Re: Why does hypertrophy occur?

[Guest guest]

I'm currently reading some great stuff about hypertrophy. Zatsiorsky's

Science and Practice of Strength Training has great explanations, diagrams,

studies about the why and hows of hypertrophy. There are a few explanations he

offers. One is medium weight allows for maximum mechanical work with moderate

protein degredation. Whereas high and low loads seem to lead to maximum protein

degredation.

Another reason is motor unit fatigue or lack thereof. For instance, at

high loads the type II's will be utilized from the first repetition and

exhausted quickly, often at the expense of fatiguing the type I's or type I

posers.

As Zatsiorsky states, a MU that is not fatigued is not worked. Heavy training

does lead to hypertrophy of sorts, but only for the majority of the Type II

fibers--Bompa refers to this as Chronic Hypertrophy. He distinguishes this

because hypertrophy can be attributed to hypertrophied contracile elements

(something that happens at higher loads) or non-contractile elements (usually

lower

loads.) Serious Strength Training, by Bompa, offers these ideas extensively.

London, Ontario, Canada

[Guest guest]

Ulf Karlsson wrote:

> I have a question that may seem really stupid, but I

> want an answer anyway.

Not a stupid question, you've simply realized why body

building type workouts are generally not useful for

athletes.

> Why does hypertrophy occur? not agreed upon, but for

info see for instance Supertraining 1.13 pg 65

>

> As far as I know, really heavy resistance (heavy

> loads) training

> leads to little hypertrophy because of the short

> time that the

> muscles are under stress and increases in strength

> is primarily due

> to the central nervous system's development.

>

> Why?

First, it's not that simple. There can be significant

hypertrophy from high intensity loads, depending on

how much volume is used and whether the system is

accustomed to training this way. If the fast twitch

fibers are relatively undeveloped, they will grow, and

since they are larger by nature one may notice general

gains in muscle cross sectional area.

For specifics on why, there is a wealth of info in

Supertraining. Start with 1.14 pg.69

> If the bulk/strength correlation is not 1 (or very

> close to 1) why

> does hypertrophy exist? (What is the correlation

> anyway, on

> average?)

The correlation can be close to 1 to 1, but will

depend on the neurological efficiency and development

of the trainee. Read Supertraining pg 9-10 to start.

> Let's assume that body building style training

> (isolation,

> relatively light loads, high volume) induces more

> hypertrophy than

> training with heavy loads, but the heavy lifting

> increases your

> strength (at least in comparison to the amount of

> muscle you have)

> more, it seems to me that hypertrophy is a complete

> waste of

> resources since your body will consume more fuel, as

> it were.

Mel writes in many places of there being an ideal

strength/size (or cross sectional area) ratio, but

this will be different for each athletes, due to many

biomechanical, such as muscle origin/insertion

placement, etc. This is of course an ideal in terms of

relative strength. Bodybuilders often display

hypertrophy from non-contractile structures, such as

connective tissue and proliferation of intracellular

elements, and some even show deep tissue fat deposits

from there peculiar diet/routine. Bodybuilding type

approaches are, in general counter to athletic

physical development, as there is usually little

difference in the neural capacity of a body builder as

compared with a couch potato.

> I understand that our bodies are capable for

> adaption but increased

> bulk seems to be a wasteful way compared to tuning

> the

> wiring.

If the nervous system is already utilizing extremely

high percentages of motor units, the easiest (and

sometimes only) way to get stronger is to get bigger.

This is why power lifters tend to go up in weight

classes to lift really huge weight.

> Does hypertrophy serve some other purpose as well,

> such as, say, the

> storing of protein?

Hypertrophy can serve the purpose of pure bulk, such

as for events like Sumo wrestling.

> Please enlighten me.

>

>

> Ulf Karlsson

> Halmstad, Sweden

I don't know if this could be called enlightening, but

I hope it helps.

All the best,

Neil Sims, MS

Prescott Valley, Arizona

[Guest guest]

Ulf Karlsson wrote:

> I have a question that may seem really stupid, but I

> want an answer anyway.

Not a stupid question, you've simply realized why body

building type workouts are generally not useful for

athletes.

> Why does hypertrophy occur? not agreed upon, but for

info see for instance Supertraining 1.13 pg 65

>

> As far as I know, really heavy resistance (heavy

> loads) training

> leads to little hypertrophy because of the short

> time that the

> muscles are under stress and increases in strength

> is primarily due

> to the central nervous system's development.

>

> Why?

First, it's not that simple. There can be significant

hypertrophy from high intensity loads, depending on

how much volume is used and whether the system is

accustomed to training this way. If the fast twitch

fibers are relatively undeveloped, they will grow, and

since they are larger by nature one may notice general

gains in muscle cross sectional area.

For specifics on why, there is a wealth of info in

Supertraining. Start with 1.14 pg.69

> If the bulk/strength correlation is not 1 (or very

> close to 1) why

> does hypertrophy exist? (What is the correlation

> anyway, on

> average?)

The correlation can be close to 1 to 1, but will

depend on the neurological efficiency and development

of the trainee. Read Supertraining pg 9-10 to start.

> Let's assume that body building style training

> (isolation,

> relatively light loads, high volume) induces more

> hypertrophy than

> training with heavy loads, but the heavy lifting

> increases your

> strength (at least in comparison to the amount of

> muscle you have)

> more, it seems to me that hypertrophy is a complete

> waste of

> resources since your body will consume more fuel, as

> it were.

Mel writes in many places of there being an ideal

strength/size (or cross sectional area) ratio, but

this will be different for each athletes, due to many

biomechanical, such as muscle origin/insertion

placement, etc. This is of course an ideal in terms of

relative strength. Bodybuilders often display

hypertrophy from non-contractile structures, such as

connective tissue and proliferation of intracellular

elements, and some even show deep tissue fat deposits

from there peculiar diet/routine. Bodybuilding type

approaches are, in general counter to athletic

physical development, as there is usually little

difference in the neural capacity of a body builder as

compared with a couch potato.

> I understand that our bodies are capable for

> adaption but increased

> bulk seems to be a wasteful way compared to tuning

> the

> wiring.

If the nervous system is already utilizing extremely

high percentages of motor units, the easiest (and

sometimes only) way to get stronger is to get bigger.

This is why power lifters tend to go up in weight

classes to lift really huge weight.

> Does hypertrophy serve some other purpose as well,

> such as, say, the

> storing of protein?

Hypertrophy can serve the purpose of pure bulk, such

as for events like Sumo wrestling.

> Please enlighten me.

>

>

> Ulf Karlsson

> Halmstad, Sweden

I don't know if this could be called enlightening, but

I hope it helps.

All the best,

Neil Sims, MS

Prescott Valley, Arizona

[Guest guest]

Hey Ulf,

Well of course you already know it depends on what you want out of working out

for you to decide if hypertrophy is use less or not. The answer to your first

question is, hypertrophy occurs because of the splitting of fibers. The longer

the duration of stress on the muscles the more fibers split the more that regrow

the more you have the larger the muscle. [This still remains a theory, and the

mechanism of this " splitting " is still under much debate - ST Moderator]

As for your question does it serve a purpose. Of course its important if your

goal is size (which you knew that). As for storing protein the body does not

store protein it uses it or it gets rid of it. Of course you also have to think

that increased muscle size will mean increased weight. Which will put more

stress on the body during training to increase strength. Also added mass can

create leverage to increase weight load and strength.

Larger muscles burn more calories and increase metabolic rate much like a V8

burns more than a 4. Which should make for better protein breakdown and

absorbtion.

So you can say it has lots of benefits.

Lawrence

Haltom city, TX

[Guest guest]

Hey Ulf,

Well of course you already know it depends on what you want out of working out

for you to decide if hypertrophy is use less or not. The answer to your first

question is, hypertrophy occurs because of the splitting of fibers. The longer

the duration of stress on the muscles the more fibers split the more that regrow

the more you have the larger the muscle. [This still remains a theory, and the

mechanism of this " splitting " is still under much debate - ST Moderator]

As for your question does it serve a purpose. Of course its important if your

goal is size (which you knew that). As for storing protein the body does not

store protein it uses it or it gets rid of it. Of course you also have to think

that increased muscle size will mean increased weight. Which will put more

stress on the body during training to increase strength. Also added mass can

create leverage to increase weight load and strength.

Larger muscles burn more calories and increase metabolic rate much like a V8

burns more than a 4. Which should make for better protein breakdown and

absorbtion.

So you can say it has lots of benefits.

Lawrence

Haltom city, TX

[Guest guest]

Ulf Karlsson wrote:

>Why does hypertrophy occur?

They haven't actually proved why yet, many theories exist though. Could

be a quick way for the muscle fibers to regain strength since the body

is not sure if the damage will be repairable or not? (that's my theory)

> As far as I know, really heavy resistance (heavy loads) training

> leads to little hypertrophy because of the short time that the

> muscles are under stress and increases in strentgh is primarily due

> to the central nervous system's development.

That's a tough one. Many have gained size with very heavy loads for low

TUL's. Neural strength has lower upper limit than hypertrophy.

> If the bulk/strength correlation is not 1 (or very close to 1) why

> does hypertrophy exist? (What is the correlation anyway, on

> average?)

This I'm not sure what your asking? A muscle fibers cross sectional area

IS proportional to it's strength, so if your asking what I think your

asking, then it is 1:1 (once neural adaptations have ceased)

> Let's assume that body building style training (isolation,

> relatively light loads, high volume) induces more hypertrophy than

> training with heavy loads, but the heavy lifting increases your

> strength (at least in comparison to the amount of muscle you have)

> more, it seems to me that hypertrophy is a complete waste of

> resources since your body will consume more fuel, as it were.

If that was true then I see your point. But IF bodybuilding type training

is superior for size, it is only due to sarcoplasmic hypertrophy which is

not the same as hypertrophy of the contractile apparatus.

> I understand that our bodies are capable for adaption but increased

> bulk seems to be a wasteful way compared to tuning the

> wiring.

One theory is that more bulk is required for more 'work' (force, time,

distance) as opposed to just strength.

Ron Sowers

Post Falls Id

USA

[Guest guest]

Ulf Karlsson wrote:

>Why does hypertrophy occur?

They haven't actually proved why yet, many theories exist though. Could

be a quick way for the muscle fibers to regain strength since the body

is not sure if the damage will be repairable or not? (that's my theory)

> As far as I know, really heavy resistance (heavy loads) training

> leads to little hypertrophy because of the short time that the

> muscles are under stress and increases in strentgh is primarily due

> to the central nervous system's development.

That's a tough one. Many have gained size with very heavy loads for low

TUL's. Neural strength has lower upper limit than hypertrophy.

> If the bulk/strength correlation is not 1 (or very close to 1) why

> does hypertrophy exist? (What is the correlation anyway, on

> average?)

This I'm not sure what your asking? A muscle fibers cross sectional area

IS proportional to it's strength, so if your asking what I think your

asking, then it is 1:1 (once neural adaptations have ceased)

> Let's assume that body building style training (isolation,

> relatively light loads, high volume) induces more hypertrophy than

> training with heavy loads, but the heavy lifting increases your

> strength (at least in comparison to the amount of muscle you have)

> more, it seems to me that hypertrophy is a complete waste of

> resources since your body will consume more fuel, as it were.

If that was true then I see your point. But IF bodybuilding type training

is superior for size, it is only due to sarcoplasmic hypertrophy which is

not the same as hypertrophy of the contractile apparatus.

> I understand that our bodies are capable for adaption but increased

> bulk seems to be a wasteful way compared to tuning the

> wiring.

One theory is that more bulk is required for more 'work' (force, time,

distance) as opposed to just strength.

Ron Sowers

Post Falls Id

USA

[Guest guest]

Thanks for the answer. I have to ask, then, what is the reason for

hypertrophy of non-contractile elements?

Ulf Karlsson

Halmstad, Sweden

wrote:

> I'm currently reading some great stuff about hypertrophy.

> Zatsiorsky's Science and Practice of Strength Training has great

> explanations, diagrams, studies about the why and hows of hypertrophy.

> There are a few explanations he offers. One is medium weight allows for

> maximum mechanical work with moderate protein degredation. Whereas high and

> low loads seem to lead to maximum protein degredation.

>

> Another reason is motor unit fatigue or lack thereof. For

> instance, at high loads the type II's will be utilized from the first

> repetition and exhausted quickly, often at the expense of fatiguing the type

> I's or type I posers.

> As Zatsiorsky states, a MU that is not fatigued is not worked.

> Heavy training does lead to hypertrophy of sorts, but only for the majority

> of the Type II fibers--Bompa refers to this as Chronic Hypertrophy. He

> distinguishes this because hypertrophy can be attributed to hypertrophied

> contracile elements (something that happens at higher loads) or non-

> contractile elements (usually lower loads.) Serious Strength Training, by

> Bompa, offers these ideas extensively.

[Guest guest]

Rob Sowers <ronatwork2@j...> wrote:

> That's a tough one. Many have gained size with very heavy loads for

> low TUL's. Neural strength has lower upper limit than hypertrophy.

Ulf Karlsson writes:

* But that would mean that with heavy resistance training (provided

that it does not lead to as much hypertrophy as training in the

medium range) means that you reach your maximum level very quickly.

Looking at sports such as olympic lifting, I can't see anything that

supports that. People make progress for years and years.

> This I'm not sure what your asking? A muscle fibers cross sectional

> area IS proportional to it's strength, so if your asking what I think

> yourasking, then it is 1:1 (once neural adaptations have ceased)

* And you assume, I gather, that the adaptations occur quite

quickly and then stop completely?

Previously, Ulf Karlsson wrote:

> > Let's assume that body building style training (isolation,

> > relatively light loads, high volume) induces more hypertrophy than

> > training with heavy loads, but the heavy lifting increases your

> > strength (at least in comparison to the amount of muscle you have)

> > more, it seems to me that hypertrophy is a complete waste of

> > resources since your body will consume more fuel, as it were.

Ron Sowers replied:

> If that was true then I see your point. But IF bodybuilding type training

> is superior for size, it is only due to sarcoplasmic hypertrophy which is

> not the same as hypertrophy of the contractile apparatus.

* I understand that. But then you have to ask yourself the question:

what's sarcoplasmic hypertrophy good for then?

> One theory is that more bulk is required for more 'work' (force, time,

> distance) as opposed to just strength.

* Which seems to support the body building pupming and why

hypertrophy isn't so present when working with big loads. There's a

contradiction here. If neural adaptations are so limited, why can

people get stronger and stronger for years with working heavy loads.

* A piece of anectode: most body builders I have talked to about this

say that they grew like animals when they STARTED training, that is

the first few years, but then growth stopped while they said the

continued to get stronger. That's twisted, then, because it seems as

though hypertrophy occurs first, reaches it's limit, and strength

gains after that is due to neural adaptations.

* Perhaps you can understand my confusion.

Ulf Karlsson

Halmstad, Sweden

[Guest guest]

Ulf Karlsson wrote:

> Thanks for the answer. I have to ask, then, what is the reason for

> hypertrophy of non-contractile elements?

Of the texts to which I refered; the precise mechanisms of hypertrophy of the

non-contractile elements, more specifically sarcoplasmic hypertrophy, was not

explained in depth. They offered observations distinguishing the two types

and what sarcoplasmic hypertrophy IS:

" ...muscle fibers characterized by semifluid interfibrillar substance and

non contractile proteins ..do not affect force of the muscle "

-Zatsiorsky. The Science and Practice of Strength Training. pg 63

Bompa offers:

" While North American bodybilders use bodybuilding methods to increase

size, they tend to neglect approaches that stimulate the recruitment of FT

muscle fibers to build high-density muscle...the increases are usually not

chronic; the growth is largely due to fluid displacement within the muscle

rather than thickening of the muscle fibers " -Bompa. The Science and

Practice of Strength Training. pg 224

Both offer that chronic hypertrophy is best stimulated through the use of

high loads: refered to as Maximal Effort method or Maximum Load Method.

Intensity in excess of 85%.

Further reading, outlines a theory for chronic hypertrophy that Zatsiorsky

offers as " more realistic and appropriate for practical theory. " It is called

the Energetic theory - I think this may be the explanation for hypertrophy you

are looking for. The Science and Practice of Strength Training; page 64-65.

Cheers

London, Ontario, Canada

[Guest guest]

Previously, Rob Sowers <ronatwork2@j...> wrote:

>> That's a tough one. Many have gained size with very heavy loads for

>> low TUL's. Neural strength has lower upper limit than hypertrophy.

Ulf Karlsson wrote:

> But that would mean that with heavy resistance training (provided

> that it does not lead to as much hypertrophy as training in the

> medium range) means that you reach your maximum level very quickly.

> Looking at sports such as olympic lifting, I can't see anything that

> supports that. People make progress for years and years.

--What I was thinking, was that neural strength, ie increases in rate

coding and synchronization of MU " s has an upper limit that is reached

quickly. Technique, such as used in Olympic Weightlifting and power lifting,

can be improved on for years. There is also the consideration of possible

changes in pennation angles as one advances.

Ulf Karlsson wrote:

> And you assume, I gather, that the adaptations occur quite

> quickly and then stop completely?

--From what I " ve read, the type of neural adaptations I'm refering to do

not increase for long, most studies show once these adaptations have

reached a certain level, hypertrophy takes over as the predominate

adaptation in strength training.

Ulf Karlsson wrote:

> I understand that. But then you have to ask yourself the question:

> what's sarcoplasmic hypertrophy good for then?

-- Being what the function of most of the organelles in the sarcoplasm,

it seems it would increase strength/endurance.

Previously, Ron Sowers wrote:

>> One theory is that more bulk is required for more 'work' (force, time,

>> distance) as opposed to just strength.

Ulf Karlsson replied:

> Which seems to support the body building pupming and why

> hypertrophy isn't so present when working with big loads. There's a

> contradiction here. If neural adaptations are so limited, why can

> people get stronger and stronger for years with working heavy loads.

-- It depends on WHAT bodybuilding pumping actual is, if it's using a bit

higher reps so that strength increases continue along with sarcoplasmic

hypertrophy, then it would seem superior for size. If it is refering to

light weights with no reguard for progression, then it would not. A

study I save on my PC at home, showed a direct corrolation between muscle

mass and strength in advanced power lifters.

Ulf Karlsson wrote:

> A piece of anectode: most body builders I have talked to about this

> say that they grew like animals when they STARTED training, that is

> the first few years, but then growth stopped while they said the

> continued to get stronger. That's twisted, then, because it seems as

> though hypertrophy occurs first, reaches it's limit, and strength

> gains after that is due to neural adaptations.

True, but usually they do not grow like weeds the first month or so, it's

after that it seems the size gains really acrew. I wonder if our time

scale is off, possibly the first month or two is predominantly neural,

then the next few months to a year are mostly hypertrophy, (if training

is proper) then technique and coordination take over for strength

increases after that?

Enoka has some studies the reference things such as 'most beginners are

able to recruit all muscle fibers' and I've read that most people can

reach maximum firing fequency of MU's voluntarilly after not too much

training. So what could be the neural adaptions that would continue to

cause one to increase in strength with no size gains?

Ulf Karsson wrote:

> Perhaps you can understand my confusion.

If some of these researchers would do studies that fit our questions

better, I think all of us would be less confused. No matter what one

finds a study on, someone else can find a study with differing

conclusion. I'm just putting out the info. that I've learned and read, it

could be all wrong! ;-O

Ron Sowers

Post Falls, ID

USA

[Guest guest]

Some researches have showed that resistance training, makes a lower expression

of myostatin (negative regulator for the muscular growth). This low of myostatin

expression with resistance training can be one of the factors that make a

Hypertrophy occurs ( et. al, 2004).

REFERENCE:

KYLIE S. WALKER, RAVI KAMBADUR, MRIDULA SHARMA, and HEATHER K. SMITH

Resistance Training Alters Plasma Myostatin but not IGF-1 in Healthy Men

MEDICINE & SCIENCE IN SPORTS & EXERCISE

Thiago Athayde

Brasilia-Brazil

[Guest guest]

Some researches have showed that resistance training, makes a lower expression

of myostatin (negative regulator for the muscular growth). This low of myostatin

_expression with resistance training can be one of the factors that make a

Hypertrophy occurs ( et. al, 2004).

Thiago Athayde

Brasilia-Brazil

REFERENCE: KYLIE S. WALKER, RAVI KAMBADUR, MRIDULA SHARMA, and HEATHER K.

SMITH

Resistance Training Alters Plasma Myostatin but not IGF-1 in Healthy Men

MEDICINE & SCIENCE IN SPORTS & EXERCISE

[Guest guest]

Ulf Karlsson wrote:

> A piece of anectode: most body builders I have talked to about this

> say that they grew like animals when they STARTED training, that is

> the first few years, but then growth stopped while they said the

> continued to get stronger. That's twisted, then, because it seems as

> though hypertrophy occurs first, reaches it's limit, and strength

> gains after that is due to neural adaptations.

All the literature I have read recognizes this. Poliquin speaks of this

often: the bodybuilder whose cross-sectional area is great with low strength -

truth is, most bodybuiders are not as strong as they look. Cross-sectional area

grows at the begining of training- then slows- then as strength slowly

continues to increase there is a corresponding increase in size.

I believe most bodybuilder rely on the typical 6-12 rep scheme: a rep

scheme that allows for maximum muscular involvement but inferior neural drive

and recruitment when compared to maximum loads. So if I have " N " Motor units

working in the 6-12 rep scheme, then " N " motor units will be hypertrophied--

continued gains will slow due to resistance of the N motor units against further

hypertrophy and also because their has been a failure to recruit more

than the N MUs..ie N+1...

It is well known that MU recruitment is low--often 30% in beginners--in order

to hypertrophy a muscle, you have to concentrate on hypertrophying currently

used MU's, then increase MU particpation (neural drive and intramuscular

co-ordination), then hypertrophy the newly recruited MU's.

Poliquin states this can be done best, if muscular size is your objective,

to first hypertrophy existing MU's for a mesocycle, then recruit more MU's

using a maximum strength mesocycle, then returning to the hypertrophy phase

again, perhaps after a brief transitional phase. Bompa, also calls for a mixed

training cycle, which is a hybrid of hypertrophy and maximum strength.

Recruiting additional MU's for hypertrophy, facilitated best through high

loads, is something that most bodybuilders do not do (in my experience) and in

my opinion explains the quoted statement above.

Cheers

London, Ontario, Canada

[Guest guest]

Ulf Karlsson wrote:

> A piece of anectode: most body builders I have talked to about this

> say that they grew like animals when they STARTED training, that is

> the first few years, but then growth stopped while they said the

> continued to get stronger. That's twisted, then, because it seems as

> though hypertrophy occurs first, reaches it's limit, and strength

> gains after that is due to neural adaptations.

All the literature I have read recognizes this. Poliquin speaks of this

often: the bodybuilder whose cross-sectional area is great with low strength -

truth is, most bodybuiders are not as strong as they look. Cross-sectional area

grows at the begining of training- then slows- then as strength slowly

continues to increase there is a corresponding increase in size.

I believe most bodybuilder rely on the typical 6-12 rep scheme: a rep

scheme that allows for maximum muscular involvement but inferior neural drive

and recruitment when compared to maximum loads. So if I have " N " Motor units

working in the 6-12 rep scheme, then " N " motor units will be hypertrophied--

continued gains will slow due to resistance of the N motor units against further

hypertrophy and also because their has been a failure to recruit more

than the N MUs..ie N+1...

It is well known that MU recruitment is low--often 30% in beginners--in order

to hypertrophy a muscle, you have to concentrate on hypertrophying currently

used MU's, then increase MU particpation (neural drive and intramuscular

co-ordination), then hypertrophy the newly recruited MU's.

Poliquin states this can be done best, if muscular size is your objective,

to first hypertrophy existing MU's for a mesocycle, then recruit more MU's

using a maximum strength mesocycle, then returning to the hypertrophy phase

again, perhaps after a brief transitional phase. Bompa, also calls for a mixed

training cycle, which is a hybrid of hypertrophy and maximum strength.

Recruiting additional MU's for hypertrophy, facilitated best through high

loads, is something that most bodybuilders do not do (in my experience) and in

my opinion explains the quoted statement above.

Cheers

London, Ontario, Canada

[Guest guest]

Ron,

Increases in technique and coordination are neural adaptations. There are

four kinds of neural adaptation. Increased Motor Unit recruitment, increased

rate coding (frequency), increased intermuscular coordination (order that

MU's are fired), and intramuscular coordination (which muscles are recruited

and the order that they are recruited). Also, if neural adaptations (such as

rate coding) don't occur in advanced lifters then explain how someone with

10 years of lifting expreience (me) can immediately increase a max by 5 lbs

by the end of 1 workout by using Post Tetanic Potentiation methods (which,

if I remember correctly are specifically due to increased rate coding).

Food for thought,

J s, MS, CSCS, USAW, NSCA-CPT

Assistant Strength & Conditioning Coach

College of ton

Strength Dept.

30 Str.

ton, SC 29424

[Guest guest]

Ron,

Increases in technique and coordination are neural adaptations. There are

four kinds of neural adaptation. Increased Motor Unit recruitment, increased

rate coding (frequency), increased intermuscular coordination (order that

MU's are fired), and intramuscular coordination (which muscles are recruited

and the order that they are recruited). Also, if neural adaptations (such as

rate coding) don't occur in advanced lifters then explain how someone with

10 years of lifting expreience (me) can immediately increase a max by 5 lbs

by the end of 1 workout by using Post Tetanic Potentiation methods (which,

if I remember correctly are specifically due to increased rate coding).

Food for thought,

J s, MS, CSCS, USAW, NSCA-CPT

Assistant Strength & Conditioning Coach

College of ton

Strength Dept.

30 Str.

ton, SC 29424

[Guest guest]

,

>Increases in technique and coordination are neural adaptations.

Very true.

>There are four kinds of neural adaptation. Increased Motor Unit recruitment,

This one is debateable once past the beginner stage. Enoka found that people he

tested could recruit all fibers as long as the weight was heavy enough. (ie.

force requirement) He found muscles of the hand to be in the 40% of 1 rm range,

and other muscles more in the 80% or 1 rm range for full recruitment.

> increased rate coding (frequency),

Yes, this can increase, but everything I've read has shown most people maxing

out early in this adaptation. Maybe you know a reference that differs? I'd love

to read if you do.

> increased intermuscular coordination (order that MU's are fired),

OK, yes synchronization..

> and intramuscular coordination (which muscles are recruited and the order

> that they are recruited).

And yes, coordination...

> Also, if neural adaptations (such as rate coding) don't occur in advanced

> lifters then explain how someone with 10 years of lifting expreience (me)

> can immediately increase a max by 5 lbs by the end of 1 workout by using

> Post Tetanic Potentiation methods (which, if I remember correctly are

> specifically due to increased rate coding).

Question on that... is it that you permanently increased your rate coding

ability or that you used the ability you already had. What I " m wondering is

this, was it maybe the same scenario as " you could to 3 more reps with a gun to

your head " Which most likely would be the CNS in a hyper-aroused state. Any

thoughts on that?

Ron Sowers

Post Falls Id

[Guest guest]

Hi Ulf,

You wrote:

> it seems to me that hypertrophy is a complete waste of

> resources since your body will consume more fuel, as it were.

> I understand that our bodies are capable for adaption but

> increased bulk seems to be a wasteful way compared to tuning the

> wiring.

Whether hypertrophy is a complete waste of resources depends on the

purpose the hypertrophy serves. If we stick within a purely muscle

functional framework it may be hard to explain. However, if we expand

the frame to own survival, survival of species or being able to pass

on ones DNA, etc we may get a entirely different answer. A friend did

his PhD on fighting fish, and if I remember correctly, he showed

that it's more efficient for the fish to signal their strength

or ability to fight than to have the fight, because of the risk

involved in having the fight. So the hypertrophy may be more

efficient from this perspective than tuning the wiring.

Just a thought.

Brotzen

Sollentuna, Sweden

[Guest guest]

Ron,

You asked good questions I replied below to each. As far as reading goes, I

suggest Supertraining & Facts & Fallacies by Mel Siff, Popular Trends in

Modern Strength Training by Poliquin, and

Science and Practice of Strength Training by Vladimir M. Zatsiorsky.

Ron Sowers wrote:

> This one is debateable once past the beginner stage. Enoka found that

> people he tested could recruit all fibers as long as the weight was heavy

> enough. (ie. force requirement) He found muscles of the hand to be in the

> 40% of 1 rm range, and other muscles more in the 80% or 1 rm range for full

> recruitment.

writes:

I have never read any conclusive evidence that showed 100% muscle

recruitment at any time and this includes those done on professional

powerlifters. It would be interesting to see his methods. Are they EMG

studies? If so, there would be the answer. EMG will only show the activity

of more superficial fibers but not all fibers (unless probes are inserted,

but this will still only indicate the neural input in an incomplete # of

motor units). Not only that, but I have never seen an EMG that I couldn't

max out by just flexing pretty hard. This would suggest to me that the

Typical EMG is not sensitive enough to show full neural abilities of highly

trained individuals. (How can you assume that just because the instrument is

maxed out that so is the individual, especially since we know that everyone

has different neural capacities and abilities)

> Yes [increased rate coding] can increase, but everything I've read has shown

> most people maxing out early in this adaptation. Maybe you know a reference

> that differs? I'd love to read if you do.

writes:

Then explain your CNS hyper-aroused statement below. :-) See texts above for

reading.

> Question on that... is it that you permanently increased your rate coding

> ability or that you used the ability you already had. What I " m wondering is

> this, was it maybe the same scenario as " you could to 3 more reps with a

> gun to your head " Which most likely would be the CNS in a hyper-aroused

> state. Any thoughts on that?

Writes:

I have found that these new capacities are permanent (as long

as you continue the exercise, which must be changed at some point, resulting

in a small rollercoaster effect, though the peak does get higher each time).

The evidence is that I can make these increases each consecutive workout

(adding to the gains from the first workout). For instance, my last wave ( 3

rm, 2 rm , 1 rm performed in waves adding 2.5# to each rm for each

consecutive wave until failure, with 4 minutes rest between each set and

each wave) workout with front squat lockouts (from 3 inches below sternum)

looked like this (1 rm only shown):

Wx 1:

Wave 1- 605

wave 2- 607.5

wave 3- 610

wave 4- failed on 2 rm, stopped

wx 2:

wave 1- 610

wave 2- 612.5

wave 3- 615

wave 4- failed on 3 rm, stopped

Wx 3:

wave 1- 615

wave 2- 617.5

wave 3-620

wave 4- failed on 3 rm, stopped

Wx 4:

wave 1- 620

wave 2- 622.5

wave 3- failed on 3 rm, stopped, not as motivated today, 1 st sign of

accomadation, ended wx, started new one.

As expected, I typically begin accomadation after the 3rd Wx and normally

don't attempt a 4th. I was still feeling chippered and ignored history.

That's ok because I added another 2.5 lbs totalling my increase at 17.5 lbs

in 4 Wx's or about 2 weeks. I would have benefited more by changing the

workout but a gain is a gain.

This type of improvement leads me to believe that these gains are normal

increases as apposed to just being jacked up (which is unusual for me unless

I'm maxing anyway).

J s, MS, CSCS, USAW, NSCA-CPT

Assistant Strength & Conditioning Coach

College of ton

Strength Dept.

30 Str.

ton, SC 29424

[Guest guest]

,

You wrote:

> You asked good questions I replied below to each. As far as reading

> goes, I suggest Supertraining & Facts & Fallacies by Mel Siff, Popular

> Trends in Modern Strength Training by Poliquin, and

> Science and Practice of Strength Training by Vladimir M. Zatsiorsky.

Thanks, those books are on my wish list :-)

> I have never read any conclusive evidence that showed 100% muscle

> recruitment at any time and this includes those done on professional

> powerlifters. It would be interesting to see his methods. Are they EMG

> studies? If so, there would be the answer. EMG will only show the

> activity of more superficial fibers but not all fibers (unless probes are

> inserted, but this will still only indicate the neural input in an

> incomplete # of motor units). Not only that, but I have never seen an EMG

> that I couldn't max out by just flexing pretty hard. This would suggest to

> me that the Typical EMG is not sensitive enough to show full neural

> abilities of highly trained individuals. (How can you assume that just

> because the instrument is maxed out that so is the individual, especially

> since we know that everyone has different neural capacities and abilities)

I also want to get Enoka's book, a friend sent me the quote when

discussing this. I querried a lot of people about this, and the more I

asked, the more I found it seemed to be the new accepted standard.

> Then explain your CNS hyper-aroused statement below. :-) See texts above

> for reading.

What I meant was this: Your CNS will adjust rate coding according to

arousal level. Possibly one could be training with less 'oomph' so they

are not 'using' their full 'rate coding' capabilities, then they become

more motivated and train a few times with this higher arousal level. It's

not that their CNS was able to increase it's rate coding, but that they

finally pushed it to the maximum.

> I have found that these new capacities are permanent (as long

> as you continue the exercise, which must be changed at some point,

> resulting in a small rollercoaster effect, This type of improvement leads me

> to believe that these gains are normal increases as apposed to just being

> jacked up (which is unusual for me unless I'm maxing anyway).

What makes me think this, is many studies I've read show a person reaches

tetany around 60 hz and without electrical stimulation, it appeared to be

the max frequency. It seems that once tetany is reached, since this is

simular to an always 'on' state, that more force wouldn't be shown by

increasing a bit more? (thinking this since actin-myosin have a certain

relaxation time period)

Thanks for the answers, this is an interesing discussion

Ron Sowers

Post Falls Id

USA

[Guest guest]

Ron Sowers wrote:

> What I meant was this: Your CNS will adjust rate coding according to

> arousal level. Possibly one could be training with less 'oomph' so they

> are not 'using' their full 'rate coding' capabilities, then they become

> more motivated and train a few times with this higher arousal level. It's

> not that their CNS was able to increase it's rate coding, but that they

> finally pushed it to the maximum.

>

> What makes me think this, is many studies I've read show a person reaches

> tetany around 60 hz and without electrical stimulation, it appeared to be

> the max frequency. It seems that once tetany is reached, since this is

> simular to an always 'on' state, that more force wouldn't be shown by

> increasing a bit more? (thinking this since actin-myosin have a certain

> relaxation time period)

Ok,

Yes, once tetanus is reached, that particular motor unit cannot contract any

harder. The problem is that the fast twitch fibers are harder to recruit

(especially the fastest, strongest ones), therefore tetanus is harder to

reach in these motor units. Yes arousal can increase this, but so can

training. With proper training one can more easily approach tetanus in these

motor units without being more aroused.

J s, MS, CSCS, USAW, NSCA-CPT

Assistant Strength & Conditioning Coach

College of ton

Strength Dept.

30 Str.

ton, SC 29424

[Guest guest]

J s wrote:

> Yes, once tetanus is reached, that particular motor unit cannot

> contract any harder. The problem is that the fast twitch fibers are harder to

> recruit (especially the fastest, strongest ones), therefore tetanus is

> harder to reach in these motor units. Yes arousal can increase this, but so

> can training. With proper training one can more easily approach tetanus

> in these motor units without being more aroused.

I agree, the only question that remains then, is how much proper

training will it take to reach this level.

Once reached, neural gains would be 'maxed' then.

Ron Sowers

Post Falls Id

USA

[Guest guest]

s <jjacobs24@h...> wrote:

> The problem is that the fast twitch fibers are harder to recruit

> (especially the fastest, strongest ones), therefore tetanus is

> harder to reach in these motor units. Yes arousal can increase this, but so

> can training. With proper training one can more easily approach tetanus

> in these motor units without being more aroused.

When I train my biceps, on the second and third sets of my exercises,

from reps 8-10, I build toward a cramp. By the completion of the

concentric squeeze of the 10th rep, my biceps are in a full " charlie-

horse " cramp that I must be immediately dissipate by eccentric

completion and loaded stretch because of the pain.

My question is: Is this cramp at the end of my sets the result of

fully achieved tetanus?

If so, then does a training program using progressive resistance in

this mode of training promote recruitment of Type IIb fibers? And

especially when compensatory acceleration type concentrics are used?

Thanks for your input,

Wayne Montierth

Sandy, Utah

[Guest guest]

Wayne,

You wrote:

>When I train my biceps, on the second and third sets of my exercises,

>from reps 8-10, I build toward a cramp. By the completion of the

>concentric squeeze of the 10th rep, my biceps are in a full " charlie-

>horse " cramp that I must be immediately dissipate by eccentric

>completion and loaded stretch because of the pain.

>

>My question is: Is this cramp at the end of my sets the result of

>fully achieved tetanus?

>

>If so, then does a training program using progressive resistance in

>this mode of training promote recruitment of Type IIb fibers? And

>especially when compensatory acceleration type concentrics are used?

Answer:

I would say no, 8-10 reps is;

1. not heavy enough to cause recruitment of all of the type IIb fibers and

2. even if done at a very high rate of speed

(which can't be done with very much weight), the reps are too high for a

speed workout so neural fatigue would set in and limit recruitment. Not only

that but I can't think of reason to use an joint isolation movement to

produce the training effect that I'm refferring to.

My guess is that your charlie horse is just a result of lactic acid build-up

(low buffering ability, try sodium bi-carbonate in water pre-workout), low

sodium, dehydration, or low calcium levels in the muscle cell (not likely,

the body would take it from the bones first).

J s, MS, CSCS, USAW, NSCA-CPT

Assistant Strength & Conditioning Coach

College of ton

Strength Dept.

30 Str.

ton, SC 29424

(843)953-1424

(865)405-2136

jjacobs24@...

" Whenever you find that you are on the side of the majority, it is time to

reform " Mark Twain

" Human beings, by changing the inner attitudes of their minds, can change

the outer aspects of their lives "