Charlie, proteolysis is a precondition for muscle hypertrophy within the supercompensation theory, this being the most accepted theory.
This is the accepted theory and it predicates many training variables on achieving this condition- but the theory’s out to lunch!
A whole class of banned substances virtually eliminates protealysis and they certainly don’t prevent hypertrophy! (We won’t pursue this line!)
This theory would also argue there’s no value in training at low intensity as it is below the threshold where protealysis is found. With EMS, we found that children with Cerebral Palsy could grow muscle at levels of stimulation so low that they could sleep through it!
Then it does seem there are other mechanisms responsible, whether supercompensation is contributory or not. Either way proteolysis seems a consequence of the training many or most of us require to gain functional hypertrophy .
You may have it but you don’t “require” it.
Charlie, are you mostly for “protecting, honing and polishing” the organism or are u more for the “2 steps back, 3 forwards” type of training phillosophy.
Sorry if my phrases are inadequate / innacurate,
though after reading Speedtrap (I stumbled across a copy 4 years ago at a library, and bought a copy from an old book shop 3 mins from my front door last month!),
…It seems to me that u are usually more towards the first, than the later. (?)
…If it’s at all relevant.
It might seem that way to me becuase the first training literature I used to read were bodybuilding magazines which are allways along the 2 steps back, 3 forwards training concept. Breakdown - buildup, breakdown -
Leave radical training for the muscleheads. Use care when assigning work and never be in a hurry to embrace the latest fad. Be sure you’re comfortable with your plan and that it makes sense to you at the end of the day.
But can we gain the same extent hypertrophy without proteolysis?
Also, preventing proteolysis would certainly mean limiting eccentric contraction since this is the phase where most, and a high amount of, proteolysis occurs…difficult.
This is a case of interest only. The object is to train in the most effective way, dictated and guided by the most pertinent training markers. I wouldn’t suggest basing any training on specifically avoiding protealysis any more than I’d recommend setting up training to ensure that it occurred.
I do personally train so any proteolysis is limited to the extent that my muscles are recovered by the next intense session. Entering GPP is difficult though since greater proteolysis and resulting DOMS is unavoidable in myself unless I build up training intensity very gradually which would greatly extend GPP. Here I allow low-moderate DOMS for a couple of weeks.
Sorry for this response being a delayed.
I don’t think that density is more important BUT the intensity IN CONJUNCTION with total time under tension (TTUT). Your example is not correct in terms of the poundages (percentages) used. This example is too extreme and if you apply more appropriate percentages then the ‘workout’ density turns out to be in favor of the higher reps/set instead of the lower reps/set. The density per rep is greater with the lower reps/set but not the ‘workout’ density. This is not to say that I don’t agree with lower reps/set type of workout (higher tension over a given workout) to provide a greater stimulus. However, considering that sprinting is first and foremost of greatest importance I’m not sure that is the ‘best choice’.