Posted by Ryan A on December 24, 2005, 10:21 pm, in reply to "Re: Plateaus" I agree with that. : Are you sure the workouts need to be full body? It seems like for the protein synthesis state to persist, it would just require protein synthesis in the whole body. I am not certain on this, but isn't protein synthesis a global thing in the body?
66.81.50.203
: I would say in response to this that growth and strength, while
: related, are not on a 1 to 1 basis with each other. I'm sure
: we've all known skinny guys who could bench massive amounts
: compared to their size, and big guys who weren't all that
: strong. Strength is neuromuscular, but muscle growth is a
: purely cellular phenomena. I believe in my original post I was
: pointing out that the idea of this or that rep range being good
: for something, say 6-8 reps for adding mass, is generally
: misguided.
I see, and agree for the most part. The 6-8 rep range or whatever range should assume as you stated that you use a certain percentage.
:Using a suboptimal weight in the 6-8 range will not
: result in the activation of type II fibers. Using a suboptimal
: weight won't activate those fibers now matter how many reps are
: done in fact. So while I'd agree a period of deloading with
: varying rep ranges and weights as part of a conjugate routine
: for strength would be good, as relates to size the most
: important factors are the load used, the time under tension your
: muscles see and workout frequency.
Okay, well I would say that in an explosive movement, with say 50% of 1 rep max can still activate type 2 fibers. For instance, jumping and sprinting are type 2 movements and are loaded with a lighter weight than a 90% squat.
:
: Now I'd say I agree with you, increased strength if it comes
: relatively frequently and progressively will lead to growth.
: But, more often than it will come slower than it otherwise could
: have because of some limitations on strength routines. To gain
: appreciable strength to overcome the repeat bout effect and
: damage your muscles you need to exercise very intensly, which
: leads to a much lower frequency workout which is detrimental to
: gaining size overall. You will still gain, just not as much as
: you could have if you worked out more frequently and instead of
: trying to up your rep maxes that frequently used a minimally
: effective load after a period of time off.
: The frequency of the workouts is important for size. In the
: research I've read all the signalling that leads to protein
: synthesis essentially stops after 36-48 hours from the end of a
: workout. To keep your body in that state as consistently as
: possible you have to keep the stimulus coming. That means a
: workout at most every other day, full body, with an effective
: (heavy enough) weight would be best for hypertrophy. That would
: make the kind of intensity and volume necessary for strength
: training very hard to maintain. Plus, if you start to use a
: lower weight on a consistent basis you will likely lose size.
: The rep question just kind of irks me. It takes people's
: attention off of what matters and focusses it on something that
: really doesn't, an artificial construction that they believe if
: they blindly adhere too will produce results. You see people
: doing light weight high rep work for cutting because they heard
: high reps were good for that, meanwhile they're more likely than
: not losing more muscle mass than necessary because of suboptimal
: loading, and getting a relatively inefficient cardio workout
: because they aren't mobilizing nearly as much muscle mass as
: they need to.
Well yes, this would be a huge problem with people following advice given in magazines. If people were aware of some basic principles, then the rep ranges would be more clear.
Message Thread:
« Back to thread
(Responses are not allowed)