The mechanisms of muscle hypertrophy and their application to resistance training.
Posted: 06 October 2010 11:59 AM   [ Ignore ]  
Moderator
Avatar
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1103
Joined  2009-03-25

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20847704

PRACTICAL APPLICATIONS
Current research suggests that maximum gains in muscle hypertrophy are achieved by training regimens that produce
significant metabolic stress while maintaining a moderate degree of muscle tension. A hypertrophy-oriented program
should employ a repetition range of 6–12 reps per set with rest intervals of 60–90 seconds between sets. Exercises should
be varied in a multiplanar, multiangled fashion to ensure maximal stimulation of all muscle fibers. Multiple sets should
be employed in the context of a split training routine to heighten the anabolic milieu. At least some of the sets should
be carried out to the point of concentric muscular failure, perhaps alternating microcycles of sets to failure with those
not performed to failure to minimize the potential for overtraining. Concentric repetitions should be performed at
fast to moderate speeds (1–3 seconds) while eccentric repetitions should be performed at slightly slower speeds
(2–4 seconds). Training should be periodized so that the hypertrophy phase culminates in a brief period of highervolume
overreaching followed by a taper to allow for optimal supercompensation of muscle tissue.

I don’t have the full study, so don’t ask me
smile

Profile
 
 
Posted: 06 October 2010 12:03 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 1 ]  
Administrator
Avatar
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1358
Joined  2008-07-28

i went through it. Nothing really stood out. He talked a lot about GH and test increase with training. I knew that when he told me that Kraemer had asked him for a couple of revisions.

I will have to just go through it again someday to see if i can find anything interesting to write about.

 Signature 

Exercise Biology - The Science of Exercise & Nutrition

Profile
 
 
Posted: 06 October 2010 12:09 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 2 ]  
Moderator
Avatar
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1103
Joined  2009-03-25

From some reason I fill that “more fatigue + some tension” better for hypertrophy camp gets more support in latest studies.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 06 October 2010 01:27 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 3 ]  
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  223
Joined  2010-04-11

His practical applications aren’t supported in the research.

I’ve read one full study comparing 4-6RM with 11-13RM with equalized volume, the study found no difference in hypertrophy, even though the low rep group had a much bigger increase in type IIa CSA, I’m guessing it didn’t reach significance.
Muscular adaptations in response to three different resistance-training regimens: specificity of repetition maximum training zones
http://www.springerlink.com/content/t96qmxyaa7x7le0c/


I’ve read one abstract (don’t have access to the full text) that compared 4 and 10 rep also equalized for volume that found no difference.
The Effects of 4 and 10 Repetition Maximum Weight-Training Protocols on Neuromuscular Adaptations in Untrained Men
http://journals.lww.com/nsca-jscr/Abstract/1999/11000/The_Effects_of_4_and_10_Repetition_Maximum.9.aspx

I’ve only read the one full study and the one abstract, I can’t find anything else that compares low with intermediate reps with equalized volume and has hypertrophy as an outcome measure (most just measure strength and endurance)

When it comes to rest periods, I’ve read one training study comparing 1 and 2.5 min rest.
The Effect of Resistive Exercise Rest Interval on Hormonal Response, Strength, and Hypertrophy With Training
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19077743
- There was a greater hormone response in the low rest group at first, but this diminished and eventually disappeared as the study progressed
- long rest had sig greater change in arm CSA and a trend towards a greater thigh muscle CSA.

The only data I’ve seen in support of low rest periods for hypertrophy and the only studies that are ever cited to support this are short term acute studies on hormonal responses. First of all, they assume that the hormonal responses will stay different as the body adapts to the stimulus and second of all, they assume that the hormonal response will lead to greater hypertrophy. The first is not supported by the above study and the second one we have discussed here before so we know that the weight of the evidence is by far on the side of rejecting that hypothesis.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 06 October 2010 01:36 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 4 ]  
Moderator
Avatar
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1103
Joined  2009-03-25

If we compare same volume for different intensity we have same(near) results by hypertrophy.
But the truth is that I can accomplish more volume with lower intensity more easily then the intensity is high.
I can’t imagine someone do 60 reps with 6RM, not at one session, it’s simply not real
This task is more realistic with 15RM.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 06 October 2010 01:51 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 5 ]  
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  223
Joined  2010-04-11

That’s true, but then the question is, how much volume do you actually need? There has to be a roof somewhere. The recommendation you often see is 3x8-12. That volume is easily overcome by instead doing something like 10x3. The first study I cited also showed greater strength increases for the low rep group and possibly greater hypertrophy of the type IIa fibers. So if your goal is to get strong as well, then it could be a good idea to do low rep high volume training. Though getting 60 reps total in the 4-6RM would be pretty hard, but I don’t know if you actually need that much volume. I don’t know if any studies have tried to find the point where more volume no longer increases hypertrophy.

In the study I cited they used 3 exercises, the low rep group used 4 sets per exercise and 3-5 reps (not 4-6 as I said in my previous post). So 3x4x3=36 3x4x5=60. Their volume was between 36 and 60, which is pretty high. Granted, these were beginners, it might be harder to do that high volume at that intensity when you’ve trained for a while.

How you choose to get the volume probably doesn’t matter that much when it comes to hypertrophy (but it does seem you have to use more than a certain load, the study also used a high rep group with the same volume that had way lower hypertrophy), high or low reps, doesn’t matter that much. But from the current research, you can’t say it’s the reps that make the difference. But if you think getting the volume up there is easier with higher reps, and your goal is hypertrophy and you don’t care that much for strength, then you should do it that way.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 06 October 2010 02:05 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 6 ]  
Moderator
Avatar
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1103
Joined  2009-03-25

Great strength increases in low reps group are understandable
If I test my strength by 1RM weight in short term I’m always win if I use lower reps, since I train neural efficiency.
In long term I’m not so sure.
If I alternate high(moderate) volume period for 1 month(hypertrophy) with 1 month of low reps work(neural work)
I can get better results vs. low reps for all 2 months. Of cause I’m speculate now.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 06 October 2010 03:04 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 7 ]  
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  223
Joined  2010-04-11

Well periodization has been shown to be more effective than non periodization in some studies. So that’s understandable. But you could also just periodize volume and go with a low volume high intensity and a high volume high intensity phase or something like that. can’t know what would happen as I don’t think a study like that has been done. I’ve never seen anyone compare different rep ranges in trained individuals.

Profile