Muscle lab: Bulk up with the science of bodybuilding

[KoolDrew]

The author concluded the the 30% to failure is more effective at increasing muscle hypertrophy than 90% to failure because the 30% group had similar myofibrillar protein synthesis as the 90% at four hours, but showed a higher level at 24 hours.

Nobody sees a problem here? For an increase in hypertrophy to be proven, hypertrophy has to be measured. For hypertrophy to occur protein synthesis must EXCEED protein breakdown over a certain time period, measuring protein synthesis alone proves absolutely nothing. Not only that, but this was a study measuring protein synthesis from a single training bout. We can't make any conclusions about how low vs high rep would work as a training strategy based on one training session.

 

[KoolDrew]

No, it doesn't apply well to functional mass gains or strength training. Higher rep stuff actually induces a high level of sarcoplasmic hypertrophy, which is just an extraneous portion of the muscle that doesn't actually contract. It's what bodybuilders go for since it makes them bulky. If you want myofibrillar hypertrophy to occur, you do low reps, high weight. Reps at 6 or under maximize myofibrillar hypertrophy.

The amount of sacroplasm is limited by the size of the myofibril within the cell. In fact, the studies done trying to differentiate the two types of hypertrophy always show myofibrillar growth to exceed sacroplasmic growth, regardless of type of training. Not one that I know of has shown sacroplasmic hypertrophy in the absence of myofibrillar hypertrophy.

The real value to high-rep training is increase glycogen storage, which can contribute quite a bit to the size of the muscle, which is why I think people interested in getting bigger should at least incorporate some high rep training. Whether it's done in the same workout as the heavier stuff or in a separate workout (e.g. Layne Nortons strength/hypertrophy split) doesn't really matter much. If you're looking for a happy medium go with 6-8 reps, which will give you a good combination of metabolic fatigue and maximum fiber recruitment, with enough time under tension for hypertrophy. I've seen best results doing 5-8 reps on the compound lifts and then following it with 1-2 movements in the higher rep range (8-15).

People should at some point or another in their training incorporate different rep ranges, regardless of their goals. A bodybuilder can benefit from low rep training just as much as a strength athlete can benefit from higher rep work. Also, regardless of which rep ranges you choose it still comes down to progressive overload. If you're not getting stronger, you're not going to grow. Likewise, if you're not eating enough, you're not going to grow.

 

[coreyb]

So this is how you become huge and look strong, but not actually be strong. I'm in!

 

[SociallyChallenged]

The amount of sacroplasm is limited by the size of the myofibril within the cell. In fact, the studies done trying to differentiate the two types of hypertrophy always show myofibrillar growth to exceed sacroplasmic growth, regardless of type of training. Not one that I know of has shown sacroplasmic hypertrophy in the absence of myofibrillar hypertrophy.

The real value to high-rep training is increase glycogen storage, which can contribute quite a bit to the size of the muscle, which is why I think people interested in getting bigger should at least incorporate some high rep training. Whether it's done in the same workout as the heavier stuff or in a separate workout (e.g. Layne Nortons strength/hypertrophy split) doesn't really matter much. If you're looking for a happy medium go with 6-8 reps, which will give you a good combination of metabolic fatigue and maximum fiber recruitment, with enough time under tension for hypertrophy. I've seen best results doing 5-8 reps on the compound lifts and then following it with 1-2 movements in the higher rep range (8-15).

People should at some point or another in their training incorporate different rep ranges, regardless of their goals. A bodybuilder can benefit from low rep training just as much as a strength athlete can benefit from higher rep work. Also, regardless of which rep ranges you choose it still comes down to progressive overload. If you're not getting stronger, you're not going to grow. Likewise, if you're not eating enough, you're not going to grow.

I agree that both types of hypertrophy occur if general hypertrophy is induced. However, what you're saying is not necessarily true. I've read research where sarcoplasmic hypertrophy was induced to a significantly greater degree than myofibrillar hypertrophy. Either way, myofibrillar hypertrophy is the primary goal for those looking to get functionally strong muscles. Sure, sarcoplasmic hypertrophy will occur as well, but it's sure as heck not the goal for most (besides bodybuilders).

 

[KoolDrew]

While looking for research on the topic, I ran across this article...

What can be seen when reviewing these and many other papers on the subject is the response to resistance training of fractional elevation remains in line with the results of feeding, both are elevated but the slower turnover proteins (myofibrillar) generally show a larger magnitude in increase. Since these studies show that this holds true with resistance training, dynamic exercise and HFES, all utilizing differing intensities and work output, it seems unlikely that the rep range is the sole cause of any increase in sarcoplasmic fraction up-regulation.

http://www.maxcondition.com/page.php?106

If you have research showing otherwise, I'd like to see it. The main point I was trying to make is that it's not as simple as myofibrillar vs sacroplasmic hypertrophy and the whole idea that someone can specifically train for a significant amount of sacroplasmic hypertrophy without an increase in myofibrillar hypertrophy. You can definitely change the proportion between the two depending on what rep ranges are chosen, but you're still going to see both types of hypertrophy to some degree.

 

[darkxshade]

I thought it was already common knowledge around here that as you go from lower reps w/higher weights to higher reps w/low weights that you go from building strength and power to building muscle[bulking]? Isn't that why 5x5 is so advocated here?

 

[KoolDrew]

I thought it was already common knowledge around here that as you go from lower reps w/higher weights to higher reps w/low weights that you go from building strength and power to building muscle[bulking]? Isn't that why 5x5 is so advocated here?

For muscle growth to occur you need a combination of tension overload and fatigue. Also, beyond a certain point (80-85%) force production is increased via rate coding (how quickly electrical impulses are sent to the muscle) as opposed to an increase in fiber recruitment.

So, for example a 2RM at around 95% wouldn't increase fiber recruitment beyond a 5RM. However, you would get a lot less fatigue due to less reps, less volume, etc. On the other end, if you were to perform a 15RM taken to failure, you would eventually recruit all muscle fibers, but not until you start to approach failure. In this case, those fibers won't be exposed to high tension or fatigue for very long.

This is why 5x5 is often recommended. It provides full fiber recruitment from the very first rep and provides enough fatigue for growth to occur.

 

[MJinZ]

I don't give a god damn about that study. I'd rather slam my dick in a car door than go to the gym to lift 30 percent of my max.

Yes, this is shens. No sense in lifting if you have no dick left.

 

[coffeejunkee]

Might as well try it I guess. Doing 15/12/10 lifts daily, 30 sec pause between reps. 7.5kg at the moment, increasing weight every time i can do a series without too much effort. Changing to 2,5kg, reps till i tire.

Can't go wrong with the power of science at my side.

 

[SociallyChallenged]

Might as well try it I guess. Doing 15/12/10 lifts daily, 30 sec pause between reps. 7.5kg at the moment, increasing weight every time i can do a series without too much effort. Changing to 2,5kg, reps till i tire.

Can't go wrong with the power of science at my side.

One article is hardly well-founded science.

 

[coffeejunkee]

Hoping to provide extra empirical evidence.

So what you think about the 15/12/10 series? Change to 5x5? Looking for strenght + growth.

 

[TheVrolok]

Hoping to provide extra empirical evidence.

So what you think about the 15/12/10 series? Change to 5x5? Looking for strenght + growth.

Depends what your starting level/experience is?

 

[coffeejunkee]

I've done a lot of sports, am reasonably fit but when it comes to weightlifting I'm a noob. But does it really matter? (doesn't seem to me 5x5 is much harder than 15/12/10)

 

[TheVrolok]

I've done a lot of sports, am reasonably fit but when it comes to weightlifting I'm a noob. But does it really matter? (doesn't seem to me 5x5 is much harder than 15/12/10)

It does. There is a lot more complexity to weightlifting than people realize. What are your goals?

 

[coffeejunkee]

Nothing very ambitious...just a little stronger and bigger arms. I'm actually fairly satisfied with the results thusfar. Just wondering since my training method is disputed in a fairly revolutionary way. As I, like most here seem to be, am a bit skeptical about not increasing the weight but instead doing more reps. While my current method is based around the opposite, trying to lift ever more when able.

 

[KoolDrew]

Nothing very ambitious...just a little stronger and bigger arms. I'm actually fairly satisfied with the results thusfar. Just wondering since my training method is disputed in a fairly revolutionary way. As I, like most here seem to be, am a bit skeptical about not increasing the weight but instead doing more reps. While my current method is based around the opposite, trying to lift ever more when able.

Fortunately for you, just about anything will give you results when starting out.

 

[TheVrolok]

Fortunately for you, just about anything will give you results when starting out.

It's true. For coffeejunkee, to people just getting into lifting/wanting to gain some strength/size I always recommend Mark Rippetoe's Starting Strength, a good read, a good program for beginners.

Some links:
http://www.amazon.com/Starting-Stren.../dp/0976805421
http://startingstrength.wikia.com/wiki/Starting_Strength_Wiki
http://startingstrength.com/resources/forum/?f=36

 

[coffeejunkee]

Sorry, not looking for a program and all that. Just wondering if it's better to do 15 lifts, rest, 12 lifts, rest, 10 lifts (which is what Mens Health recommended) or if I should do 5 lifts 5 times (as recommended on this forum).

'The idea that you should lift progressively heavier weights to bulk up is "completely false", says Phillips. Instead, the best way to build muscle is to lift more manageable weights until you tire out, he says.'

Or maybe mr. Phillips is right. But it's a pretty bold claim which goes against pretty much everything even I knew about weightlifting. The testgroup is small, but if every one of them shows the same results it does seem to be relevant. So is this true or is he seeking some media attention/extra funding?

 

[Terzo]

Sorry, not looking for a program and all that. Just wondering if it's better to do 15 lifts, rest, 12 lifts, rest, 10 lifts (which is what Mens Health recommended) or if I should do 5 lifts 5 times (as recommended on this forum).

'The idea that you should lift progressively heavier weights to bulk up is "completely false", says Phillips. Instead, the best way to build muscle is to lift more manageable weights until you tire out, he says.'

Or maybe mr. Phillips is right. But it's a pretty bold claim which goes against pretty much everything even I knew about weightlifting. The testgroup is small, but if every one of them shows the same results it does seem to be relevant. So is this true or is he seeking some media attention/extra funding?

I can only guess, but from what I understand it depends on what you want. If your primary concern is appearance then doing more reps will benefit you more. If you are more interested in functional strength, then fewer reps with higher weights will benefit you more.
This is not to say you wont gain strength doing low weight and high reps, or grow aesthetically pleasing muscles by doing high weight and low reps.

And really, this is just restating what SociallyChallenged said earlier, regarding sarcoplasmic hypertrophy and myofibrillar hypertrophy.

No, it doesn't apply well to functional mass gains or strength training. Higher rep stuff actually induces a high level of sarcoplasmic hypertrophy, which is just an extraneous portion of the muscle that doesn't actually contract. It's what bodybuilders go for since it makes them bulky. If you want myofibrillar hypertrophy to occur, you do low reps, high weight. Reps at 6 or under maximize myofibrillar hypertrophy.

This research doesn't really surprise me. I've known about Stuart Phillips and he does good research. A sample size of 15 is actually fine in this type of research, if their individuals are representative of the population. If you actually read the research, it will tell you what the conditions of choosing these subjects were.

 

[coffeejunkee]

So it seems that the results of the experiment aren't that revolutionairy after all? Since apparently this is what bodybuilders already pretty much do...and the experiment seemed to be more focused on growth than on strenght.

Anyways, did 5x5 today, 10 sec pause in between...definately less stressful than 15/12/10, 30 sec pause. Maybe I should increase the weight a little. Or maybe stressful is not equivalent to efficient. I'll see how it goes the coming weeks.

 

[KoolDrew]

Or maybe mr. Phillips is right. But it's a pretty bold claim which goes against pretty much everything even I knew about weightlifting. The testgroup is small, but if every one of them shows the same results it does seem to be relevant. So is this true or is he seeking some media attention/extra funding?

Re-read what I posted above. This study proved absolutely nothing except protein synthesis was elevated higher at the 24 hr mark in the 30% max group than the 90% group after a single training bout. Overall volume has to be taken into consideration as well. I'd have to look at the study again, but IIRC 4 sets were done. a true 90% load would give you probably about 3 reps. Across 4 sets that's a whopping 12 reps. Good luck growing on 12 reps. A 30% load would give you quite a bit more volume (probably 15-30 reps/set).

I can't even believe the author would have to audacity to conclude progressive overload is false and high reps are better for hypertrophy after doing a study on one training session. Even if these were true, it's not proven by such a study.

I can only guess, but from what I understand it depends on what you want. If your primary concern is appearance then doing more reps will benefit you more.

Keep in mind this only works to a point, and eventually you just end up training muscular endurance. Also, even strength athletes will benefit from high-rep training from time to time, especially if they've been training for a while and have maxed out their neurological processes that contribute to strength, such as fiber recruitment, rate coding, technique, etc. In this case extra strength needs to be produced by an increase in cross sectional area (myofibrillar, sacroplasmic, and connective tissue hypertrophy.) The problem with very low rep training (1-3) is that there's not enough time under tension for much of a growth stimulus to occur. Likewise, bodybuilders can benefit from some low rep training to improve those neurological factors.

In very simple terms, getting stronger will aid in getting bigger and getting bigger will aid in getting stronger. Even powerlifters who are only really worried about their 1RM will train with higher rep ranges, and the biggest bodybuilders are usually quite strong. Maybe not 1RM strong since they don't train for it, but definitely strong.

Anyways, did 5x5 today, 10 sec pause in between...definately less stressful than 15/12/10, 30 sec pause. Maybe I should increase the weight a little. Or maybe stressful is not equivalent to efficient. I'll see how it goes the coming weeks.

If you did a 10 second pause between sets, you're not lifting heavy enough. Lowering reps does absolutely nothing for you if the load isn't increased.

 

[coffeejunkee]

I can't even believe the author would have to audacity to conclude progressive overload is false and high reps are better for hypertrophy after doing a study on one training session. Even if these were true, it's not proven by such a study.

That's what I thought, but a statement like 'completely false' doesn't leave much room for interpretation.

Anyways, this thread has taught me some new stuff. Thanks.

 

[SociallyChallenged]

So it seems that the results of the experiment aren't that revolutionairy after all? Since apparently this is what bodybuilders already pretty much do...and the experiment seemed to be more focused on growth than on strenght.

Anyways, did 5x5 today, 10 sec pause in between...definately less stressful than 15/12/10, 30 sec pause. Maybe I should increase the weight a little. Or maybe stressful is not equivalent to efficient. I'll see how it goes the coming weeks.

If doing a 5x5, you choose a weight that is difficult to complete for all 5 reps (but not impossible). You do one set, typically wait 2-3 minutes, and then go again. Waiting 10s is just like doing 25 reps of an exercise, which is counterproductive both to your strength and size goals.

 

[coffeejunkee]

Ok, increased the weight to 8.5 kg which is my current max I can put on the dumbell. Did 5x5 with ca 2 mins pause, felt it a little more than 5x5 with the short pause so I guess it's still effective. Still not as straining though as 15/12/10 reps with 7.5 kg and 30 sec pause but I'm beginning to think that might actually be overdoing it a bit (pretty much drains all energy, or is that a good thing?)

Think I need something around 10 kg for 5x5 to start with so I'll have to buy some more weights first. If anything, mr. Philips method is a little easier on the wallet.

 

[Whisper]

Ok, increased the weight to 8.5 kg which is my current max I can put on the dumbell. Did 5x5 with ca 2 mins pause, felt it a little more than 5x5 with the short pause so I guess it's still effective. Still not as straining though as 15/12/10 reps with 7.5 kg and 30 sec pause but I'm beginning to think that might actually be overdoing it a bit (pretty much drains all energy, or is that a good thing?)

Think I need something around 10 kg for 5x5 to start with so I'll have to buy some more weights first. If anything, mr. Philips method is a little easier on the wallet.

If your current set of weights doesn't allow for significant difficulty with each of the five sets of five reps, then 5x5 may not be the best training method for you at the moment.