I keep reading that heavy weight will recruit the fast twitch fibers whereas lighter weight will recruit slower twitch fibers.
Say for example I do 50 pushups and then hit failure on the 51st. Have I not recruited every muscle fiber???
It’s not black and white.
/thread
I didn’t learn anything from that reply…
Genetics, Intensity, Tempo, training experience, etc. have everything to do with it. You won’t just recruit one type of fiber. Look into CT’s layering system. I believe it uses the principle you are looking for.
You haven’t read enough then because the response was dead on
Look up Henneman’s size principle.
I understand you can’t isolate a specific muscle fiber type completely. I get that nothing in life is ever perfect, that’s not the point of my thread. I’ve read numerous times from Kelly Bagget and Brad Schoenfeld, that slow twitch fibers DOMINATE and respond best during higher reps (lower weight) and fast twitch fibers dominate at the lower reps end (higher weight).
According to Henneman’s Size Principle, I am correct in saying that every single fiber type (slow, fast, intermediate, etc.) is recruited during a high rep set to failure.
Take an example: An elite bench presser who is capable of recruiting 90% of all his tricep’s muscle fibers in a max effort bench. Say he reps out 40% of his max to failure and his triceps are the weak link. The beginning reps will fatigue (mostly) the slow twitch fibers first. Those fibers eventually run out of gas in the later reps where his (mostly) faster twitch fibers start taking over until finally he recruits 90% of his fibers on that last, failed rep. Correct?
If this is correct, why would you ever NEED to lift a heavy weight if the only goal is muscular hypertrophy?
[quote]oso0690 wrote:
I understand you can’t isolate a specific muscle fiber type completely. I get that nothing in life is ever perfect, that’s not the point of my thread. I’ve read numerous times from Kelly Bagget and Brad Schoenfeld, that slow twitch fibers DOMINATE and respond best during higher reps (lower weight) and fast twitch fibers dominate at the lower reps end (higher weight).
According to Henneman’s Size Principle, I am correct in saying that every single fiber type (slow, fast, intermediate, etc.) is recruited during a high rep set to failure.
Take an example: An elite bench presser who is capable of recruiting 90% of all his tricep’s muscle fibers in a max effort bench. Say he reps out 40% of his max to failure and his triceps are the weak link. The beginning reps will fatigue (mostly) the slow twitch fibers first. Those fibers eventually run out of gas in the later reps where his (mostly) faster twitch fibers start taking over until finally he recruits 90% of his fibers on that last, failed rep. Correct?
If this is correct, why would you ever NEED to lift a heavy weight if the only goal is muscular hypertrophy?[/quote]
Also the muscles fail as you cross the lactic acid threshold, long before all muscle fibers have been exhausted.
What’s the real question you’re asking? Hitting every muscle fiber isn’t the only thing affecting hypertrophy and strength.
Are you basically thinking… “if I find a way to hit every muscle fiber, it’ll make me bigger”?
Maybe… “can I just do pushups to failure and get a bigger chest without having to figure out how to go to a gym?”
@Ecchastang - I don’t know how I can be sure that it’s not lactic acid holding me back on higher reps. Does lactic acid dissipate faster than muscles can recover? When I am doing pushups to failure, the burn sucks and is uncomfortable, but I don’t feel like it’s the thing holding me back. That last rep feels nearly identical to the strain needed for a 1RM bench press.
@LoRez - The question came about when I was thinking about that study claiming lifters experienced similar muscle protein synthesis using 30% 1RM to failure. I then asked myself: why aren’t military personnel huge then?
My theory: Military beginners do gain muscle in the beginning because they can’t actually do 20 pushups. Therefore they’re continually repping to failure… and thus getting bigger at that point (assuming adequate food intake). Once they can hit 20 pushups, there’s no need anymore to go to failure (or close to), so they don’t. Thus, they no longer get bigger from that point on.
[quote]oso0690 wrote:
If this is correct, why would you ever NEED to lift a heavy weight if the only goal is muscular hypertrophy?[/quote]
Variety seems to be a key component of hypertrophy as well.
this is one of those situations where “a little learning is a dangerous thing.”
You need two things to build muscle: strain and burn.
Lift things that are so heavy you need to really strain, then lift something so many times it burns. Lather, rinse, repeat.
That’ll target all your muscle fibres.
[quote]oso0690 wrote:
I understand you can’t isolate a specific muscle fiber type completely. I get that nothing in life is ever perfect, that’s not the point of my thread. I’ve read numerous times from Kelly Bagget and Brad Schoenfeld, that slow twitch fibers DOMINATE and respond best during higher reps (lower weight) and fast twitch fibers dominate at the lower reps end (higher weight).
According to Henneman’s Size Principle, I am correct in saying that every single fiber type (slow, fast, intermediate, etc.) is recruited during a high rep set to failure.
Take an example: An elite bench presser who is capable of recruiting 90% of all his tricep’s muscle fibers in a max effort bench. Say he reps out 40% of his max to failure and his triceps are the weak link. The beginning reps will fatigue (mostly) the slow twitch fibers first. Those fibers eventually run out of gas in the later reps where his (mostly) faster twitch fibers start taking over until finally he recruits 90% of his fibers on that last, failed rep. Correct?
If this is correct, why would you ever NEED to lift a heavy weight if the only goal is muscular hypertrophy?[/quote]
I don’t think about which muscle fiber is firing, should be firing, or will be firing in the next rep while I’m lifting.
The only thing I’m concerned about is to propel that weight as fast as possible up there regardless of the weight on the bar.
@Yogi - That’s actually what I do now. Work up to a heavy low rep set then do lighter/higher rep sets after. It works. I get bigger doing so.
I just wonder sometimes if I could get equal hypertrophy gains with only high rep sets… It would be easier on my joints and tendons if so.
[quote]oso0690 wrote:
@Yogi - That’s actually what I do now. Work up to a heavy low rep set then do lighter/higher rep sets after. It works. I get bigger doing so.
I just wonder sometimes if I could get equal hypertrophy gains with only high rep sets… It would be easier on my joints and tendons if so.[/quote]
You won’t. There are some good articles breaking down the stimulus for muscle growth. Go read them. There other things than what yo trying. Also this makes you sound like a big pussy btw.
Ryan, why bother posting when no one gives a shit?
[quote]oso0690 wrote:
Ryan, why bother posting when no one gives a shit?[/quote]
Why bother posting when you haven’t read?
one of many factors I’d imagine would be neural adaptation. If you’re doing 135lbs on bench to failure for instance and never increase weight your 1rm max will increase but not by a whole lot, right? You’ll do more reps, sure. Now, lets say you work up to a 225lbs load for reps, your 1rm increased and I bet you can do 135lbs more times than if you hadn’t increased the load, correct?
There is more that goes into it than just exhausting muscle fibers with reps. The CNS and connective tissue plays a role too, if you stick with a light load forever you’ll just be good at lifting a light weight a lot. By increasing weight you increase the stimulus your body can handle in weight and reps and therefore will be able to do reps with more weight, achieiving a higher stimulus.
I wouldn’t say this was a stupid question, I see where you were going, but there is tons of evidence that shows this just doesn’t work because it isn’t that black and white. To the military training statement; keep in mind in most military basic training programs both sleep and food intake are going to be limited which will decrease recovery under a strenuous workload.
OP:
At first, I couldn’t decide if you were just another troll; and if you were, I’d either ignore you or embarrass you until you showed a more deferential tone.
After reading through your posts a second time, you sound like you have genuine questions.
The very first response you got is actually correct and the most succinct. And every single post after that has merit. I don’t know if you’re still on the fence about this subject, so here are some thoughts.
- The Henneman’s principle is often cited by different writers (who are often little more than hacks) to support whatever their particular agenda happens to be. So when others told you to read more on the subject, they’re right. I recently read an article in which the author cited farmers that lift 60 pound bales of hay and are able to deadlift impressive weight. I have known several men who were raised on farms and they weren’t exactly weak.
However, ask yourself this: why is it that the strongest lifters or the most muscular bodybuilders do NOT employ this type of strategy? Sure they may do something like it once in a while but the lion’s share of their training does not involve lifting submax loads all day.
So don’t just read one or two authors. As you read more articles and studies - each with its own interpretation on the best application of the Henneman’s principle - the deeper your knowledge base will be.
- If you think doing only high-rep work will keep you injury free, I suggest you visit some bicycling forums in which the posters complain about persistent knee pain. There are other examples in other sports in which the athletes perform submax movements yet still manage to hurt themselves.
And you can argue that they perform the exact same movements repeatedly and that you’ll avoid this by switching exercises. Well, guess what? When performing, say, a bicep movement, you’re still involving elbow flexion - regardless of the exercise. When performing leg work, you’re still involving extension of the knees - regardless of exercise. I’m NOT against exercise rotation - but it’s not as simple as that.
In other words, you’ll need to re-evaluate how you approach injury prevention.
- There’s literature regarding the conversion of fast twitch to slow IF one performs most of his work in a certain rep range. And there’s also literature regarding how the fast and intermediate fibers respond better to hypertrophy-style of training.
Therefore, unless you want to repudiate these ideas, you’ll need to consider the possibility that if you perform only high-rep work for an extensive amount of time, there is the possibility that your fiber makeup will eventually shift towards the slower end. And once this happens, you will MOSTLY have slow twitch fibers at your disposal (which is fine if you want to take up ultra-endurance sports - and look the part).
At this point, you can take significant time off - which in some studies have been shown to convert the slow back to fast. But what do you think will happen to any gains you’ve made up to that point…?
Or, instead of taking the time off, you can switch right back to the rep ranges in the intermediate range. But then that would be an admission of sorts that your original premise (doing only high rep work for hypertrophy) is inherently flawed.
There’s nothing wrong with high-rep work. It has its time and place and can be invaluable; just how much and how often is situational dependent.
However, if you stubbornly persist with your original line of thought - you’ll become just another wind-mill chaser that squanders his time and attains only imaginary victories.
[quote]PancakeOfDoom wrote:
If you’re doing 135lbs on bench to failure for instance and never increase weight your 1rm max will increase but not by a whole lot, right? You’ll do more reps, sure. [/quote]
I agree. You don’t get good at something you never practice and vice versa.
[quote]PancakeOfDoom wrote:
Now, lets say you work up to a 225lbs load for reps, your 1rm increased and I bet you can do 135lbs more times than if you hadn’t increased the load, correct? [/quote]
I agree that my 1RM will increase if I did 225lbs for reps (instead of it being my max) as well as my reps at 135lbs increasing. I do not think that I would be able to rep 135lbs as many times as if I had practiced that solely given the same time frame/effort.
But then either way, I’ve gotten stronger because I can do something I couldn’t before, right?
Would you disagree that if my bench went from 135x40 to 135x100, my max would probably be more than it was at 135x40? Do you think I wouldn’t be any bigger at all? Especially if I continually ate in a caloric surplus?
Unfortunately, there’s also a lot of evidence that shows the exact opposite of a lot of things too… such as all the studies on 1vs3 sets, or failure vs not to failure, or lifting a 30% 1RM load to failure = same results as an 85% 1RM to failure… Sometimes it’s difficult to conclude whether a study was done well enough. There’s no way to tell if the authors remained unbiased or hid information, etc. Even talking to the big guy in the gym about what worked for him… could be on steroids… could have been on a subpar routine for 30 years attaining what could have been attained in 5 years.