Karky - 22 August 2010 08:50 PM

Yeah, maybe this is why drop sets have been shown to work pretty well? You do high intensity low rep stuff and then finish it off with a drop set to get some volume.

Speaking about a devil…

There is an interesting research:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15574075
MUSCULAR ADAPTATIONS TO COMBINATIONS OF HIGH- AND LOW-INTENSITY RESISTANCE EXERCISES

Abstract

Acute and long-term effects of resistance-training regimens with varied combinations of high- and low-intensity exercises were studied. Acute changes in the serum growth hormone (GH) concentration were initially measured after 3 types of regimens for knee extension exercise: a medium intensity (approximately 10 repetition maximum [RM]) short interset rest period (30 s) with progressively decreasing load (“hypertrophy type”); 5 sets of a high-intensity (90% of 1RM) and low-repetition exercise (“strength type”); and a single set of low-intensity and high-repetition exercise added immediately after the strength-type regimen (“combi-type”). Postexercise increases in serum GH concentration showed a significant regimen dependence: hypertrophy-type > combi-type > strength-type (p < 0.05, n = 8). Next, the long-term effects of periodized training protocols with the above regimens on muscular function were investigated. Male subjects (n = 16) were assigned to either hypertrophy/combi (HC) or hypertrophy/ strength (HS) groups and performed leg press and extension exercises twice a week for 10 weeks. During the first 6 weeks, both groups used the hypertrophy-type regimen to gain muscular size. During the subsequent 4 weeks, HC and HS groups performed combi-type and strength-type regimens, respectively. Muscular strength, endurance, and cross sectional area (CSA) were examined after 2, 6, and 10 weeks. After the initial 6 weeks, no significant difference was seen in the percentage changes of all variables between the groups. After the subsequent 4 weeks, however, 1RM of leg press, maximal isokinetic strength, and muscular endurance of leg extension showed significantly (p < 0.05) larger increases in the HC group than in the HS group. In addition, increases in CSA after this period also tended to be larger in the HC group than in the HS group (p = 0.08). The results suggest that a combination of high- and low-intensity regimens is effective for optimizing the strength adaptation of muscle in a periodized training program.

I have full text if you need

I think I read half of that study once.. :p I have access to it.

I think I read half of that study once.. :p I have access to it.

From the low-load high volume study:

The subjects were instructed on proper lifting cadence based on verbal cues and a metronome set to 50 beats per min,
which corresponded to 1-s concentric muscle action, 0-s pause, and a 1-s eccentric muscle action

I think that 0 sec pause means that might be a occlusion involved in process.
Unfortunately haven’t find anything about tempo used in long term study

anoopbal - 18 August 2010 10:55 AM

I think the study is interesting and Anatoly makes a good point. It goes back to the question of intensity or effort.

I am guessing this might be a beginner effect and the intensity at which you see the peak of protein synthesis gets higher as you become more trained. the study needs an outcome measure study which looks at strength and muscle mass to confirm these findings and the author rightly says so” However, it is important to recognize that acute scientific studies simply supply the framework on which to build future training studies upon to directly test if a cause-and-effect relationship does in fact exist.”.

I think what the study tells us looking at other evidences is that
1. Protein synthesis levels have a peak. No matter how heavy or long you go, you cannot go over it
2. Volume is important variable for muscle growth.
3. Intensity or load is important, but not as much we thought of previously. Effort might be more important that load, atleast after a certain RM. For example, the 20 rep squat , the widow maker and so forth.

I just don’t like how they reported the design of the study. They haven’t really explained it well how they divided the groups. And I don’t know why they didn’t get it published in more well known journal than go for an online journal.

Anoop, in the above, #3 has my curiosity up.  I’ve just recently re-read your Hyptertrophy and Load articles on Mind and Muscle and am a bit confused with how this fits with your quote above.

From the articles, you seemed strongly convinced that load was by far the most important variable in hypertrophy training.  Even stating that the best growth program would be the best strength program.

Could you elaborate further on this, please?

bump for Anoop, please

Where did you vanish?

There was no direct study which looked at protein synthesis and load 6 years back. All we had indirect studies which shows increase in IGF1 and increase in damage with greater load. Hence my conclusion that load is the deciding factor. The recent studies shows that load is not linearly related to protein synthesis as we used to believe. Hence the change of mind. That’s how science works. Makes sense?

Let’s use some transitive logic here to ‘fill in the epistemological gaps’.

We don’t really know what loading/volume pattern best elicits net protein synthesis (i.e. over weeks/months, as opposed to immediately post-work-out).  This is hardly surprising, as the confounding variables on a months long trial would be impossible to control. 

And, we know that the acute protein synthesis findings (within 12 hours PWO) cannot be extrapolated to yield a linear and predictable hypertrophic result, given the equalising effects of circadian/diurnal rythyms (i.e. up-regulation of protein break-down/ down-regulation of protein synthesis following acute ‘spikes’ in protein synthesis).

So what can we do? Here’s my suggestion; let’s use some transitive logic based on what we do know about strength training.

We know that absolute strength is a correlate with the cross-sectional size of the muscle fibres, and we know that absolute strength is best gained by employing high loadings (80% 1RM and above).

Therefore, we can surmise that hypertrophy training ought to closely reflect strength training (A > B > C).

The only alteration may be that hypertrophic-directed training ought to employ some additional exercises to target muscle groups that are not optimally stimulated by traditional strength-directed training.  Loading protocols ought to remain strength-directed, however.

Simplicity of the saint, or simplicity of the fool?

Cheers
Mav

Enhanced Amino Acid Sensitivity of Myofibrillar Protein Synthesis Persists for up to 24 h after Resistance Exercise in Young Men1,2,3
Nicholas A. Burd4, Daniel W. D. West4, Daniel R. Moore4, Philip J. Atherton6, Aaron W. Staples4, Todd Prior4, Jason E. Tang4, Michael J. Rennie6, Steven K. Baker5, and Stuart M. Phillips4,*
+ Author Affiliations

4Exercise Metabolism Research Group, Department of Kinesiology, Hamilton, Ontario L8S 4K1, Canada
5Michael G. DeGroote School of Medicine, Department of Neurology, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario L8S 4K1, Canada
6School of Graduate Entry Medicine and Health, City Hospital, University of Nottingham, Derby DE22 3DT, UK
*To whom correspondence should be addressed. E-mail: .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address).
Abstract

We aimed to determine whether an exercise-mediated enhancement of muscle protein synthesis to feeding persisted 24 h after resistance exercise. We also determined the impact of different exercise intensities (90% or 30% maximal strength) or contraction volume (work-matched or to failure) on the response at 24 h of recovery. Fifteen men (21 ± 1 y, BMI = 24.1 ± 0.8 kg∙m−2) received a primed, constant infusion of L-[ring-13C6]phenylalanine to measure muscle protein synthesis after protein feeding at rest (FED; 15 g whey protein) and 24 h after resistance exercise (EX-FED). Participants performed unilateral leg exercises: 1) 4 sets at 90% of maximal strength to failure (90FAIL); 2) 30% work-matched to 90FAIL (30WM); or 3) 30% to failure (30FAIL). Regardless of condition, rates of mixed muscle protein and sarcoplasmic protein synthesis were similarly stimulated at FED and EX-FED. In contrast, protein ingestion stimulated rates of myofibrillar protein synthesis above fasting rates by 0.016 ± 0.002%/h and the response was enhanced 24 h after resistance exercise, but only in the 90FAIL and 30FAIL conditions, by 0.038 ± 0.012 and 0.041 ± 0.010, respectively. Phosphorylation of protein kinase B on Ser473 was greater than FED at EX-FED only in 90FAIL, whereas phosphorylation of mammalian target of rapamycin on Ser2448 was significantly increased at EX-FED above FED only in the 30FAIL condition. Our results suggest that resistance exercise performed until failure confers a sensitizing effect on human skeletal muscle for at least 24 h that is specific to the myofibrillar protein fraction.

How does this fit in? Is it possible that lower load exercise done to failure could produce greater total muscle protein synthesis with more frequent feedings over a longer period of time?