How OFTEN do you SWITCH EXERCISES?

[casualbb]

Hmmm...
Well, not exactly.

If by "confuse the body" you mean switching exercises and set/rep schemes a lot, that might work a little, as different exercises stress different fibers and if a fiber experiences a new, higher level of stress, it will grow.

An easier way to ensure growth is progressive load. The 5x5 is a great example of this. Pick a good compound exercise, say squats. After a little time off, your muscles will be very apt to grow, even from light weights. So say you choose to do 5 reps, and your 5RM is 225. You could start at 150 for 5, and then ramp up the weights over the course of a few weeks until you hit 225. People doing HST and the 5x5 have found this provides pretty nice growth.

-casualbb

 

[Jxaxsxe530]

against conventional belief, i dont believe in changing it up too much. i do mix up the order of the exercises sometimes, but i stick to the few tried and true exercises that worked for me. but i've been working out for only 4, 5 years. maybe someday i will think differently.

 

[collegiateLifter]

The following things are incorrect:

All of that has very little to do with training to failure. Let me quote Bryan Haycock on training to failure:


So hypertrophy occurs when you lift a load that's new to you (in the sense that you haven't lifted it for at least a few days). Not when you train to failure.

-casualbb

again this is not as true as you'd like it to be. There have been studies (see Supertraining) where lifters did a) only lifts eccentricly, b)concentric portion of the excercises only c) both. There were hypertrophy gains in group a), best gains in C) and very little gains in b).

the bottom line is that there are a lot of theories out there on the exact mechanisms for hypertrophy, but no solid factual model.

 

[casualbb]

How does what you posted contradict what I said? I've seen that study by the way and it's something I accept as fact. That the eccentric portion is the chief source of growth stimulus is well-known. Now obviously we train with concentrics too; otherwise our concentric strength would not increase as quickly.

Edit: I should clarify. That I did not specify concentric or eccentric doesn't matter; that statement at the end of the quote is true either way. I just thought the whole concentric vs. eccentric thing wasn't necessarily pertinent to the debate.

-casualbb

 

[edgecrusher]

the bottom line is that there are a lot of theories out there on the exact mechanisms for hypertrophy, but no solid factual model. [/B][/QUOTE]

True, at the end of the day, the SAID principle seems to be the only thing that truly holds up time and time again.

 

[casualbb]

I disagree. A number of studies in the recent past have examined and clarified the mechanisms of hypertrophy. In a way, I shouldn't fault the soviet book for not knowing; much of the hypertrophy research occured after it was published. But that doesn't give them an excuse for presenting that false model. They should simply have admitted that they didn't know exactly what caused hypertrophy.

-casualbb

 

[collegiateLifter]

btw, the supertaining i am refering to is the 2001 edition, and although i didn't make it through it all the way, i recall in the very early part, the repitition of the fact that science does not know the cause of hypertrophy, or the specific mechanisms. while it is possible that this notion is wrong, it is very unlikely.

 

[casualbb]

I repeat: just because they don't know how it works doesn't mean that others don't.

And if it's the 2001 version, there's no excuse for them being uninformed.

Here's a basic one:
http://www.jphysiol.org/cgi/content/full/535/1/155?ijkey=GizXEp8QTdw7Y

They found, roughly, that concentric motions activated the MAPK^(erk1/2) path more. That path roughly corresponds with muscle tissue metabolic fatigue, such as the lactic acid burn experienced doing a ton of reps. This is confirmed by real-world experience; people don't grow much of off concentric-only exercise.

Eccentrics stimulate the MAPK^(p38) pathway, the one that results in sarcomere hypertrophy, an increase in the number of contractile elements. IE it increases strength by hypertrophy. This also is confirmed by real-world experience; people will grow tons off of eccentric-only stuff.

Here's a picture
http://www.hypertrophy-specific.com/cgi-bin/ib3/ikonboard.cgi?;act=ST;f=13;t=12

I couldn't figure out how to upload it here, so the picture is halfway down the page.

I do concede, we don't know all the hypertrophy mechanisms. All the studies I looked at in the formulation of this post say, somewhere in the abstract, "The exact mechanisms of hypertrophy are as of yet unknown. We sought to investigate..." But to say we don't know anything isn't correct either. What we know is like the first few tiers of a giant outline detailing muscle hypertrophy. What's happening right now are studies that are trying to fill out the sub-branches of that outline.

-casualbb

 

[collegiateLifter]

but we don't know the real specifics of why/how, which are neccessary imo to use much science to develop a system for muscle buiding.

 

[casualbb]

Sure. Heck, when it all boils down to it, the reason I like HST isn't because some guy said "look at the cells, dude, THE CELLS!" It's the gains.

-casualbb