Re: 20 Rep Squats-Fiber Transformations

[Guest guest]

Changes in the muscle phenotype don't work as you think they do.

Any type of power training will result in shifting of IIB fibers

toward IIa (FOG) fibers, with a higher oxidative capacity. But this

doesn't mean those fibers will shift to type I. Type IIb fibers are

found in the highest proportion in couch potatoes.

I highly suggest that if you talk about myoplasticity and adaptation,

at least make the effort to learn something about how it works.

Also, please quit thinking in isolation. I see many ppl on this list

speak " popular textbooks " , but they don't ever look at the problem of

training an athlete in a integrative way.

I have news: in real world, training of an athlete doesn't consist

of 1 protocol applied to obsession.

The adaptive response in the muscle of a subject is not singularly

determined by the set of 20 a guy any or not do at the end of his

training session, or by a Javorek Complex he does at the beginning.

Dan Partelly

Oradea, Romania

> > > >

> > > > This is an excellent example of the value of experience. 20 rep

> > > squat

> > > > schemes have been around for over fifty years. Milk's been

> around

> > > even

> > > > longer.

> > > > In 1971 my Olympic Weightlifting coach was doing 20 rep sets

> of ATG

> > > > front squats with 100 kilos. A former member of the Dutch

> National

> > > > Soccer Team, he stood 6'1 " and 220 lbs and was ripped like few

> > > > bodybuilders of the day. His quads were massive, ripped,

> striated

> > > and

> > > > quite functional. One Sun morning we ran 17 7:00 min miles

> with 30

> > > > seconds rest between each one at the Santa Barbara City College

> > > Track.

> > > > I went home and spent the rest of the day cramping massively,

> > > while my

> > > > coach went down to the beach and played volleyball, I was 21

> at the

> > > > time, he was 30.

> > > > My coach's post workout meal was organic raw milk and organic

> raw

> > > soy

> > > > beans. He always had a bag of soy beans with him and ate them

> like

> > > > most people eat peanuts.

> > > > A friend of mine, a skinny volleyball player desperate to gain

> > > size,

> > > > particularly in his legs, took my advice and started doing my

> old

> > > > coach's training scheme of 20 rep sets and whole organic milk.

> He

> > > put

> > > > on nearly 30 lbs in 6 months. His vertical went up about 6

> inches

> > > too.

> > > >

> > > > Old school training, very old school.

> > > >

> > > > You might also go back and look at Ken ONeill's post on the

> > > squatting

> > > > for time.

> > > >

> > > > History never looks like history when you are living through

> it.

> > > > - W. Gardner

> > > >

> > > > W.G.

> > > > Ubermensch Sports Consultancy

> > > > San Diego, CA

> > > >

> >

>

[Guest guest]

Regarding Christian's post:

> " The problem is with the so called 'hypertrophy methods', that you

> have a transformation of the muscle fibre spectrum to the left (from

> glycolytic to oxidative). So you have more 'muscle quantity', but

> less 'muscle quality' (at least for the so-called 'strength and

> power' sports/disciplines).

I apologize for my ignorance, but I don't understand what that means. I

would like to. I think of the " muscle quantity " vs. " muscle quality "

contrast as a contrast between training methods: high repetition training

(to 12 reps) with less weight, that tends to generate relatively more

sarcoplasmic hypertrophy vs. low repetition training (1-5 reps) with more

weight, that tends to generate relatively more myofibrillar hypertrophy. Is

there a relation between that way of thinking and the information in

Christian's post?

Pitruzzello, Ph.D.

Chicago, IL

On Fri, Jul 25, 2008 at 4:48 AM, Dan Partelly wrote:

> Changes in the muscle phenotype don't work as you think they do.

>

> Any type of power training will result in shifting of IIB fibers

> toward IIa (FOG) fibers, with a higher oxidative capacity. But this

> doesn't mean those fibers will shift to type I. Type IIb fibers are

> found in the highest proportion in couch potatoes.

>

> I highly suggest that if you talk about myoplasticity and adaptation,

> at least make the effort to learn something about how it works.

>

> Also, please quit thinking in isolation. I see many ppl on this list

> speak " popular textbooks " , but they don't ever look at the problem of

> training an athlete in a integrative way.

>

> I have news: in real world, training of an athlete doesn't consist

> of 1 protocol applied to obsession.

>

> The adaptive response in the muscle of a subject is not singularly

> determined by the set of 20 a guy any or not do at the end of his

> training session, or by a Javorek Complex he does at the beginning.

>

> Dan Partelly

> Oradea, Romania

>

>

> > > > >

> > > > > This is an excellent example of the value of experience. 20 rep

> > > > squat

> > > > > schemes have been around for over fifty years. Milk's been

> > around

> > > > even

> > > > > longer.

> > > > > In 1971 my Olympic Weightlifting coach was doing 20 rep sets

> > of ATG

> > > > > front squats with 100 kilos. A former member of the Dutch

> > National

> > > > > Soccer Team, he stood 6'1 " and 220 lbs and was ripped like few

> > > > > bodybuilders of the day. His quads were massive, ripped,

> > striated

> > > > and

> > > > > quite functional. One Sun morning we ran 17 7:00 min miles

> > with 30

> > > > > seconds rest between each one at the Santa Barbara City College

> > > > Track.

> > > > > I went home and spent the rest of the day cramping massively,

> > > > while my

> > > > > coach went down to the beach and played volleyball, I was 21

> > at the

> > > > > time, he was 30.

> > > > > My coach's post workout meal was organic raw milk and organic

> > raw

> > > > soy

> > > > > beans. He always had a bag of soy beans with him and ate them

> > like

> > > > > most people eat peanuts.

> > > > > A friend of mine, a skinny volleyball player desperate to gain

> > > > size,

> > > > > particularly in his legs, took my advice and started doing my

> > old

> > > > > coach's training scheme of 20 rep sets and whole organic milk.

> > He

> > > > put

> > > > > on nearly 30 lbs in 6 months. His vertical went up about 6

> > inches

> > > > too.

> > > > >

> > > > > Old school training, very old school.

> > > > >

> > > > > You might also go back and look at Ken ONeill's post on the

> > > > squatting

> > > > > for time.

> > > > >

> > > > > History never looks like history when you are living through

> > it.

> > > > > - W. Gardner

> > > > >

> > > > > W.G.

> > > > > Ubermensch Sports Consultancy

> > > > > San Diego, CA

> > > > >

> > >

> >

>

>

>

--

J. Pitruzzello, Ph.D.

Chicago, Illinois

[Guest guest]

Is there any credible information showing that sarcoplasmic versus

myofibrillar hypertrophy is even possible? As I understand it, the two go

hand in hand, and the idea one can preferentially train for one or the other

is a bunch of muscle mag nonsense.

Drew Baye

Orlando, FL

On Sun, Jan 25, 2009 at 10:37 PM, Pitruzzello

wrote:

> Regarding Christian's post:

> > " The problem is with the so called 'hypertrophy methods', that you

> > have a transformation of the muscle fibre spectrum to the left (from

> > glycolytic to oxidative). So you have more 'muscle quantity', but

> > less 'muscle quality' (at least for the so-called 'strength and

> > power' sports/disciplines).

>

> I apologize for my ignorance, but I don't understand what that means. I

> would like to. I think of the " muscle quantity " vs. " muscle quality "

> contrast as a contrast between training methods: high repetition training

> (to 12 reps) with less weight, that tends to generate relatively more

> sarcoplasmic hypertrophy vs. low repetition training (1-5 reps) with more

> weight, that tends to generate relatively more myofibrillar hypertrophy. Is

> there a relation between that way of thinking and the information in

> Christian's post?

>

> Pitruzzello, Ph.D.

> Chicago, IL

>

>

[Guest guest]

>

> Regarding Christian's post:

> > " The problem is with the so called 'hypertrophy methods', that you

> > have a transformation of the muscle fibre spectrum to the left

(from

> > glycolytic to oxidative). So you have more 'muscle quantity', but

> > less 'muscle quality' (at least for the so-called 'strength and

> > power' sports/disciplines).

>

> I apologize for my ignorance, but I don't understand what that

means. I

> would like to. I think of the " muscle quantity " vs. " muscle

quality "

> contrast as a contrast between training methods: high repetition

training

> (to 12 reps) with less weight, that tends to generate relatively

more

> sarcoplasmic hypertrophy vs. low repetition training (1-5 reps)

with more

> weight, that tends to generate relatively more myofibrillar

hypertrophy. Is

> there a relation between that way of thinking and the information in

> Christian's post?

>

> Pitruzzello, Ph.D.

> Chicago, IL

The below may be of interest:

Tony Shield wrote (ST archives):

In a study of the triceps brachii muscle fibres using 5 bodybuilders

and 2 powerlifters

and initially untrained control subjects MacDougall et al., 1982 (Eur

J Appl Phys, 48: 117-126)

noted that the volume density of the cytoplasm (sarcoplasm) was

significantly greater and

the volume density of the myofibrils was significantly less than

those of untrained control

subjects. (In comparison with untrained subjects the myofibrils of

the trained men took

up roughly 10% less of the available space inside the muscle fibres

(73 vs 83%) and

the sarcoplasm took up roughly 10% more (24 vs 14%).

No comparison between BBs and PLs was made, although if there were

differences between

them the mean results would tend to reflect the characteristics of

the BBs more, since they

constituted the majority.

Six months of resistance training by the 5 control subjects brought

about a very small increase

in sarcoplasmic volume density and a very small decrease in

myofibrillar volume density.

Unfortunately the training methods were not explained!. Similar

trends have been noted in

some other, but not all studies.

I am not sure about the validity of the cytology employed in this

study (perhaps the methods

are outdated and invalid?) but this tends to suggest that extreme

hypertrophy does result

in what some have called 'sarcoplasmic hypertrophy'.

================================

Muscle ultrastructural characteristics of elite powerlifters and

bodybuilders.MacDougall JD, Sale DG, Elder GC, Sutton JR.

Eur J Appl Physiol Occup Physiol. 1982;48(1):117-26.

Muscle ultrastructure of a group of subjects possessing extreme hypertrophy was

compared with that of a control group which had undergone 6 months of heavy

resistance training. Two needle biopsies were taken from triceps brachii of two

international calibre powerlifters and five elite bodybuilders. In addition,

samples were taken from five healthy volunteers before and after 6 months of

training of the elbow extensors. One biopsy was prepared for electron microscopy

and analyzed stereologically, and the other was stained for myosin ATPase

activity and photographed under the light microscope. Despite large differences

in elbow extension strength and arm girth there was no significant difference in

fibre areas or percentages of fibre types between the elite group and the

trained controls. This suggests that the elite group possessed a greater total

number of muscle fibres than the controls did. Mitochondrial volume density of

the elite group was similar to that of the control group following training but

significantly less (p less than 0.05) than the pretraining control measurements.

Myofibrillar volume density was significantly lower and cytoplasmic volume

density significantly higher in the elite group than in the trained controls.

There was a considerably higher incidence of structural abnormalities including

central nuclei and atrophied fibres in the elite group than in the control

group, which might possibly have been associated with the use of anabolic

steroids by the elite group.

===================================

Carruthers

Wakefield, UK

[Guest guest]

I have seen no research supporting preferential hypertrophy - only

speculative comments. It is interesting speculation, but...

Hobman

Saskatoon, Canada

> Is there any credible information showing that sarcoplasmic versus

> myofibrillar hypertrophy is even possible? As I understand it, the

> two go

> hand in hand, and the idea one can preferentially train for one or

> the other

> is a bunch of muscle mag nonsense.

>

> Drew Baye

> Orlando, FL

>

> On Sun, Jan 25, 2009 at 10:37 PM, Pitruzzello

> wrote:

>

> > Regarding Christian's post:

> > > " The problem is with the so called 'hypertrophy methods', that you

> > > have a transformation of the muscle fibre spectrum to the left

> (from

> > > glycolytic to oxidative). So you have more 'muscle quantity', but

> > > less 'muscle quality' (at least for the so-called 'strength and

> > > power' sports/disciplines).

> >

> > I apologize for my ignorance, but I don't understand what that

> means. I

> > would like to. I think of the " muscle quantity " vs. " muscle quality "

> > contrast as a contrast between training methods: high repetition

> training

> > (to 12 reps) with less weight, that tends to generate relatively

> more

> > sarcoplasmic hypertrophy vs. low repetition training (1-5 reps)

> with more

> > weight, that tends to generate relatively more myofibrillar

> hypertrophy. Is

> > there a relation between that way of thinking and the information in

> > Christian's post?

> >

> > Pitruzzello, Ph.D.

> > Chicago, IL

> >

> >

>

>

[Guest guest]

Sarcoplasmic hypertrophy of course exists. Sarcoplasm its a component

of the muscle fibers. So when a msucle fiber undergoes hypertrophy,

both myofibrilar and sarcoplamsic protein fraction syntehsis are

up-regulated.

The myth is IMO, the ability to change the ratio by a certain protocol

based on rep number.

Dan Partelly

Oradea,Romania

> >

> > Regarding Christian's post:

> > > " The problem is with the so called 'hypertrophy methods', that you

> > > have a transformation of the muscle fibre spectrum to the left

> (from

> > > glycolytic to oxidative). So you have more 'muscle quantity', but

> > > less 'muscle quality' (at least for the so-called 'strength and

> > > power' sports/disciplines).

> >

> > I apologize for my ignorance, but I don't understand what that

> means. I

> > would like to. I think of the " muscle quantity " vs. " muscle

> quality "

> > contrast as a contrast between training methods: high repetition

> training

> > (to 12 reps) with less weight, that tends to generate relatively

> more

> > sarcoplasmic hypertrophy vs. low repetition training (1-5 reps)

> with more

> > weight, that tends to generate relatively more myofibrillar

> hypertrophy. Is

> > there a relation between that way of thinking and the information in

> > Christian's post?

> >

> > Pitruzzello, Ph.D.

> > Chicago, IL

>

> The below may be of interest:

>

> Tony Shield wrote (ST archives):

> In a study of the triceps brachii muscle fibres using 5 bodybuilders

> and 2 powerlifters

> and initially untrained control subjects MacDougall et al., 1982 (Eur

> J Appl Phys, 48: 117-126)

> noted that the volume density of the cytoplasm (sarcoplasm) was

> significantly greater and

> the volume density of the myofibrils was significantly less than

> those of untrained control

> subjects. (In comparison with untrained subjects the myofibrils of

> the trained men took

> up roughly 10% less of the available space inside the muscle fibres

> (73 vs 83%) and

> the sarcoplasm took up roughly 10% more (24 vs 14%).

>

> No comparison between BBs and PLs was made, although if there were

> differences between

> them the mean results would tend to reflect the characteristics of

> the BBs more, since they

> constituted the majority.

>

> Six months of resistance training by the 5 control subjects brought

> about a very small increase

> in sarcoplasmic volume density and a very small decrease in

> myofibrillar volume density.

> Unfortunately the training methods were not explained!. Similar

> trends have been noted in

> some other, but not all studies.

>

> I am not sure about the validity of the cytology employed in this

> study (perhaps the methods

> are outdated and invalid?) but this tends to suggest that extreme

> hypertrophy does result

> in what some have called 'sarcoplasmic hypertrophy'.

>

> ================================

> Muscle ultrastructural characteristics of elite powerlifters and

bodybuilders.MacDougall JD, Sale DG, Elder GC, Sutton JR.

>

> Eur J Appl Physiol Occup Physiol. 1982;48(1):117-26.

>

> Muscle ultrastructure of a group of subjects possessing extreme

hypertrophy was compared with that of a control group which had

undergone 6 months of heavy resistance training. Two needle biopsies

were taken from triceps brachii of two international calibre

powerlifters and five elite bodybuilders. In addition, samples were

taken from five healthy volunteers before and after 6 months of

training of the elbow extensors. One biopsy was prepared for electron

microscopy and analyzed stereologically, and the other was stained for

myosin ATPase activity and photographed under the light microscope.

Despite large differences in elbow extension strength and arm girth

there was no significant difference in fibre areas or percentages of

fibre types between the elite group and the trained controls. This

suggests that the elite group possessed a greater total number of

muscle fibres than the controls did. Mitochondrial volume density of

the elite group was similar to that of the control group following

training but significantly less (p less than 0.05) than the

pretraining control measurements.

>

> Myofibrillar volume density was significantly lower and cytoplasmic

volume density significantly higher in the elite group than in the

trained controls. There was a considerably higher incidence of

structural abnormalities including central nuclei and atrophied fibres

in the elite group than in the control group, which might possibly

have been associated with the use of anabolic steroids by the elite group.

>

> ===================================

> Carruthers

> Wakefield, UK

>