All this talk about powerlifting routines and how they don’t matter or how they can benefit a bodybuilder got me interested in the different types of hypertrophy associated with the two since I know very little.
To my understanding bodybuilding style routines yeild Sarcoplasmic hypertrophy…Which is mostly fluid???
Powerlifting syles create the more denser muscle from myofibrillar hypertrophy?
This sarcoplasmic hypertrophy sounds like crap…Is either muscle type more resilient? maybe during dieting or any other internal or environmental factors that can affect gains?
is there an optimal way to get the best of both worlds at the same time without commiting to one or the other for a period of time?
such as maybe during a bench routine starting with flat bench for 3-5 sets of 5 or less.
then moving towards bodybuilding style stuff like 3x10 incline and finishing with pumping style movements like flies or decline or something?
The question of how many sets and reps to do to maximize results is on everyone’s mind. Even top champions can fall into the trap of thinking there is some ideal combination of sets and reps they should do. Your chasing Bigfoot as there is no such animal in existence. The number of sets and reps you do is restricted by
time available
ones individual tolerance to physical stress
ones person recuperation level
When one finds himself posing the age old question of whether you should do high weights and low reps, or low weights and high reps, consider the ideal of high weight and high reps. Yes, this is easier said then done, but is this not a lifelong sport? This is a lofty achievement everyone should definitely work for. Those few that have managed it have huge muscles.
In my own experimentation with reps I have done anywhere from singles to 200 plus reps. I never got the “burn” in my muscle using under 8 reps. Even with 8 or less reps I know my muscles are responding from the work something else happens when I push to 12 reps. A burn would arrive sometimes accompanied by searing jagged pains in the muscles under stress. I often have to massage the pain out concluding the set as my muscles are screaming with pain. I feel these higher reps nourish the nerves pathways better along with putting more stress on the capillary and vascular areas that a literally forced to expand.
Instead of sacroplasmic growth from “the pump” being just extra fluid you have to consider the increase of these systems that are stressed as well. Your body has a much better ability to create more capillaries then it does to create new muscle fibers (if it even can has yet to be proven). Therefore, it could be argued that those extra few reps could result in a additional 10-15% of muscle although if you stick exclusively to them you will lose some of the extra size in muscle fibers gained in the lower rep ranges.
If your in robust health I would experiment with different intensity levels, as well as chop and change ones sets and reps to maximize muscle development. Personally, I would never recommend doing less then 3 sets of any exercise with a ceiling of 15 sets. Generally speaking, I would limit the number per body part to 15 as well although in some cases this could be justifiably broken (such as forearms and calves which require more work as they truly are high rep muscles).
All of this while keeping in mind that intensity should always be over 85% while working towards 100% of your potential intensity level, which is probably somewhere around 95%
[quote]paulieserafini wrote:
Okay I care now… teach me.
All this talk about powerlifting routines and how they don’t matter or how they can benefit a bodybuilder got me interested in the different types of hypertrophy associated with the two since I know very little.
To my understanding bodybuilding style routines yeild Sarcoplasmic hypertrophy…Which is mostly fluid???
Powerlifting syles of lifting create the more denser muscle from myofibrillar hypertrophy?
This sarcoplasmic hypertrophy sounds like crap…Is either muscle type more resilient? maybe during dieting or any other internal or environmental factors that can affect gains?
is there an optimal way to get the best of both worlds at the same time without commiting to one or the other for a period of time?
such as maybe during a bench routine starting with flat bench for 3-5 sets of 5 or less.
then moving towards bodybuilding style stuff like 3x10 incline and finishing with pumping style movements like flies or decline or something?
[/quote]
Myofibrillar hypertrophy is the increase in size of the muscle fibers due to progressive tension overload over time (the building of muscle) sarcoplasmic hypertrophy is the increased retention of sarcoplasmic fluid within the muscle cells (basically cytoplasm of the muscle cell) this is what gives the muscle that swole look that bodybuilders are after and is synonymous with endurance and lactid acid threshold, meaning to maximize it you would want to do quite a few more reps than usual. The amount of volume that is required to maximize both is not as high as people think. 90% of muscle gains come from myofibrillar hypertrophy and minimal volume is required to make the progressive overload that is required to stimulate myofibrillar hypertrophy. A good way to structure a routine is like this, I’ll use legs as an example.
Squats 3x6-8 reps (myofibrillar)
Leg press or hacksquat 3x20 (sarcoplasmic)
Leg curls 2x6-8 1x20
This is in my opinion the best way to train to maximize your efforts in the gym due to the frequency a routine like this allows for.
Dear god. We already bashjed this insane idea many times over. Do a search. There is no way in hell one rat study from Russia shows any of the bro science being spewed about this.
You can’t train for a certain type of growth like that and to make the statement that bodybuilders have more “sarcoplasmic growth” has no basis in any human study I have ever seen.
I think the whole myofibrillar vs sarcoplasmic thing has been debunked many many times. You get both with both kinds of training.
However, what is it that makes size-based trainer’s muscles larger than strength-based trainer’s, at a comparable level of strength? Intramuscular glycogen content?
[quote]LoRez wrote:
I think the whole myofibrillar vs sarcoplasmic thing has been debunked many many times. You get both with both kinds of training.
However, what is it that makes size-based trainer’s muscles larger than strength-based trainer’s, at a comparable level of strength? Intramuscular glycogen content?[/quote]
Frequency. Most really big guys are not only in the gym 2 or 3 days a week. They are in there 4-5 days a week and up often training body parts twice a week.
[quote]LoRez wrote:
I think the whole myofibrillar vs sarcoplasmic thing has been debunked many many times. You get both with both kinds of training.
However, what is it that makes size-based trainer’s muscles larger than strength-based trainer’s, at a comparable level of strength? Intramuscular glycogen content?[/quote]
Frequency. Most really big guys are not only in the gym 2 or 3 days a week. They are in there 4-5 days a week and up often training body parts twice a week.
[/quote]
Ok, I mean I know that’s in part how it’s achieved. Which, I guess, means inflammation could be a reason for the increased size too.
But a BBer who’s benching 225 is generally going to have larger pecs than a PLer benching 225. On the one hand, I understand that has to do with the degree in which the pecs are isolated or assisted by other muscle groups. A PLer is definitely going to be lifting that weight with as many muscles as possible.
However, given two people with equal strength levels (i.e., same 1RM or 8RM or whatever) – lets say on something like non-cheat curls – wouldn’t the person who trains within the 8-12 rep range have larger biceps than someone who trains within the 1-5 range? And if so, why?
[quote]LoRez wrote:
I think the whole myofibrillar vs sarcoplasmic thing has been debunked many many times. You get both with both kinds of training.
However, what is it that makes size-based trainer’s muscles larger than strength-based trainer’s, at a comparable level of strength? Intramuscular glycogen content?[/quote]
Frequency. Most really big guys are not only in the gym 2 or 3 days a week. They are in there 4-5 days a week and up often training body parts twice a week.
[/quote]
Ok, I mean I know that’s in part how it’s achieved. Which, I guess, means inflammation could be a reason for the increased size too.
But a BBer who’s benching 225 is generally going to have larger pecs than a PLer benching 225. On the one hand, I understand that has to do with the degree in which the pecs are isolated or assisted by other muscle groups. A PLer is definitely going to be lifting that weight with as many muscles as possible.
However, given two people with equal strength levels (i.e., same 1RM or 8RM or whatever) – lets say on something like non-cheat curls – wouldn’t the person who trains within the 8-12 rep range have larger biceps than someone who trains within the 1-5 range? And if so, why?[/quote]
wrong sub-forum Lo-Rez. The one you’re looking for is spelled beginners
[quote]Andrewdwatters1 wrote:
wrong sub-forum Lo-Rez. The one you’re looking for is spelled beginners[/quote]
Why do you say that?
Obviously (?) he who trains within BB ranges will have a larger cross sectional area, for the same strength level.
My question is what’s actually going on at a cellular level. I know it’s sarcoplasmic AND myofibrillar hypertrophy AND glycogen storage AND [probably] some degree of inflammation. But why does this occur more when training BB-style and not when training PL-style?
[quote]LoRez wrote:
I think the whole myofibrillar vs sarcoplasmic thing has been debunked many many times. You get both with both kinds of training.
However, what is it that makes size-based trainer’s muscles larger than strength-based trainer’s, at a comparable level of strength? Intramuscular glycogen content?[/quote]
A size-based trainer may be weaker than a strength-based trainer who is smaller because of the differences in neural adaptation. The strong small guy is able to recruit more muscle fibres to lift the load, but the bigger weaker guy has more hypertrophy of those muscle fibres.
Edit: fuzzy basically said the same thing I was thinking. neural efficiency/technique/fiber type are going to be much different in a BBer than in a PLer than in any oly lifter.
Sarcoplasmic hypertrophy is hypothesized to be the result of high volume training, based on the observation that bodybuilders’ hypertrophy appears to be different to that of powerlifters. Sacroplasmic hypertrophy represents growth of other non-contractile elements of muscle (connective tissues) and increases in cellular fluids. Bodybuilder’s muscle mass seems to show greater proliferation of the endomyseum tissue and much greater muscle glyocgen concentration (due to hypertrophy training being glycolytic). The increase in cell volume with is hypothesized to lead to greater contractile tissue growth.
Hypertrophy largely results from an increase in sarcomeres and myofibrils which are added in parallel,the result of “strain” due to overload stimulus; tensile stresses create pertubations to tissues and the extracellular matrix that results in increases in myofibrillar proteins and sarcomeres, increasing fiber size and muscle cross-sectional area.
If memory serves me correctly, I think that Vladimir Zatsiorsky may have popularized the idea in the west.
[quote]LoRez wrote:
Ok, I mean I know that’s in part how it’s achieved. Which, I guess, means inflammation could be a reason for the increased size too.
But a BBer who’s benching 225 is generally going to have larger pecs than a PLer benching 225. On the one hand, I understand that has to do with the degree in which the pecs are isolated or assisted by other muscle groups. A PLer is definitely going to be lifting that weight with as many muscles as possible.
However, given two people with equal strength levels (i.e., same 1RM or 8RM or whatever) – lets say on something like non-cheat curls – wouldn’t the person who trains within the 8-12 rep range have larger biceps than someone who trains within the 1-5 range? And if so, why?[/quote]
wrong sub-forum Lo-Rez. The one you’re looking for is spelled beginners[/quote]
Isn’t that a little ironic coming from you?
Anyway I think it’s an interesting discussion, and it isn’t really a beginner topic; it’s more of a science topic.
