PTP just two exercises!?!

[fa_jing]

Hi Nick. Ford Perfect had a great post on this, which I will quote:

Ford sez:
"As for muscle hypertrophy (growth) there are two types of hypertrophy: myofabrillar and sarcoplasmic.

Myofabrillar hypertrophy is a growth in the muscles contractile proteins/fibers themselves. The muscle actually gets denser.

Sarcoplasmic hypertrophy is the growth in the amount of muscle sarcoplasm which is a jelly-like filler in between the contactile proteins from which the fibers extract their energy. Sarcoplasmic hypertrophy is generally what is responsible for most muscle “growth” (ie getting “jacked”)

FYI, there is a term called hyperplasia which refers to an increase in number of muscle fibers but it has been largely disproven.

Since you were asking about “growth”, I’ll concentrate on sarcoplasmic hypertrophy. Any hypertrophy is a result of the symbiotic relationship of intensity (as in % of your 1-rep max), rest time, and volume (amount of sets and reps). Since sarcoplasmic hypertrophy is a growth in the energy system in the muscle, it would make sense to target the energy system for the most growth.

This will lead to relatively low intensity, short rest, and moderate-high volume. The most obvious display of this is in the typical bodybuilder workout of 3 sets of 12 reps. 3 sets total is moderate volume, but if you condense rest periods to under a minute you will obviously be taxing the muscle’s energy systems. Doing 12 reps per set will also cause you to use low intensity since not many people can lift a high % of their one rep max 12 times!

Obviously you can play around with this relationship of intensity, rest, and volume. If you raise the intensity, then you must raise the volume. I only say this because as intesnity goes higher, the amount of reps you can do goes lower. Say if you are only doing 4 reps of an exercise. That means that will now have to do 9 sets instead of 3 to get those same 36 reps.

This is why it seems like there are so many approaches to reach the same goal. On the surface, they look radically different, but underneath it all are the same basic principles of the Energetic Theory of Muscle Hypertrophy: Intensity Volume Rest"

Fa-Jing sezs: Both kinds of hypertrophy lead to increases in strength, but only sarcoplasmic hypertrophy leads to much increase in muscle size. An olympic weightlifter in one of the lower weight classes would concentrate on myofabrillar hypertrophy. A bodybuilder OTOH would concentrate on sarcoplasmic hypertrophy. A strong man competitor, with no/little concern about his weight, probably concentrates on both.

[Toby]

Nice post fa_jing.

Originally posted by Nick Forrer
… and this guy was HUGE and RIPPED. Not to mention the size of the other competitors.

These guys are so juiced up that they probably gain an inch on their bicep lifting a glass of milk ;).

[Nick_Forrer]

Thanks for the repsonse fa jing

I have some questions though

Originally posted by fa_jing

As for muscle hypertrophy (growth) there are two types of hypertrophy: myofabrillar and sarcoplasmic… there is also a term called hyperplasia which refers to an increase in number of muscle fibers but it has been largely disproven.

How much evidence is there to support this theory. Any scientific studies you can link to? Or is it just the most plausible theory currently on offer. I remember there being some debate a while ago about which one accounted for muscular growth (hyperplasia or hypertrophy). Are the number of muscle fibres you have genetically predetermined? Do you grow any more between birth and adulthood?

Myofabrillar hypertrophy is a growth in the muscles contractile proteins/fibers themselves.

why wouldnt this make the whole muscle bigger?

Sarcoplasmic hypertrophy is the growth in the amount of muscle sarcoplasm which is a jelly-like filler in between the contactile proteins from which the fibers extract their energy.

[b] Okay. Its been a while since I was in to all this stuff (about seven years ago). However from what I remember- the basic unit of muscle contraction is the sarcomere. The sarcomere is made up of two protein filaments- myosin and actin. When a sarcomere is activated the mysion and actin slide towards one another- hence muscular ontraction. The energy for this is achieved through ATP- which is broken down into ADP and one phosphate thus releasing its energy. When this is done without oxygen present (anaerobically) lactic acid builds up as a by product.
Sarcomere activation also requires a chemical interaction between the electrolytes - namely sodium, potassium and calcium.
A lack of sodium is what causes muscular cramp. The electrolytes are stored in sarcoplasm. Hence an increase in the amount of sarcoplasm will result in an increase in the work rate of your muscles.

Is this right? [/b]

Sarcoplasmic hypertrophy is generally what is responsible for most muscle “growth”

Again, are there any studies to confirm this?

Any hypertrophy is a result of the symbiotic relationship of intensity (as in % of your 1-rep max), rest time, and volume (amount of sets and reps).

Isnt another way to define intensity in terms of maximum effort i.e. if you can perform 10 reps of 100 kg but you only do 8 reps you are not performing at maximum intensity. Maximum intensity is training to failure. By momentarily attempting the impossible (the last rep of a set to failure) you are subjecting your body to the maximum stress possible and thus giving it the maximum stimulus for growth- since your body will try to compensate for the demands placed on it in that instant by increasing its work capacity, thereby ensuring that future demands of the same order of intensity will have less of an impact on its energy systems.

Since sarcoplasmic hypertrophy is a growth in the energy system in the muscle, it would make sense to target the energy system for the most growth…This will lead to relatively low intensity, short rest, and moderate-high volume.

Im not sure im convinced. Once you have subjected your body to the maximum stimulus possible (i.e. by training to failure-that is, by momentarily attempting the impossible) whats the point in doing more sets? All you are doing is making further inroads into your bodys recovery ability and thus incresing the amount of recovery time you will require while not giving it any more of a stimulus than you already have. Similarly by training at low intensity you are never momentarily attempting the impossible and thus never subjecting your body to a stress over and above that which it can comfortably handle. Consquently there is no compelling reason for it to overcompensate by increasing the size/strength of the muscle and thus better protect it from future threats to its homeostasis- just like how going out on a cloudy day, no matter how many times you do it, will not give you a sun tan because the intensity is insufficient. Of course this does depend on how you define intensity. I agree that continually perfoming 1RMS may not be optimal for hypertrophy. Personally I start at 6RMs and work my way up (however long that may take-weeks, months etc.) to 10. I then increase the weight so im back down to 6

[Ford_Prefect]

[b]

How much evidence is there to support this theory. Any scientific studies you can link to? Or is it just the most plausible theory currently on offer. I remember there being some debate a while ago about which one accounted for muscular growth (hyperplasia or hypertrophy). Are the number of muscle fibres you have genetically predetermined? Do you grow any more between birth and adulthood?
[/b]

There’s quite a bit of eviodence to support this and more is coming with the advent of uninvasive scanning technologies. I don’t know of any studies off the top of my head, but I do know of many books which touch upon and cite the studies:

Supertraining: Mel Siff
Science and Priactice of Strength Training: Vladamir Zatsiorsky
Power to the People: Pavel Tsatsouline

Most often, the studies citied above are from Medyedev who is a Soviet scientist. He first developed what is now known as “periodization”.

why wouldnt this make the whole muscle bigger?

It would, but only very slightly. These are very small things we are talking about here and any growth is not very visible. The most common visual impact this will have is making the muscle appear denser.

[b] Okay. Its been a while since I was in to all this stuff (about seven years ago). However from what I remember- the basic unit of muscle contraction is the sarcomere. The sarcomere …

Is this right?
[/b]

Pretty much. You missed a few details.

Again, are there any studies to confirm this?

Yes. The same as above. With the advent of modern medical technology there is more and more edvidence to support the Energetic Theory of Muscle Hypertrophy. Much evidence has come from post-mortum analysis of cross-sections of muscles in a variety of test subjects both human and animal.

Im not sure im convinced.

Well to each his own. You are also still measuring intensity by closeness to failure rather than percentage of your one-rep max (%1RM), which is the only real scientific way of measuring “intensity”. Anything else like failure is just a perceptual thing that can change trainee to trainee, day-to-day depending on a number of varying factors.

By doing more than one-set to failure or close to it in a higher rep range (5+) you providing more stimulus for the muscle to grow. Not every fiber is fatigued in the first set of an activity. It’s a safety mechanism built into the body. It won’t be firing all available fibers at once. By pre-exhausting a number of fibers during a first set, your body will have to fire other fibers to compensate for the exhausted ones the next set. Etc etc.

[Ford_Prefect]

BTW, I just did a google search on sarcoplasmic and myofabrillar hypertrophy and came back with numerous articles and studies citing the same phenomena we are discussing here. Take a peek.

[Suntzu]

i guess classes are paying off… cuz i understood what was just being said in this thread… now if i can just pass these finals…