Hypertrophy and Strength Phase

Expert Discussion Strength Training
21

Anabolic/androgenic drugs have a great deal to do with this, as does the significance of cummulative volume which no one here seems to be acknowledging.

Perhaps the significance of cummulative volume (tonnage) will become more clear if you consider the total number of lifts which are performed by elite level lifters.

Additionally, Frit you know this, squats to a huge degree, and overhead presses to some degree, play a tremendous role in the training of ANY OL lifter. And squats and overhead presses, regardless of low reps, when performed with heavy weights are going to yield some muscular development.

Olympic lifters employ a significant volume of low repetition sets, add up all of the repetitions and you get a significant volume of time under which muscle fiber is under significant tension. Now, the degree of hypertrophy is relative, sure OL lifters and powerlifters experience muscle hypertrophy, despite the fact that much of training is low repetition, but no where in the same universe as bodybuilders.

Powerlifters, almost across the board, employ a significant amount of assistance work, especially in off seasons, which contributes to gains in muscle mass.

Match up powerlifters, OL lifters and bodybuilders of comparable body masses , all elite caliber, and bodybuilders will make the other two look like preadolescent children.LOL

Sure, the Gary Franks and Mike Ruggerias are huge, and Rezazadeh and Cholokov are giants, but the level of muscle hypertrophy developed in these lifters is NOTHING, and I mean NOTHING compared to bodybuilders of equal body masses.

I have met Scott Mendelson, and I have seen Gary Frank and Ryan Kenelly at a meet, all of whom are 300+ and all can lift incredible amounts of weight, and I have also personally seen and met many Olympia level bodybuilders, Jay Cutler, Paul Dillet, Lou Ferrigno, Ron Love, Troy Zuccolotto, to name a few, and there is absolutely no comparison when it comes to muscular development. You simply cannot compare 300+ lbs and 15-30%body fat with 300+lbs and body fat in the single digits.

Additionally, many powerlifters and OL lifters in the heavier weight classes get fatter and fatter, while bodybuilders of comparable body masses are extremely lean during competition periods. So let’s not view body mass and muscle mass as being synonymous with one another.

Let’s be clear here…There are many ways to develop muscle mass and optimally many methods must be employed, however, there can be no arguement that the repetition method is far more optimal than the ME or DE methods for the sole purpose of building muscle mass.

Optimal is what I am stating here gentleman, not better, or alternative, or exceptions to the rule, or for instance, or what about this lifter and that lifter, Optimal-no more-no less.

The very training of bodybuilders vs powerlifters vs OL lifters when considering their appearance, is testament to this debate. Form follows function gentleman.

22

Interesting topic.
I had thought fat free mass was a better indicator of strength, this abstract seems to verify that, but what James is saying does also ring true.

Considering all these factors spoken of, what do you consider the best protocol for inducing muscular hypertrophy? ( sets, reps, TUL, and frequency)

23

Am I? Are you sure? You think about it. You can create the same amount of tension x time. By doing many sets of an explosive or low rep movement as you would under your precious 40-70 sec time under tension!! Fact!!!

24

You need some beers…

25

Ron, there are no best methods, simply because their are a host of peculiarities which are specific to each lifter.

However, as I stated, in the end the bottom line is that there must be a certain amount of time, whether accumulated over many sets with low reps or vice versa, in which skeletal muscle fiber is straining against load.

Certainly, for novices with very low muscle mass to begin with, the repetition method is superior, as ME and DE training require a prerequisite level of physical preparedness in order to safely utilize the methods. Thus sub max weights must be lifted for higher repetitions.

For a more advanced strength/power development trainee, however, I personally favor the utilization of density/lactic acid tolerance training with low repetitions and submax weight. by utiliziing this method the repetitions and load are low enough so as to allow the continued perfection of technique, yet the incomplete recoveries and extended sets are more than sufficient to accumulate a significant amount of time under tension as well as lactic acid. Together, these two facilitate the mechanisms which induce muscle hypertrophy.

Additionally, eccentric muscle contraction plays a significant role in muscle hypertrophy as well as DOMS, hence bodybuilders lowering weights very slowly.

So as I stated, there are many ways to mainipulate training parameters so as to facilitate muscular development, the key, however, is to determine which of these methods is optimal relative to the trainee and training goal/sport.

26

This is a great consideration. My view is that there are a host of variables which may contribute to a certain trainee experiencing muscular development.

certainly some athletes employ different training parameters than others in order to induce muscle hypertrophy, yet we must must look at what these athletes have done in that past as well as consider their fiber type distribution and biomechanics. The Russians have illustrated how lifters of different bodymasses and lever lengths tend to benefit from utilizing different training parameters in order to experience similar gains.

Additionally, I believe that ANY increase in muscle hypertrophy is functional, the question is whether the muscular development will benefit the specific expression of sport skill for the athlete in question. So, in my view, there is no such thing as Non-functional hypertrophy, however, there is such a thing as sub-optimal and misinformed training methods.

27

[QUOTE=James Smith] as does the significance of cummulative volume which no one here seems to be acknowledging.

Perhaps the significance of cummulative volume (tonnage) will become more clear if you consider the total number of lifts which are performed by elite level lifters.

So by saying this james you agree with me then that a significant amount of hypertrophy can be accumulated by low rep, HIGH TENSION training. Meaning that there is more tension per rep, lets say @ 90%RM(although brief) than say 80% deliberatly slowed down? So if you took your 80% and made sure you lifted that weight for 70 sec compared to taking that same weight and lifting it as fast as possible but less time, which one will develop more tension, and on top of that which one will develop more hypertrophy.

Siff stated that:“Thus, if we train with an impulsive exercise with a high peak tension over a
shorter time, we can generate the same (Tension x Time) factor as if we train
with a more gradual bodybuilding type repetition lasting for a longer time.
The important thing is that the (Tension x Time) value is the same for both
types of training, which may explain why the explosive brief lifts may
develop comparable levels of hypertrophy to more gradual sustained efforts.”

You stated that duration is the sole factor no matter how you manipulate sets, sets, reps or bar speed. This is not entirly true. You can produce hypertrophy both ways.

As a side not, i have seen some of the top body builders as well, saw cutler in a gym in my homeotwn, now put shane Hammond next to him. Hammond does not look like preadolescent child next to cutler. in fact i would say the opposite, especially when the bodybuilders are getting ready for a show, they look like the walking dead. Hommond looks like he could squash cutler.

on top of that you are only comparing heavyweights.You need to look at the smaller weightclasses and you will see that both powerlifters and OL’ers have very very lean musclular bodies and if so desired could probably look like their bodybuilder counterparts. Look at Rigers back development or Dimas’s legs, they will make any bodybuilder jelous, on top of that i would say they are very functional, unlike their bodybuilder counterparts. If you really look close many of these athletes also have that muscle tonus, its that special thick look of power that you just cant describe but you can see all over their bodies. No body builder has this!!!

28

You need to read more. i quit drinking!!!

29

Frit, if you’ll notice on the first page of this thread, I describe how muscle mass may be achieved by performing less repetitions per set as well as shorter durations per set.

And Siff’s reference also corroborates what I have been stating throughout this entire thread, the TIME/duration must be there as it is half the tension/time equation. So Frit, duration is the SOLE factor, as the cummulative time must be sufficient whether you hit 10x2 or 2x10, however, don’t think that 1x1 will yield much muscular development.

I didn’t say that drugs are the sole factor, however, their use must not be ignored.

I was injecting humor with the preadolescence plug. However, remember, this discussion is in reference to the development of muscle mass, and if you are comparing Hammon’s muscular development with Cutler’s then I must encourage you to reconsider your view. Also, keep in mind that Hammon is weighs almost 100lbs more.

Again, as I previously stated, I am speaking to the optimal means not the exceptions. Sure you can reference OL lifters with great development in certain bodyparts, however, lets line up ALL light/middle weight lifters with ALL light/middle weight bodybuilders, and we will quickly observe who possesses the most muscle mass per lb body mass. Additionally, you must acknowledge that many of the lighter weight powerlifters who have the appearance of bodybuilders is a result of the fact that either 1. they began as bodybuilders, or 2. as I already stated, they are performing a signficant volume of assistance work.

This debate is becoming academic. It is no mystery that bodybuilders are the athletes to look to when the question is how to make a muscle bigger. Alternatively, we know who to look to when the question is how to make the muscle stronger.

30

I think we missed each others point here. All I was saying is that the TUT thoery, especially the one that a muscle need to be under 40-70sec per set is the only way or optimal to develop hypertrophy. This is not the only way, is what i was saying.

when did i ever talk about 1x1?

On top of that when we are talking about developing the musculature of athletes(especially power sports) why would you look to bodybuilder methods to develop them. If I could build the appropriate musculature using the OL’s @10 x 2(which would also develop inter-intra muscular coordination as well as hit the high threshold motor units) and the appropriate assistance exercises why would i look anywhere else?

31

I stated this as an example that volume must be there in order to experience any significant degree of hypertrophy.

Yes, agree, however, you are now referencing a particular type of athlete with specific conditions. As I stated in my response to Clemsons post, there are multiple methods in which muscle mass may be developed. Each method has its own specific and appropriate applications.

In your reference for example: we would have to identify the physial preparedness of the athlete engaged in a ‘power’ sport. As a 16 year old thrower would most probably benefit more so from repetition method training, whereas a world class thrower is less likely to perform a high volume of repetition method training.

"Bodybuilding’ type training is tremendously useful for younger athletes, especially strength/power development athetes. Alternatively, as an athlete progresses to a more elite classification, the training parameters will change to accomodate the new levels of physical preparedness.

32

[QUOTE=James Smit
In your reference for example: we would have to identify the physial preparedness of the athlete engaged in a ‘power’ sport. As a 16 year old thrower would most probably benefit more so from repetition method training, whereas a world class thrower is less likely to perform a high volume of repetition method training.

"Bodybuilding’ type training is tremendously useful for younger athletes, especially strength/power development athetes. Alternatively, as an athlete progresses to a more elite classification, the training parameters will change to accomodate the new levels of physical preparedness.[/QUOTE]

i agree with you on that!!!

33

Yes, I was checking here and that is in line with my thinking also.

However, as I stated, in the end the bottom line is that there must be a certain amount of time, whether accumulated over many sets with low reps or vice versa, in which skeletal muscle fiber is straining against load.

Very true. And for some reason, even this seems to be individualistic. I talk to quite a few lifters, some I’ve known for quite a while, some found they needed to increase volume to continue gains and some did the opposite. It’s very odd how diverse people can be, mentally and physiologically.

Additionally, eccentric muscle contraction plays a significant role in muscle hypertrophy as well as DOMS, hence bodybuilders lowering weights very slowly.

This one always baffles me, as the faster the eccentric, the higher the shearing forces rise between the sarcomeres. Studies I’ve seen show that at slower speeds, the crossbridging can ‘keep up better’ and there is less of the ‘uneven sarcomere lengthening’ phenomena.

Great thoughts, thanks for the reply,

Ron

34

Some considerations, in regards to eccentrics, as stated by Tom Myslinski:

Max and over-speed eccentric actions will fatige the CNS quicker than concentrics. The greatest forces occur during eccentrics.

-Eccentrics use the lowest amount of mechanical energy (less metabolically demanding) followed by isometrics and then concentrics. Why? The rate of ATP splitting is low and yielding work isn’t utilized in chemical reactions (4x lower than isometrics). As eccentric forces increase (over-speed eccentrics & max), mechanical energy increases (approximately equal to isometrics but still cheaper than concentrics).

-During eccentrics and concentrics, EMG magnitude is similiar but motor unit behavior is different. High threshold mu’s are preferrably recruited more extensively in eccentrics and with lower spike rates. Therefore, during eccentrics fewer active muscle fibers (as a cumulative) are participating so each active fiber receives more stress. This creates DOMS or the delayed onset of muscle soreness you feel after performing eccentrics.

-Lastly, the Eccentric regime is the quickest adapting muscle contraction, it also has the highest rate of cross-education (limb to limb), and is a great neural primer.

-Supra-max loads of eccentrics (increasing the mass not the velocity, as in overspeed eccentrics) are irrelevant to the athletes. This degree of tension isn’t produced during the eccentric phases of normal sporting movements. Also, new research overseas (where else!) is investigating that supra-max eccentrics will increase one’s EMD (stimulus to response or reaction time). This is major NO-NO in athletics.

35

I think you need to look at density as well as intensity in a given session.

Lifter A: Max squat 300

3 sets x 5 reps of backsquats @70% with 210 pounds 90 seconds rest

Total reps: 15
Total tonnage in session: 3150 pounds

Lifter B: Max squat 300 pounds

5 sets x 3 reps @85% with 255 pounds rest 120 seconds
Total reps: 15
Total tonnage in session: 3825 pounds

Same total number of reps, completely different tonnage and effect on the athlete…
Food for thought :slight_smile:

36

Chris, agreed, however in your example you have altered both the density and the intensity in the second example. Alternatively, simply increasing the density at the same intensity of the first example would impact the physiological adaptations. However, to what degree I am not certain.

Example:

  1. 3x5@70%@90sec rest

or

  1. 3x5@70%@60sec rest

Tonnage-same
Intensity-same
Total repetitions-same
Density-increased by 33-34%

37

Good point! I should have kept the rest the same in one example with different rep/set scheme and manipulate only the rest in another example…

One of the main things I was trying to illustrate was that the total number of reps in a given workout can be the same but through variation of the number of sets, reps and % of max you can greatly change the focus and CNS intensity of a workout.

For example Oly guys might do 20-30 sets of doubles of various squats/deads/presses in a particular session with immense tonnage.

If you look at just the total number of reps it can be similar to a bodybuilding type workout from a pure volume perspective (aggregate reps in the entire session and possibly TUT) but they are completely different in effect and focus.

Cheers,
Chris

38

Good info. on eccentrics, thanks for posting it :slight_smile:
Enoka’s text, “Neural Mechanics of Human Movement” has some good info. on them too. :slight_smile:

Ron