muscle fibers

[USAF OKIEONE]

what does it mean to really stress the muscle fibers?
what kind of sets does it require?

 

[einstein1]

This is a question in which there is a lot of diverse opinions (especially on this board). I think the question you're really asking is what does it take to stimulate growth in a muscle. Ask yourself this: What is the most productive rep in a set. It is that last rep in which you are putting forth so much effort and intensity that your gritting your teeth togather wondering if you can actually complete the rep. That rep is called positive failure. It is this rep that stimulates growth because it is the only rep that requires maximum intensity. This leads to 3 fallicies of the typical high volume approach(training 5-7 days/week, 10 sets per body part for 10 reps).
1. Most high volume workouts tell you to do a total of 8-10 sets of 10 per body part. The problem is if you stop at rep 10 when you can do 13-15 reps on that first set, you are cheating yourself out of that intensity. Some will give the argument, "Thats why I do 10 sets."
2. The fallacy with that statement is once you stimulate growth you don't need to do it over and over again. That is overtraining. Which leads to #3.
3. The high volume approach does not allow your body enough time to recouperate from the workout nor the time to compensate for the muscle growth (which is why there are so many plateau ?'s and articles out there). If you really want to do the high volume approach, just be sure to give your body the time off it needs to recouperate (probably at least a week per workout).

How many sets does it take to stimulate growth? One. Thats right one, so long as you're going to positive failure.

 

[GenetiKing]

How many sets does it take to stimulate growth? One. Thats right one, so long as you're going to positive failure.

Not for everyone.

There are too many variables involved for a "one size fits all" approach.

Even Dorian Yates, who was basically a H.I.T. bodybuilder, did more than one set per exercise and occasionally incorporated intensity techniques beyond concentric muscular failure.

 

[Cackerot69]

One set to concentric failure is enough for EVERYONE to stimulate muscle growth. Additional sets have little benefit (not statistically significant). You see, for a muscle to fail all of the available fibers must be momentarily fatigued. The basic process goes like this - You pick up the weight and perform one rep, at this point some of the IIA’s are recruited while the IIB’s have not yet been recruited. On rep two, some more IIA’s are recruited and fatigued, while the IIB’s start to pick up the slack that the fatigued IIA’s left. By rep three more IIA’s are fatigued and consequently more IIB’s are recruited, then you go on to perform 3 more reps. Now, as you go for rep seven, all of the IIA’s are fatigued, and all of your IIB’s are recruited but are not yet twitching at maximum frequency - they still have some gas left. As you go for rep 8, all of your IIB’s are firing at maximum frequency, all of your IIB’s are completely fatigued, and finally your IIB’s are completely fatigued. You have just reached momentary muscular failure. The weight was not heavy enough to recruit Type I muscle fibers to any degree, thus their exclusion.

One set to failure, assuming overload is applied, is enough to stimulate growth in EVERYONE!

Different fibers are optimized to perform different tasks, Type I are recruited during slow contractions, and Type II are recruited during fast contraction. Generally, Type I = lighter weights, Type II = heavy weights.

 

[GenetiKing]

One set to concentric failure is enough for EVERYONE to stimulate muscle growth. Additional sets have little benefit (not statistically significant). You see, for a muscle to fail all of the available fibers must be momentarily fatigued. The basic process goes like this - You pick up the weight and perform one rep, at this point some of the IIA’s are recruited while the IIB’s have not yet been recruited. On rep two, some more IIA’s are recruited and fatigued, while the IIB’s start to pick up the slack that the fatigued IIA’s left. By rep three more IIA’s are fatigued and consequently more IIB’s are recruited, then you go on to perform 3 more reps. Now, as you go for rep seven, all of the IIA’s are fatigued, and all of your IIB’s are recruited but are not yet twitching at maximum frequency - they still have some gas left. As you go for rep 8, all of your IIB’s are firing at maximum frequency, all of your IIB’s are completely fatigued, and finally your IIB’s are completely fatigued. You have just reached momentary muscular failure. The weight was not heavy enough to recruit Type I muscle fibers to any degree, thus their exclusion.

One set to failure, assuming overload is applied, is enough to stimulate growth in EVERYONE!

Different fibers are optimized to perform different tasks, Type I are recruited during slow contractions, and Type II are recruited during fast contraction. Generally, Type I = lighter weights, Type II = heavy weights.

That's great but...

...throughout your explanation of an 8-rep set you have yet to prove that one incidence of momenatry concentric failure per workout will always lead to hypertrophy (in EVERYONE)...which is the principle on which your argument stands.

 

[einstein1]

Genetiking: your statement is somewhat misleading (There are too many variables involved for a "one size fits all" approach. ). There are variables that differ in each one of us such as the length of recovery time needed, diet, amount of sleep we get, etc. However, the one set to postive failure is enough to stimulate growth in everyone, because everyone has the same physiological requirement to stimulate growth. Any given muscle in every human being is constructed and operates in the same way: all of our hearts beat to a rhythm, the purpose of everyone's bicep is to contract, our brains are made up of the same material and resemble the same shape, things like that. Likewise, all of our skeletal muscles require the same stimulus for growth. We may vary as to the amount of weight it requires to acheive that stimulis (a 5 year old would require less weight than you). Positive failure is that stimulus, because there is no other rep in the set that can provide the same or more intensity as the last rep. Once you stimulate growth, you don't need to keep doing it over and over. That is overtraining in the literalist meaning of the word. Here's an example to demonstrate: The stimulus to turn on your bathroom light is flipping on the switch. How many times do you need to flip the switch to get the light to come on?One. You don't need to keep flipping it on/off 10-20 times to make sure it works or to make sure it will come on.

 

[15yroldinNY]

So to do an overview, you guys are saying its better to do one set of 13-15,t han 3 sets of 10 because of positive failure? When I am on my 3rd set, normally all my reps are done by MAXIMUM INTENSITY.

 

[einstein1]

I'm saying to do one set. Most of the other people on the board advocate the high volume approach, which makes me the minority. You asked if you should do a set to 13-15. Yes and no. Do not prescribe yourself a rep number that you will stop at. Use a weight that will allow you to go to positive failure within 8-10 reps. If you pick up a weight and find at the 7th rep that you can do 13-15reps, go to 13-15. Don't stop at rep ten and reload, keep going until you reach + failure, and at your next workout increase the weight so you will hit the 8-10 rep range. 15yroldNY said he is doing 3 sets of ten. If your truly reaching + failure, you won't be able to do 3 sets of 10. Each set (of the same weight) will have fewer and fewer reps.

 

[Cackerot69]

One set to concentric failure is not enough to stimulate ALL available fibers because more than one rep range is needed. This is the problem with 1 set to failure training.

There are 3 primary types of fibers (there are more, but they are not-important), slow oxidative, fast oxidative, and fast glycolytic - Type I, IIA, and IIB.

each fiber can hypertrophy in two ways - increased number of myofibrils, or growth of the sarcoplasm.

To maximize muscle growth we have to stimulate all of these.

You have to incorporate a rep range that stimulates Type I, Type IIA, and Type IIB myofibrillar hypertrophy, and Type IIB sarcoplasmic hypertrophy. In other words you have to use a rep range between 3-5 (3-1-1 tempo), as Type II myofibrillar hypertrophy results in the greatest size increase, but also include 10-20 (4-0-3 tempo) rep sets, to stimulate Type IIB sarcoplasmic hypertrophy, Type IIA and Type I myofibrillar hypertrophy.

One set of each rep range to concentric failure is enough to stimulate muscle growth of all possible fibers and means of hypertrophy.

 

[15yroldinNY]

Einstein, to build definition you need less weight and more reps, right?

 

[Belial]

Einstein, to build definition you need less weight and more reps, right?

no.

 

[einstein1]

for definination yes: high reps w/ less weight. For mass: more weight to positive failure

 

[Belial]

for definination yes: high reps w/ less weight. For mass: more weight to positive failure

What's your proof of this?

 

[Cackerot69]

He doesn't have any, because it's not true.

 

[15yroldinNY]

Belial says yes, einstein says no. What gives? Also, coudl you two please check out my thread with my routine included. I would like your thoughts/opinions.
Thanks.

 

[Belial]

I would err on the side of agreeing with Belial. Not only am I convinced Belial is smart, but he's dead sexy, too.

 

[Tuna Guy]

No matter what rep range, number of sets protocol you use, the most important factor is proggressive resistance

 

[einstein1]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by einstein1
for definination yes: high reps w/ less weight. For mass: more weight to positive failure
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



What's your proof of this?

logic and rational thinking

 

[Cackerot69]

I see logic and rational thinking are not your strong points.

 

[Belial]

Neither is proper use of UBB code.

 

[einstein1]

Cackerot69: these are 2 quotes from you on this same thread:

"One set to concentric failure is enough for EVERYONE to stimulate muscle growth. Additional sets have little benefit (not statistically significant)."

"One set to concentric failure is not enough to stimulate ALL available fibers because more than one rep range is needed. This is the problem with 1 set to failure training. "

Before you start attacking someone, why don't you get a clue about logic before criticizing me.

 

[Belial]

Einstein, look back at that. Hypertrophy (growth) does not require maximal stimulation of all muscle fibers. What Cack has been saying all along is perfectly consistent: To stimulate the type I fibers (Low growth/hypertrophy potential) you will require more reps, and potentially more sets. However, sufficient type II stimulation (for hypertrophy) can occur after a single set.

Now, guys, group hug.

 

[Cackerot69]

Hahaha....

 

[GenetiKing]

Cackerot69: these are 2 quotes from you on this same thread:

"One set to concentric failure is enough for EVERYONE to stimulate muscle growth. Additional sets have little benefit (not statistically significant)."

"One set to concentric failure is not enough to stimulate ALL available fibers because more than one rep range is needed. This is the problem with 1 set to failure training. "

I was thinking the same thing.

What Cack has been saying all along is perfectly consistent: To stimulate the type I fibers (Low growth/hypertrophy potential) you will require more reps, and potentially more sets. However, sufficient type II stimulation (for hypertrophy) can occur after a single set.

...and I suppose that's "not statistically significant"...?

Einstein, to build definition you need less weight and more reps, right?

You cannot "build definition." Muscular definition is a function of bodyfat and, to some degree, water retention.

Once you stimulate growth, you don't need to keep doing it over and over. That is overtraining in the literalist meaning of the word.

Ah......nevermind.

Originally posted by Cackerot69
each fiber can hypertrophy in two ways - increased number of myofibrils, or growth of the sarcoplasm.

The latter method (sarcoplasmic expansion) is the generally accepted definition of muscular hypertrophy. I was under the impression that increasing the number myofibrils (muscle cells) was still debatable. I thought that had never actually been proven. If I'm wrong, I'll stand corrected...

Cackerot,
You still have yet to prove to that one incidence (per workout) of momentary concentric failure will always result in hypertrophy regardless of an individuals biochemical individuality, training experience, age, anabolic drug usage, diet, recovery ability, etc. You guys don't have to explain H.I.T. or low-volume training to me, I've read all about it. Einstein1 used the analogy of a light switch. It would be nice if the human body was that simple but unfortunately it's not.

 

[Cackerot69]

"The latter method (sarcoplasmic expansion) is the generally accepted definition of muscular hypertrophy. I was under the impression that increasing the number myofibrils (muscle cells) was still debatable. I thought that had never actually been proven. If I'm wrong, I'll stand corrected..."

No, myofibrils and muscle fiber are not the same thing. Inside of the muscle fiber there are contractile protein filaments, called myofibrils. These myofibrils are made up of actin and myosin filaments which cross-bridge and set off a contraction. Myofibrillar hypertrophy is the increased number of myofibrils INSIDE of the muscle fiber, which causes the muscle fiber itself to expand creating a larger muscle. Hyperplasia is completely different.

"You still have yet to prove to that one incidence (per workout) of momentary concentric failure will always result in hypertrophy regardless of an individuals biochemical individuality, training experience, age, anabolic drug usage, diet, recovery ability, etc. You guys don't have to explain H.I.T. or low-volume training to me, I've read all about it. Einstein1 used the analogy of a light switch. It would be nice if the human body was that simple but unfortunately it's not."

Yeah, the light switch comment was funny. The thing is, when you reach concentric failure all available fibers are fatigued and twitching at max frequency. The build-up of phosphate and hydrogen ions as a muscle fatigues is thought to contribute to the growth stimulus. It is only logical to conclude that training to failure would result in a larger accumulation of these metabolites and, therefore, produce a greater growth response. Since it is clear that muscles grow in response to tension and the time that they are required to produce this tension (resulting in microtrauma being done to the fibers), anything that prolongs the time under which they are contracting hard will also increase the growth stimulus. In this light, training to failure is definitely more efficient at stimulating muscular gains than stopping short of failure. Training to failure, in itself, IS a stimulus for muscle growth, although is not essential. If consistent overload is applied, and the nutritional support is there, you will grow.

There have been TONS of studies proving this true as well, although I don't usually like to rely on studies because they are often contradicting. But, there has been 35 studies done on one set VS multiple set training, and 33 of them showed one set training to be just as effective. The two that showed mutiple sets to be effective have been severely scrutinized for the poor research design.

 

[Drigo]

Hi, I'm kinda new to this board but I would like to comment on this subject. This is my own personal opinon(so don't flame me) but...

IMO one set training could work in theory and in practice for some people. The reason I say in theory is because it takes total concentration and intensity to go to complete and total absolute concentric failure in one set. I think the tendency is to hold off your strength a liitle for alot(not all) people. I have been training for 12 years and I still do 3-4sets per exercise(But NOT 10 I believe that is overtraining) I read an article a few years back in Muscle and Fitness and they were interviewing Dorian Yates about one set training (maybe one of you columbos can find it) And Dorian said the same thing he said one set training works for him because he has the concentration and intensity to do it. He also said (and this is not a quote I am paraphrasing from memory)
that it is difficult for novices to do one set training and achieve proper muscle stimulation. Because alot of people (myself included) have reserve strength that they subconciously keep.

I do 3-4 sets becuase by the third set I am so fatigued that there is no reserve strength left (that works for me).

So I guess I am on the proverbial fence on this topic but I thought that I would give you my 2 cents

 

[GenetiKing]

"The latter method (sarcoplasmic expansion) is the generally accepted definition of muscular hypertrophy. I was under the impression that increasing the number myofibrils (muscle cells) was still debatable. I thought that had never actually been proven. If I'm wrong, I'll stand corrected..."

No, myofibrils and muscle fiber are not the same thing. Inside of the muscle fiber there are contractile protein filaments, called myofibrils. These myofibrils are made up of actin and myosin filaments which cross-bridge and set off a contraction. Myofibrillar hypertrophy is the increased number of myofibrils INSIDE of the muscle fiber, which causes the muscle fiber itself to expand creating a larger muscle. Hyperplasia is completely different.

Yeah, as my school days become more of a distant memory, I have forgotten some of this stuff. Sorry...

"You still have yet to prove to that one incidence (per workout) of momentary concentric failure will always result in hypertrophy regardless of an individuals biochemical individuality, training experience, age, anabolic drug usage, diet, recovery ability, etc. You guys don't have to explain H.I.T. or low-volume training to me, I've read all about it. Einstein1 used the analogy of a light switch. It would be nice if the human body was that simple but unfortunately it's not."

Yeah, the light switch comment was funny. The thing is, when you reach concentric failure all available fibers are fatigued and twitching at max frequency. The build-up of phosphate and hydrogen ions as a muscle fatigues is thought to contribute to the growth stimulus. It is only logical to conclude that training to failure would result in a larger accumulation of these metabolites and, therefore, produce a greater growth response. Since it is clear that muscles grow in response to tension and the time that they are required to produce this tension (resulting in microtrauma being done to the fibers), anything that prolongs the time under which they are contracting hard will also increase the growth stimulus. In this light, training to failure is definitely more efficient at stimulating muscular gains than stopping short of failure. Training to failure, in itself, IS a stimulus for muscle growth, although is not essential. If consistent overload is applied, and the nutritional support is there, you will grow.

There have been TONS of studies proving this true as well, although I don't usually like to rely on studies because they are often contradicting. But, there has been 35 studies done on one set VS multiple set training, and 33 of them showed one set training to be just as effective. The two that showed mutiple sets to be effective have been severely scrutinized for the poor research design.

OK.

 

[Tuna Guy]

What if all fibres were recruited all at once. Apart from type IIc fibres what other types are there?

 

[Tuna Guy]

I thought that if the weight was heavy enough all fibres were recruited.