY works...is what YOU can get to work for YOU.

All this science is worthless unless you can make it work for you.

B True

A f'ing men!!!! For me strength=size..so training more like a powerlifter is working for me now..Who gives a shit!!! If your doing 1 set with 20 reps and growing then who am i to say ur doing it wrong go with it until u stop making gains..I agree with booey as well for every test result u cn find another test that disproves what the first one proved??lol so i suggest you try different things and see what works for you..

 

[LeanMeanHockeyMachine]

Smashing good read Tom, thanks for posting that.

 

[dzulboy]

Scientific tests also show Cell-tech is 1887% better than regular creatine. So it must be true, right?!

Regardless of the subject, tests can easily be manipulated, biased, and in most cases, methodically innaccurate. I base most of my beliefs on what I see from my own progress and from evaluating others' progress.

you mean its not WTF