Training Theory by AnimalMass, AngelFace, And JohnSmith

[spatts]

You know nectar makes me feel drunk...

Seriously though, if you rip fibers, now matter HOW adequately you rip them, if you don't let them heal before ripping them again, they will not grow. There is a genetic exception to this rule for a trait that I posted for c-ditty a while back. Other than that, I would say there's a balance between efficient catabolism of the fibers, and the recovery that allows the anabolic reaction to that catabolism, that are equally important, IMO.

 

[AnimalMass1]

Yeah, you are exactly right, - it is recovery where you grow, but my point I was making is that it's the preceding tension put on the muscle and not the tearing of fibers that causes the biggest amount of growth.

And this comes into play in the biggest sense with failure, and beyond failure techniques that are a total waste of time. Studies have shown that complete muscular failure is not needed at all more optimum growth, and in fact leaving a rep or two in you can and will cause the same amount of growth, but will allow for your body to recover much faster.

(I have a past post of mine on this somewhere, I will hunt it down .)

AnimalMass

 

[casualbb]

Seriously though, if you rip fibers, now matter HOW adequately you rip them, if you don't let them heal before ripping them again, they will not grow.

That's untrue. You can load a muscle even while it's recovering to no adverse effect:

Repeated eccentric exercise bouts do not exacerbate muscle damage and repair.

From the abstract:

These results suggest that ECC2 and ECC3 [the subsequent second and third loading] did not exacerbate muscle damage or affect the recovery process.

There are also studies on rats (I can't find them), where they remove the gastrocnemius, placing the standing load entirely on the soleus. Here these poor rats were having their muscles loaded the entire day, with barely any rest. Yet, within weeks, the soleus would double in size and weight to compensate.

-casualbb

 

[rjl296]

right on, nice post

I don't buy into the unltra slow eccentric portion that some TUT or HIT guys religiously adhere to.

me either. there was a long study done at my school (Farthing, et al) about this recently. basically, the explosive group grew (hypertrophy) over 2x the 'TUT' group did.
Are there any studies to counter this ??

even all the anecdotal refs. ive seen seemed to disagree with tut

 

[Vortexx]

IF I was forced to train for size choosing only one amount of reps, it would be: 7 REPS, low enough to get some neurologic adaption (which improves strength and therefore the potential for progressive overload = long term gains) while at the same doing the "repeated effort" kind of damage to induce hypertrophy.

 

[nclifter6feet6]

That's untrue. You can load a muscle even while it's recovering to no adverse effect:

Repeated eccentric exercise bouts do not exacerbate muscle damage and repair.

From the abstract:


There are also studies on rats (I can't find them), where they remove the gastrocnemius, placing the standing load entirely on the soleus. Here these poor rats were having their muscles loaded the entire day, with barely any rest. Yet, within weeks, the soleus would double in size and weight to compensate.

-casualbb

i remember a dude at my highschool back in the day and he walked on crutches all the the time i think he was missin a leg, but that kid had some sick tris and i doubt he watched what he ate or was trying to be a bodybuilder

 

[spatts]

Well, I'm not a rat, and many things are different about rats and athletic humans, but I will concede and change my statement to reflect that I can't grow without healing time.


...and it can't be all that common to achieve maximal hypertrophy with constant exertion in an already active human, or there wouldn't be (relatively) new abstarcts on recessive genetic traits that allow a small number of humans the privilege to grow under constant duress.

 

[bignate73]

Well, I'm not a rat, and many things are different about rats and athletic humans,

amen!

in that study.....50% of maximal isometric force? were these trained or untrained individuals? on the surface this study...
looks like a valid argument. but only on the surface.......

 

[casualbb]

That 50% of isometric 1RM (BTW...that's closer to 65% of a concentric 1RM) caused muscle damage, IE provided a growth stimulus. The actual load used is immaterial; the point is that the same weight that causes muscle damage and growth can be repeated after 2 days to no ill effect.

Hell, I've trained 5x2 of my squat 5RM every other day for two weeks straight and added .5 in. to each thigh. You don't need as much time off as everybody thinks.

-casualbb

 

[Debaser]

I don't feel like searching through all the research, I just have a simple question, how does HST explain the fact that, in general, the strongest guys in the gym are also the biggest? And the stronger you get the bigger you get? Assuming you're eating enough.