P.S. Pubmed probably accounts for most of the arguments on this site. I read the article, and it basically says that humans and animals don’t share the same fibre types, so textbooks based on those studies are unreliable. Wowee!
Stay away from pubmed, kids.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]Airtruth wrote:
The only true statement is Layperson is not an insult and I did not take it as one.
[/quote]
? Dude, you CLEARLY (to anyone with any science background) misunderstood some of the discussion surrounding fiber types. You assumed that the size of an untrained muscle fiber had jack shit to do with growth potential. You have people here with backgrounds in this telling you what the deal is.
You all ask why education gets brought up so much. This is why.
For some reason, you think the guy in the room who went to school for this shit is the clueless one.
That makes as much sense as this thread.
Hate all you want, but I wrote this shit to help you understand. It is up to you if you can even see that.[/quote]
Dude um no… I don’t think anyone who has posted has more scientific background then me.
The publication is not about fiber types but that “Exercise science and human anatomy and physiology” books reporting the results of a study incorrectly. To state more clearly study I linked is on what the vast majority of books report. People with a science background know that the building blocks of every curriculum are taught in the "101"s (ie Exercise and Physiology 101). In Exercise major’s which are becoming increasingly popular the Exercise Science and Human Anatomy books are publishing supposedly incorrect information, THEN students are basing their hypothesis on them.
By linking this I had hoped that all these SCIENTIFIC T-Nation’ers would have something to contribute to the validity of type IIB being larger or smaller in trained bodybuilders. Science the foundation of 90% of the coaches out there just had a major stone thrown at it.
The study would make sense in that in general bodybuilder are bigger than power lifters when comparing muscle of the pro’s
[quote]Sharp4850 wrote:
[quote]Airtruth wrote:
Yes the article states NON-TRAINED but the question is why do you BELIEVE that it’s any different for growth?[/quote]
Because bodybuilders (whose training requires greater use of type II fibers) have bigger muscles than marathon runners, distance swimmers, distance cyclists (whose training requires greater use of type I fibers).[/quote]
Marathon runners, distance swimmers and distance cyclist in general don’t lift weights. The few that due do so minimally. They also use up a huge amount of calories, keeping more of a deficit. Compared to bodybuilders who generally stay in a surplus.
The most explosive form of weightlifting would be Olympic, they also use heavyweights and a majority of them are nowhere near the size of bodybuilders pro or natural. Yet the assumption would be they train Type IIB almost exclusively.
[quote]Lonnie123 wrote:
The bigger question should really be…
EVEN if this is true how does that change the way YOU will train?
Me? I’ll still keep sticking to things that have worked for me to get bigger and stronger for years now. I would lift exactly the same had I no knowledge whatsoever of muscle fiber type.
Your lifting/eating/cardio should be based on RESULTS, not based on single pieces of scientific information shown in isolation.[/quote]
Congratulations on what you’ve accomplished so far but is that what you aim for? Because you had to do what you did to get there, and if you continue to do that then you will get to the same place.
If you were a personal trainer would you not stay educated on the latest information?
How would it change for me? it depends on my goal. If I believed the fiber type discussion of IIB than a Chad Waterbury 10x3r would be great, but with this new information I would probably switch to a 12 - 15 when I’m looking for muscle size, and use the 10x3 more for strength exclusively.
Being all about results is fine, but if it takes you too long to get there you can always be in 3rd place. For me unless my Result has me in First place there’s tweaks to be made and lessons to be learned.
[quote]Airtruth wrote:
Dude um no… I don’t think anyone who has posted has more scientific background then me.[/quote]
OK…it sure would be nice for all of that “experience” to show itself in what you write here.
[quote]
The publication is not about fiber types but that “Exercise science and human anatomy and physiology” books reporting the results of a study incorrectly. To state more clearly study I linked is on what the vast majority of books report. People with a science background know that the building blocks of every curriculum are taught in the "101"s (ie Exercise and Physiology 101). In Exercise major’s which are becoming increasingly popular the Exercise Science and Human Anatomy books are publishing supposedly incorrect information, THEN students are basing their hypothesis on them. [/quote]
Once again, THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH BODYBUILDING. Who the fuck cares if a textbook quotes that type IIb are larger? What does that have to do with the knowledge that certain fibers grow more or faster than others? Yay, you found out there may be some wrong info in textbooks…that relates to bodybuilding, how?
Your last statement doesn’t even make sense.
What exactly is your background?
I’ve been part of scientific studies…specifically a study done at University of Iowa on thrombomodulin gene research. I’ve done everything from running DNA through electrophoresis gel to dissecting the mice.
I also am a doc and they usually make sure we can read a study well before graduation seeing as our opinions are taken seriously from that point on.
You aren’t speaking to idiots here with no science background.
Seems to make sense to me.
a little off topic but…is it possible that after more than 50years of bbing there are thousands of scientific articles on hypertrophy and -until now- there is no consensus on hyperplasia???
and who cares??? LOL
yes, we all know that when we benched 150x7 we were smaler than when we benched 250x7 and so on …until 450lbs (natty) BUT again all this boogie-woogie about % of loads, reps numbers,rest times,etc etc is because SCIENCE -as often- didn’t get a serious replies.
also some says eat 4 gr of protein x kg bw,others just 2…
this is good because everyone of us could build his own way to get bigger (usually get stronger,eat healthy,train each muscle whatever you wanna to force it to become bigger).
so -like my coaches said - " stop talking and push yourself hard".
whatever training protocol you choose,10x3,30x10 or just one set.
this is the secret not type10 or Xmen fibers lol
signed by a simple mind (two degrees) man who just enjoy to lift (and eat) LOL
[quote]Airtruth wrote:
Dude um no… I don’t think anyone who has posted has more scientific background then me.
[/quote]
I would love to see follow up on this post.
[quote]Airtruth wrote:
[quote]Sharp4850 wrote:
[quote]Airtruth wrote:
Yes the article states NON-TRAINED but the question is why do you BELIEVE that it’s any different for growth?[/quote]
Because bodybuilders (whose training requires greater use of type II fibers) have bigger muscles than marathon runners, distance swimmers, distance cyclists (whose training requires greater use of type I fibers).[/quote]
Marathon runners, distance swimmers and distance cyclist in general don’t lift weights. The few that due do so minimally. They also use up a huge amount of calories, keeping more of a deficit. Compared to bodybuilders who generally stay in a surplus.
The most explosive form of weightlifting would be Olympic, they also use heavyweights and a majority of them are nowhere near the size of bodybuilders pro or natural. Yet the assumption would be they train Type IIB almost exclusively.
[/quote]
Endurance athletes train their slow twitch fibers like crazy and don’t hypertrophy. And if you think any successful endurance athlete is in a caloric DEFICIT day to day, you clearly have no idea what you’re talking about.
Obviously other factors come into play when hypertrophy is concerned, such as time under tension and the presence of eccentric loading (which are generally eliminated in weightlifting), but if slow twitch muscle fibers had as great a growth potential as type IIs, then you would see some pretty jacked marathon runners walking (running) around.
I quickly skimmed the article as I have better things to do, but the lumping together of type IIB and IIx fibers for the sake of their argument is histomorphologically invalid. There are a number of additional flaws in the interpretation and application of their review, particular how they have interpreted findings from different muscle groups to make some of their points, and of more concern the incorrect definition and interpretation of the size principle.
By and large an opinionated article rather than one demonstrating a systematic method for the review and data extraction, with poor interpretations and understanding. Should not have been published.
[quote]Airtruth wrote:
Congratulations on what you’ve accomplished so far but is that what you aim for? Because you had to do what you did to get there, and if you continue to do that then you will get to the same place.
If you were a personal trainer would you not stay educated on the latest information?
How would it change for me? it depends on my goal. If I believed the fiber type discussion of IIB than a Chad Waterbury 10x3r would be great, but with this new information I would probably switch to a 12 - 15 when I’m looking for muscle size, and use the 10x3 more for strength exclusively.
Being all about results is fine, but if it takes you too long to get there you can always be in 3rd place. For me unless my Result has me in First place there’s tweaks to be made and lessons to be learned.
[/quote]
Okay, Apparently this needs to be spelled out for:
You provided:
You did NOT provide:
You also said:
How has the scientific foundation of 90% of trainers had a stone thrown at it by a study showing fiber type size IN UNTRAINED INDIVIDUALS. How have they been getting all those results all this time? Do you honestly expect any serious training individual that has achieved a high level in this sport to see this study on UNTRAINED fiber type size and radically alter their training?
You keep missing the part about the UNTRAINED INDIVIDUALS. They have NOT trained with weights. They did NOT weight train. Is that clear? Again, these are people who DID NOT LIFT WEIGHTS.
I’m completely at a loss for how you expect this to relate, in any APPLICABLE way, to the act of lifting weights. Great… Before training a certain fiber type is slightly bigger in a small majority of people.
And again, we already know what works for getting big and strong. This study adds absolutely NOTHING to the body of knowledge that makes up body building and/or strength training… Because, again, IT WAS DONE ON UNTRAINED INDIVIDUALS.
Hey…“no one who has posted has more scientific background than him”.
[quote]SteelyD wrote:
[quote]Airtruth wrote:
Dude um no… I don’t think anyone who has posted has more scientific background then me.
[/quote]
I would love to see follow up on this post.[/quote]
homeopathic medicine?