Lifting for hypertrophy

[Voice]

Bodybuilders and power lifters differ in that bodybuilders lift to pack on size and muscle definition moreso than strength and power. No doubt Mr. Universe is extremely strong, however his strength pales in comparison to an olympic heavyweight power lifter. Yet look at the power lifter, he's not ripped. Sure he's big, but his muscles are no where near defined as a bodybuilder. So if you want to look like a bodybuilder you have to train like one.

The only difference between bodybuilders and power lifters is in how they train. Power lifters train by lifting heavy and stay in the low rep range. If you want to lift for mostly strength and power stay in the 2-6 rep range and lift around 80% of your one rep max, with rests up to 3 minutes between sets. This will first and foremost trigger your nervous system to "learn" how to utilize your muscles better. The heavier you go, the more muscle is utilized and the more your nervous system "learns" how to activate more portions of the muscle. In essence the first few weeks of strength gains are mostly nervous system related. After that the strength gained by power lifers is obtained mostly by "myofibrillated hypertrophy". This is when your myofibrils (actin and myosin) increase in size and number. You WILL see gains in size but not nearly as much as someone training specifically for bodybuilding.

Bodybuilders on the other hand train for a different type of hypertrophy. That is "sarcoplasmic hypertrophy". This is the increase in intercellular fluid within the muscle cell. This does type of hypertrophy does NOT contribute to strength gains only gains in size. There will be a moderate amount of myofibrillated hypertrophy in this type of training but not as much as training for power. For this type of hypertrophy you want to get in the 6-12 rep range, with rests less than a minute and a half. The old routine "3 sets of 10" is perfect for this type of training.

If size and definition is important to you and you want to LOOK BIG go with the hypertrophy routine. If strength and power is predominately what you want go with the powerlifting routine. Of course never forget how important nutrition is to building mass!

 

[Kerpal]

Stop making things complicated. If you're a beginner (99% of the people reading this are) nothing will make you gain muscle mass faster than a simple powerlifting program like Starting Strength. There's simply no reason for you to do anything else until you've exhausted your potential on a simple linear progression program.

And definition is a matter of diet, not exercise.

 

[Konada]

Stop making things complicated. If you're a beginner (99% of the people reading this are) nothing will make you gain muscle mass faster than a simple powerlifting program like Starting Strength. There's simply no reason for you to do anything else until you've exhausted your potential on a simple linear progression program.

And definition is a matter of diet, not exercise.

This. Been gaining good mass on SS but little aesthetic gains at the moment. These things take time. You're never go to hyperthropy OR strength when you're doing 5kg bicep curls like the skinny dudes at the gym.

 

[Voice]

Stop making things complicated. If you're a beginner (99% of the people reading this are) nothing will make you gain muscle mass faster than a simple powerlifting program like Starting Strength. There's simply no reason for you to do anything else until you've exhausted your potential on a simple linear progression program.

And definition is a matter of diet, not exercise.

I'm just explaining a little of the science behind it, not really getting too complicated. I always felt that if I knew the science behind something and understand why and how it works I would accept it easier. Besides the science stuff my message is actually extremely simple: the amount of reps and amount of weight you lift will effect your muscles in different ways.

No no, A powerlifting program will NOT have you gain mass faster than a body building program. It's not like I'm pulling this stuff out of my ass here. I major in exercise science and research this stuff. I get it from textbooks and peer reviewed articles. 90 percent of all mass gaining programs will include reps in the 6-12 rep range and the other 10 percent are mostly wrong.

Also like I said in my first post nutrition IS very important but training in a specific way optimizes how your diet is used to create the mass. So yes a definition IS a matter of diet, but it's also HOW you exercise.

 

[Quiksilver]

In my experience, good hypertrophy is a combination of:

1. Time under load.

- Slow tempo reps in the 6-15 rep range. I had good results with Poliquins 0104 rep tempo guide for hypertrophy: 1 second eccentric, 4 second concentric, 0 second pause between ecc/con.

2. Progressive resistance.

- No brainer here. Once a certain weight has been hit within the parameters of your rep tempo and rep range, bump the weight up.

-

* The above applies primarily to hypertrophy. I find a slow 0104 tempo to be detrimental to strength gains so I don't employ it on the main lifts (squat, dead, bench, mil press), only on the assistance movements in which CNS-based strength is not a primary concern (dips, pullups, chinups, bicep curls, tricep extensions, calf raises, rows, shrugs, etc.).

** I find that most gym rats who are fairly large but weak tend to have gotten big very inefficiently. They don't understand the principle of time-under-load for hypertrophy and instead "shotgun" their way to success (big muscles) by ramping up the frequency and duration of workouts. This can mimic the effects of a slow tempo simply by vastly increasing the number of reps done.

*** The inefficient gym rats may spend 10-15 hours per week in the gym, while someone who spends 4-8 hours per week in the gym may achieve the same hypertrophy results merely by slowing down the tempo of their lifts.

--

Of course, the above assumes a proper high protein, moderate fat, variable carb diet.

And definition is a matter of diet, not exercise.

I need around 4-6 hours of cardio per week to get decent definition. I find the strictly dietary approach to leaning out to harm weight-training performance. Based on a 2,500-calorie metabolic rate, I'd rather do an extra 5 hours of exercise (-1,500 cals) and eat an extra 1,000 calories, which bumps my caloric needs to 4,000 calories and my caloric intake to 3,500 calories. I find this works better than eating 2,000 calories with a caloric output of 2,500 cals (based on life + weight training only, no cardio).

 

[jammy1257]

So to summarise, I need to lift Heavy, lift within the 6-10 rep range(3 sets) and exercise slowly? which I think you referring to as Tempo?

 

[Kerpal]

I major in exercise science

:crackup:

 

[Voice]

:crackup:

You clearly don't understand. Just because science and peer reviewed literature goes against what you say or think doesn't give you a right to laugh at my major? WTF? When someone proves you wrong, you accept it and learn from it. You don't go insult them. Your ego is getting in the way of you learning. If you knew anything about my major you'd know that 90% go on to higher learning. That means med school, PT school, OT school and numerous others. I am no different. Please, no more ignorance is needed from you "kerpal".

 

[Quiksilver]

You clearly don't understand. Just because science and peer reviewed literature goes against what you say or think doesn't give you a right to laugh at my major? WTF? When someone proves you wrong, you accept it and learn from it. You don't go insult them. Your ego is getting in the way of you learning. If you knew anything about my major you'd know that 90% go on to higher learning. That means med school, PT school, OT school and numerous others. I am no different. Please, no more ignorance is needed from you "kerpal".

I think hes referring to the problem with reading studies/etc to get big. Most big guys aren't out there publishing peer reviewed literature, they're busting ass in the gym training hard for years and decades.

Exercise Science is more of a springboard degree for physiotherapy, sports coaching, etc.

My roommate is majoring in Exercise Science, but he squats 380lbs and pulls 450. He didn't get reasonably strong by reading scientific journals. I think his program sucks, personally, but he likes it so I don't bug him about it.

Kerpal probably finds amusing what I find amusing. I walk into these Exercise Science lectures and 99% of the students (and lecturer) are pencil-necks. Out on the street they will tell you how to get big though. I think there is something wrong when pencil-necks are telling pencil-necks how to bench 400, squat 500 and dead 600. See where I'm coming from?

 

[Voice]

Kerpal probably finds amusing what I find amusing. I walk into these Exercise Science lectures and 99% of the students (and lecturer) are pencil-necks. Out on the street they will tell you how to get big though. I think there is something wrong when pencil-necks are telling pencil-necks how to bench 400, squat 500 and dead 600. See where I'm coming from?

A lot of elite physical trainers don't squat 500 or bench 380 either. That's like having a pilot who flies fighter jets laughing at an engineer who is explaining to people how the jet works. The engineer DESIGNED the jet and probably wrote the book on how to fly it as well. The engineer knows the jet inside and out. Sure the pilot knows that jet too, but not nearly as much as the engineer.

The pencil necks you talk about are also building those exercise programs as well. They know the science behind the exercise and can design it based on that science. Believe it or not, most of the current knowledge about anaerobic training comes straight from a textbook and studies. Those weight training program designs are written by exercise physiologists. That split program you found on bodybuilding.com was made by an exercise physiologist. It's not like I'm a skinny nerd and don't lift myself, I've been weight training for years. I'd say 40% of the other dudes in my lectures weight train just by the way they look. Over the years I've been told different things by different sources. The only reason I'm saying they are "peer reviewed" is to give them credibility over some random guy like kerpal giving out advice on the internet that has no scientific backing.

I don't buy the whole "we bust out ass in the gym so we know more than you about weightlifting" thing. Most of the studies are on NUMEROUS guys who bust their ass constantly. Again its not like I'm pulling this out of my ass. That's just an ego thing. No muscle head wants some pencil neck scientist telling them what to do or what is right and I think that is exactly what this is.

 

[Colossus]

I think hes referring to the problem with reading studies/etc to get big. Most big guys aren't out there publishing peer reviewed literature, they're busting ass in the gym training hard for years and decades.

Exercise Science is more of a springboard degree for physiotherapy, sports coaching, etc.

My roommate is majoring in Exercise Science, but he squats 380lbs and pulls 450. He didn't get reasonably strong by reading scientific journals. I think his program sucks, personally, but he likes it so I don't bug him about it.

Kerpal probably finds amusing what I find amusing. I walk into these Exercise Science lectures and 99% of the students (and lecturer) are pencil-necks. Out on the street they will tell you how to get big though. I think there is something wrong when pencil-necks are telling pencil-necks how to bench 400, squat 500 and dead 600. See where I'm coming from?

Concur.

Voice, I also majored in exercise science. That didnt get me big or strong, it just taught me how to critically interpret claims and "bro-science". I knew how to train fairly well before I ever went to college. MOST of what I learned comes from my own lifting experience and being in the medical field. Exercise science doesnt give you a broad enough understanding of human physiology to really see the forest through the trees. Exercise science geeks get too caught up in the minutia of research and more often than not become academic experts who cant squat their way out of a wet paper bag.

Listen, I didnt get to a 425, 505, 610 total by listening to guys who were weaker than me. Get it? I already understood the mechanics of lifting, but I had to learn and be pushed by guys who were better than me. They had already achieved 600 squats, 500 benches, and 700 deadlifts. If you want to get strong, you learn from the strong. Experience does not always agree with literature, so at the end of the day I'm going to put more weight on the words of those who have already achieved what I'm seeking than the words of a study. BOTH have great value, but in simple terms, knowing a lot wont make you big. WORK will.

 

[Voice]

Concur.

Voice, I also majored in exercise science. That didnt get me big or strong, it just taught me how to critically interpret claims and "bro-science". I knew how to train fairly well before I ever went to college. MOST of what I learned comes from my own lifting experience and being in the medical field. Exercise science doesnt give you a broad enough understanding of human physiology to really see the forest through the trees. Exercise science geeks get too caught up in the minutia of research and more often than not become academic experts who cant squat their way out of a wet paper bag.

Listen, I didnt get to a 425, 505, 610 total by listening to guys who were weaker than me. Get it? I already understood the mechanics of lifting, but I had to learn and be pushed by guys who were better than me. They had already achieved 600 squats, 500 benches, and 700 deadlifts. If you want to get strong, you learn from the strong. Experience does not always agree with literature, so at the end of the day I'm going to put more weight on the words of those who have already achieved what I'm seeking than the words of a study. BOTH have great value, but in simple terms, knowing a lot wont make you big. WORK will.

Look, I REALLY respect you and quicksilver's opinion's on the matter and no doubt experience is a great teacher and you guys have a lot of it. My point here isn't to prove that I know more than anyone (except for maybe jerkoff Kerpal). I am just throwing out some simple tips that have been scientifically proven to work. When someone like kerpal laughs at your major and then intentionally gives the opposite advice of what you just gave, generally you would defend yourself. Especially when that advice goes against scientifically documented sources.

Colossus, if you would say something like you just wrote in a forum of academia, they would dismiss you as a "jock meat head". On the other hand if someone posts something academically credible in a muscle building forum they would dismiss them as a "pencil neck nerd" like you both just did. It's all relative to who you are talking to. Neither party wants someone else to tell them what's right. Again I don't buy the whole "I'm bigger and stronger than you so I know more about lifting than you". Mike Krzyzewski was never an elite basketball player and yet he coaches LeBron and Kobe on the national team. You don't think Kobe and LeBron learn anything from him?

Like said before, most of the people here are beginners. What I say here is extremely simple and VERY general. For mass, moderate to heavy weight at 6-12 reps. For strength and power, heavy to very heavy weight 2-6 reps.

 

[Quiksilver]

If this were a forum of academia, I'd ask you for the sources you used to support your statements in the OP.

Since this isn't though, I'll roll with what you stated in the OP and say, from my limited experience I agree that higher rep ranges on assistance movements is better for hypertrophy.

I underlined assistance movements because I believe (from my experience which may or may not run contrary to Aggregate Science) that overall strength will net you more size in the long run than strictly training high volume/frequency for sarcoHT. Why? Because training like an oly/PLer on the main movements will enable you to--at a time of your choosing--begin training higher volumes at a heavier load than otherwise.

Eg. Noob A trains 3x10 on Squats from day 1 through day 365. Since he is training in a higher rep range he puts on moderate size however cannot train at +95% intensity while staying within the parameters of his program(rest times, reps per set, rep tempo). Noob A starts program 2 on day 366 at 3Sx10Rx265lbs.

Noob B defies the 'science' and trains like a powerlifter on squats with 3x5 for day 1-day 365. Noob B gains low-moderate size but has doubled the load over Noob A by day 365. His program has been assessed as a failure for hypertrophy. However, Noob B starts to train for hypertrophy on day 366 at 350lb-400lbs.

Through Day 730, Noob A is training 3x10 @ 315lbs meanwhile Noob B is now training 3x10 @ 425lbs.

Want to guess who is bigger?

'Scientifically', Noob A trained better for hypertrophy, while Noob B trained for strength first and hypertrophy second.

Noob B was also attacked and criticized by the 'academic' scientific community on the Internet, so turned his PC off and went out to do some more sled drags.

Noob A was accepted by the scientific community and was now an e-xpert. He wants to get as big as "meat head jock Noob B" but doesn't want to go do sled drags as he read from another pencil-neck that it would slow his recovery.

Noob B, exhausted from more sled drags, goes and eats another 1,000 'dirty' calories to fuel his next workout while Noob A counts calories and stares at his midsection to make sure he's not harming his Bodybuilding V-taper.

Day 1160, the first Bodybuilding comp for the Noobs. Noob A beats Noob B through superior definition, however Noob B is now mug more muscular than Noob A.

Day Day 1400, Noob B has learned pre-comp dieting and is now three weightclasses above Noob A and will never lose to Noob A in a BBing comp or a PLing meet for the rest of his career. Noob B writes a book regarding his experience which is attacked as unscientific by the academia, but Noob A calls Noob B to ask for tips to get bigger.

Noob B tells Noob A his 'secrets', however Noob A is reluctant to change his program and diet for fear of losing his muscular definition.

Day 2500. Noob B ends his "bodybuilding" career far more successful than Noob A.

 

[Quiksilver]

Building on the above, I'll throw a wild 'unscientific' statement out here now:

In my opinion, I don't believe anybody should be training like a bodybuilder unless they're benching AT LEAST 275lbs, Squatting AT LEAST 405lbs, DLing AT LEAST 500lbs, and MPing 200lbs.

-

A more coherent form of what Kerpal was saying is: it's better to be doing 3x10x450lbs than doing 3x10x315lbs. And it takes a he'll of a lot longer to get there when training strictly like a bodybuilder. Kerpal--and I and COLOSSUS--believe it's more efficient to squat 405 through strength training and then begin increasing the rep range/volume, than it is to get to 405lbs through sarcoHT volume BB training by itself.

So then comes the anti-science statement: To get big, train like a PLer.

Which of course defies the science, which says: To get big, train like a BBer.

--

'Science' also says eggs are bad for me, when my blood work and health says the contrary. I sometimes eat dozens per week, and get ridiculed for it by 'pencil-necks' who took a lecture and read a book. Go figure right?

--

Science is not fact, it's the pursuit of fact. Which is why some us get a little annoyed at what looks like a religion of science, where people claim that the current snapshot of scientific data is the ultimate fact and truth, when science--by working definition--is wrong far more often than is right. To claim that something scientific is 100% infallible is to stunt the evolution of science in that field and halt the drive towards further understanding... Sounds a lot like religion, eh?

 

[Voice]

'Science' also says eggs are bad for me, when my blood work and health says the contrary. I sometimes eat dozens per week, and get ridiculed for it by 'pencil-necks' who took a lecture and read a book. Go figure right?

What 'scientist' says eggs are bad for you? Maybe if you are over 40 and have high cholesterol. Every single thing I've read says that eggs are the single best source of protein. I've had GREAT results eating a big meal of eggs the day after hard workouts.

Listen, that was a really good story you told up there but I still don't know what you are getting at. Of course you can mix up the routine and change the reps and weight around according to the results you want to achieve. I totally agree with you and it doesn't at all contradict any of my statements. Like said before, most of the people here are beginners. My OP is pretty much a general educational guideline. Just like you've said and experienced, the 6-12 rep range results in predominately gains of mass while lower reps leads predominately to strength and power gains.

Some guys want the strength and power and are hardcore weight lifters like yourself. Other guys just want the LOOK that they can lift a lot. I'm not trying to decide that for you. I'm only trying to provide the general guidelines for what you want to achieve whenever you want.

 

[Jitterbug]

No no, A powerlifting program will NOT have you gain mass faster than a body building program.

Wanna bet?

I always love it when those mirror bodybuilder pencilnecks at my gym rattle on about these things as I walk pass. I've only been lifting for 20 months and my progress in strength & muscles has far exceeded theirs. I'm 5'7", 200lb, BF 15%, lifts are 405, 275, 495. I was a skinny fat 160lb when I started and couldn't lift ****. My entire training is for strength, I don't pay attention to muscles, it's just a side effect. The same pencilnecks who were around when I started still look identical now, despite staring really hard in the mirror to see if their delts have increased 1mm in size.

Quiksilver, you're right about most things in that big post, except that your mirror bodybuilder Noob A will never get to squat 3x10x315 after a few years. 3x10x220lb is a lot more common, and it's high as a kite too.

 

[Voice]

SMH, I can't do this anymore.

I'll give you your goddamn article. It took me like a half hour to find something online, the abstract sounded great but it isn't even that great of an article for this. Otherwise I'd have to rip out pages and scan them for you. fvck that.

The Mechanisms of Muscle Hypertrophy and Their Application to Resistance Training
Schoenfeld, Brad J.
Global Fitness Services, Scarsdale, New York
(from Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 24 (10)/2857-2873)

HIGHLIGHTS…
Contractile hypertrophy can occur either by adding sarcomeres in series or in parallel.

The majority of exercise-induced hypertrophy subsequent to traditional resistance training programs results from an increase of sarcomeres and myofibrils added in parallel. When skeletal muscle is subjected to an overload stimulus, it causes perturbations in myofibers and the related extracellular matrix. This sets off a chain of myogenic events that ultimately leads to an increase in the size and amounts of the myofibrillar contractile proteins actin and myosin, and the total number of sarcomeres in parallel. This, in turn, augments the diameter of individual fibers and thereby results in an increase in muscle cross-sectional area.

Muscle is a postmitotic tissue, meaning that it does not undergo significant cell replacement throughout life.

Satellite cells are thought to facilitate muscle hypertrophy in several ways. For one, they donate extra nuclei to muscle fibers, increasing the capacity to synthesize new contractile proteins. Because a muscle's nuclear-content-to-fiber-mass ratio remains constant during hypertrophy, changes require an external source of mitotically active cells. Satellite cells retain mitotic capability and thus serve as the pool of a myonuclei to support muscle growth. This is consistent with the concept of myonuclear domain, which proposes that the myonucleus regulates mRNA production for a finite sarcoplasmic volume and any increases in fiber size must be accompanied by a proportional increase in myonuclei. Given that muscles are comprised of multiple myonuclear domains, hypertrophy could conceivably occur as a result of either an increase in the number of domains (via an increase in myonuclear number) or an increase in the size of existing domains. Both are thought to occur in hypertrophy, with a significant contribution from satellite cells.

Structurally, IGF-1 is a peptide hormone, so named because of its structural similarities to insulin. Insulin-like growth factor receptors are found in activated satellite cells, adult myofibers, and Schwann cells.
Although the exact mechanisms of IGF-1's mode of action have not been fully elucidated, it is believed that mechano-stimulation causes the IGF-1 gene to be spliced toward MGF, which in turn “kick starts” muscle hypertrophy.

Testosterone is a cholesterol-derived hormone that has a considerable anabolic effect on muscle tissue. In addition to its effects on muscle, testosterone also can interact with receptors on neurons and thereby increase the amount of neurotransmitters released, regenerate nerves, and increase cell body size

Although the effects of testosterone on muscle are seen in the absence of exercise, its actions are magnified by mechanical loading, promoting anabolism both by increasing the protein synthetic rate and inhibiting protein breakdown.

Growth hormone is a polypeptide hormone considered to have both anabolic and catabolic properties. Specifically, GH acts as a repartitioning agent to induce fat metabolism toward mobilization of triglycerides, and stimulating cellular uptake and incorporation of amino acids into various proteins, including muscle.

Growth hormone levels spike after the performance of various types of exercise.

When combined with intense exercise, GH release is associated with marked upregulation of the IGF-1 gene in muscle so that more is spliced toward the MGF isoform.

Although a physiological basis linking cell swelling with an anabolic drive is yet to be determined, it is conceivable that increased pressure against the membrane is perceived as a threat to cellular integrity, which in turn causes the cell to initiate a signaling response that ultimately leads to reinforcement of its ultrastructure.

Given that fast-twitch fibers are most responsive to hypertrophy, it is conceivable that cellular hydration augments the hypertrophic response during resistance training that relies heavily on anaerobic glycolysis.
There are several theories as to the potential hypertrophic benefits of muscle hypoxia. For one, hypoxia has been shown to cause an increased lactate accumulation and reduced acute lactate clearance rate. This may mediate increased cell swelling, which has been shown to upregulate protein synthesis.

Nitric oxide, an ROS produced during exercise, has been shown to mediate the proliferation of satellite cells, which would presumably lead to greater skeletal muscle growth.

It is hypothesized that 3 primary factors are responsible for initiating the hypertrophic response to resistance exercise: mechanical tension, muscle damage, and metabolic stress.

It is believed that tension associated with resistance training disturbs the integrity of skeletal muscle, causing mechano-chemically transduced molecular and cellular responses in myofibers and satellite cells.
Damage can be specific to just a few macromolecules of tissue or result in large tears in the sarcolemma, basal lamina, and supportive connective tissue, and induces injury to contractile elements and the cytoskeleton.
The response to myotrauma has been likened to the acute inflammatory response to infection. Once damage is perceived by the body, neutrophils migrate to the area of microtrauma and agents are then released by damaged fibers that attract macrophages and lymphocytes. Macrophages remove cellular debris to help maintain the fiber's ultrastructure and produce cytokines that activate myoblasts, macrophages and lymphocytes. This is believed to lead to the release of various growth factors that regulate satellite cell proliferation and differentiation.

Metabolic stress manifests as a result of exercise that relies on anaerobic glycolysis for ATP production, which results in the subsequent buildup of metabolites such as lactate, hydrogen ion, inorganic phosphate, creatine, and others.

The use of high repetitions has generally proven to be inferior to moderate and lower repetition ranges in eliciting increases in muscle hypertrophy.

Whether low reps or moderate reps evoke a greater hypertrophic response has been a matter of debate, and both produce significant gains in muscle growth. However, there is a prevailing belief that a moderate range of approximately 6-12 reps optimizes the hypertrophic response.
Although low repetition sets are carried out almost exclusively by the phosphocreatine system, moderate repetition schemes rely heavily on anaerobic glycolysis.

 

[Voice]

cont'd

Both testosterone and GH are acutely elevated to a greater degree from routines employing moderate rep sets as compared to those using lower repetitions, thereby increasing the potential for downstream cellular interactions that facilitate remodeling of muscle tissue.
During moderate rep training, the veins taking blood out of working muscles are compressed while arteries continue to deliver blood into the working muscles, thereby creating an increased concentration of intramuscular blood plasma. This causes plasma to seep out of the capillaries and into the interstitial spaces. The buildup of fluid in the interstitial spaces causes an extracellular pressure gradient, which causes a flow of plasma back into the muscle causing the phenomenon commonly referred to as a “pump.”
Moreover, the extra time under tension associated with a moderate repetition scheme as compared to a lower rep scheme would theoretically enhance the potential for microtrauma and fatigueability across the full spectrum of muscle fibers.

Although slow-twitch fibers are not as responsive to growth as fast-twitch fibers, they nevertheless do display hypertrophy when subjected to an overload stimulus.

Compared to full body routines, a split routine allows total weekly training volume to be maintained with fewer sets performed per training session and greater recovery afforded between sessions.

Prolonged periods of overreaching, however, can rapidly lead to an overtrained state. Overtraining has catabolic effects on muscle tissue, and is characterized by chronically decreased concentrations of testosterone and luteinizing hormone, and increased cortisol levels.

However, studies seem to show that overtraining is more a result of excessive volume than intensity.

Furthermore, the quest to train with a high volume must be balanced with performance decrements arising from lengthy exercise sessions.
Accordingly, it has been proposed that intense workouts should not last longer than one hour to ensure maximal training capacity throughout the session.

Moreover, muscles are sometimes divided into neuromuscular components-distinct regions of muscle each of which is innervated by its own nerve branch-suggesting that portions of a muscle can be called into play depending on the activity.

Studies investigating muscle activity of the long head of the biceps brachii show that MUs in the lateral aspect are recruited for elbow flexion, MUs in the medial aspect are recruited for supination, and centrally located MUs are recruited for non-linear combinations of flexion and supination. Further, the short head appears to be more active in the latter part of an arm curl (i.e., greater elbow flexion), whereas the long head is more active in the early phase.

These architectural variances of muscle give support for the need to adopt a multiplanar, multiangled approach to hypertrophy training using a variety of different exercises.

Specifically, the magnitude of postexercise hormonal elevations has been shown to be related to the extent of muscle mass involved, with multijoint movements producing larger increases in both testosterone and GH levels compared to single-joint exercises.

In all, it is estimated that over 200 muscles are activated during squat performance.

On the other hand, single-joint exercises allow for a greater focus on individual muscles compared to multijoint movements.
The use of single-joint exercises can selectively target underdeveloped muscles, improving muscular symmetry.

Moreover, the unique architecture of individual muscles suggests employing single-joint movements can elicit differing neuromuscular activation patterns that heighten overall muscular development.

Anderson and Behm found that force output was 59.6% lower when performing a chest press on an unstable surface compared to a stable surface.

An exception to the use of unstable surfaces in a hypertrophy-oriented routine involves exercises for the core musculature.

Moderate rest intervals appear to provide a satisfactory compromise between long and short rest periods for maximizing the muscle hypertrophy.

MUSCULAR FAILURE
For one, training to failure is hypothesized to activate a greater number of MUs.
Training to failure also may enhance exercise-induced metabolic stress, thereby potentiating a hypertrophic response.

Linnamo et al. displayed that performing sets at 10RM to failure caused a significantly greater postexercise elevation in GH secretion compared to the same load not performed to failure.

Thus, although it seems prudent to include sets performed to failure in a hypertrophy-oriented program, its use should be periodized and/or limited to avoid an overtrained state.

REPETITION SPEED
Other studies, however, suggest that training at moderate speeds has greater effects on hypertrophy, perhaps through a heightened metabolic demand. Maintaining continuous muscle tension at moderate repetition speeds also has been shown to enhance muscle ischemia and hypoxia, thereby augmenting the hypertrophic response.

Although concentric and isometric contractions have been shown to produce a hypertrophic response, a majority of studies seem to show that eccentric actions have the greatest effect on muscle development. Specifically, lengthening exercise is associated with a more rapid rise in protein synthesis and greater increases in IGF-1 mRNA expression compared to shortening exercise. Moreover, isotonic and isokinetic training that does not include eccentric contractions result in less hypertrophy than those that include lengthening contractions.

There is also evidence that eccentric contractions result in additional recruitment of previously inactive MUs.

Eccentric exercise also is associated with greater muscle damage when compared to concentric and isometric contractions. This manifests as Z-line streaming, which current research suggests is indicative of myofibrillar remodeling. It has been shown that MyoD mRNA expression is specifically upregulated by eccentric contractions.

The bold part is the most important. There is a lot of interesting stuff in the article actually. I WILL admit even in the article they say there is a debate. I'll let you have that. There is really no way for me to prove you wrong unless I did a study on it myself or a better study is done. Until then you can't really prove me wrong either. Personal stories aren't going to persuade me because there could be numerous factors involved with you and others.

 

[Jitterbug]

I see your bogus studies and raise you millions of powerlifters and weightlifters past and present who are nothing but a bunch of skinny no-muscle fellas....all because they never train for hypertrophy.

Wanna see their pics?

Why do the new generation of science students misunderstand the scientific method so much that they would argue in the face of hard data and empirical facts?

Go away, pencilnecks and labcoats. And maybe get under the bar and squat something heavy.

 

[Fuglydude]

Wanna bet?

I always love it when those mirror bodybuilder pencilnecks at my gym rattle on about these things as I walk pass. I've only been lifting for 20 months and my progress in strength & muscles has far exceeded theirs. I'm 5'7", 200lb, BF 15%, lifts are 405, 275, 495. I was a skinny fat 160lb when I started and couldn't lift ****. My entire training is for strength, I don't pay attention to muscles, it's just a side effect. The same pencilnecks who were around when I started still look identical now, despite staring really hard in the mirror to see if their delts have increased 1mm in size.

Quiksilver, you're right about most things in that big post, except that your mirror bodybuilder Noob A will never get to squat 3x10x315 after a few years. 3x10x220lb is a lot more common, and it's high as a kite too.

Hey man, congrats on the 5-plate pull and the other numbers are solid as well! When's your next meet?

...

Ah the eternal debate of volume vs. functionality... There really shouldn't a be a debate about this as there isn't truly a correct answer. The answer is whatever combo works for YOU to acheive your goals! I believe everyone has very unique metabolisms and as individuals progress as athletes and age things change.

I'm training for my first bodybuilding show, but I still lift heavy/low rep as well higher volume light stuff. I find with this combo I gain, albeit slowly, but can still maintain a certain strength baseline.

For beginners I definitely thing a modified lower volume program like starting strength is a great place to start, and will ultimately yield the best gains. This is because newbs aren't used to pumping out crazy volume as some of us vets have accustomed to doing over the years... in additional the "neurometabolic shock effect" (that's my own patented neologism!)... does something crazy to prime the body for adaptation and growth. Its basically your body say "wtf... I gotta grow to handle this shiiit".