I thought this might be useful info for the guys who spend time in the trenches.
I can see where this one’s going…
[quote]synergy93 wrote:
I can see where this one’s going…[/quote]
I know right. Study=too many implications and guesses and assumptions, along with the usual lack of real-life results to back it up. No worries t-nations, you can carry on like nothing happened here…
[quote]hungry4more wrote:
[quote]synergy93 wrote:
I can see where this one’s going…[/quote]
I know right. Study=too many implications and guesses and assumptions, along with the usual lack of real-life results to back it up. No worries t-nations, you can carry on like nothing happened here…[/quote]
ha! I didnt even bother clicking the link after your guys two posts.
So again, do we all just do aerobic exercise since that will combine low intensity with the highest volume?
That (cardio) will also stimulate the same measured pathways, which leads to the point, the measurement isn’t sensitive enough to the type of adaptation in muscle.
Here are a few other interesting points if anyone particularly cares,
This article is NOT in one of the primary exercise science journals, its in a free access journal. No-one goes for a journal like this unless they have tried elsewhere, been declined, tried somewhere else, been declined again, then felt it was important information to get out so have simply gone wherever they could (Uni may have an arrangement with the publisher to waive submission fees).
This likely infers it has been turned down by people who have extensive experience in not only research, but clinical practice. Don’t condemn everyone in exercise research.
Of interest, they refer to a 1990 study that did isolated isometric contractions for the training effect (yep, really relevant ;), but has not really been referenced at all which means NO-ONE CARES & there was issues with their (1990) method regarding the number of fiber samples they took (not accurate representation for change in fiber size).
And to finish, they have ignored any discussion/reference to published findings showing that this type of training (low load/high rep) is actually quite ineffective for anything other than local muscle endurance.
Interesting, kind of reminds of a bodybuilder and his routine by the name of serge nubret, most volume in a workout ive ever seen.
Ill stick to the heavy lifting myself thanks
Keep in mind, PLoSone is actually quite a prestigious journal and it is actually quite impressive that exercise data was accepted within it.
The ‘measurement is not sensitive enough’, stable isotope methodology is quite sensitive and especially since a heavy tracer and GC-C-IRMS methodology was used.
But in the end, do what you enjoy as consistency is really the most important variable for hypertrophy. However, keep in mind these data next time heavy loading is not possible (i.e., injury).
As with most high volume training like this, it works up to a certain point, but soon progress grinds. I can understand doing this temporary like before photo shoots/contests, but not long term.
All that is happening is local “inflammation”, a pretty standard response which doesn’t produce consistent results. Anyone can get this response by getting punched in the face 20 times a week 
Sooner or later, you’ve got to emphasise intensity for progression…
[quote]HeavySci wrote:
Keep in mind, PLoSone is actually quite a prestigious journal and it is actually quite impressive that exercise data was accepted within it.
The ‘measurement is not sensitive enough’, stable isotope methodology is quite sensitive and especially since a heavy tracer and GC-C-IRMS methodology was used.
But in the end, do what you enjoy as consistency is really the most important variable for hypertrophy. However, keep in mind these data next time heavy loading is not possible (i.e., injury).
[/quote]
Did you contribute to this article or are you familiar with those particular methods? Not being a dick, just curious cause I’d love for you to hang around if you are interested in chatting…
My point I was trying to get across is that its all good you’re using this nice flash method for measuring different protein signalling pathways, but what is the actual relevance of this for real gains in muscle? How can this measure be any good if it is trying to tell us that light weight reps to max, or a matched workload achieved with light weight, is actually equivalent to or better than a higher loading paradigm? And yes, real world evidence is important here. I’ve seen much of the work coming from this lab, and as much as the methods are quite precise for what is being measured, from a resistance training adaptation point what are we actually gaining from these methods? This isn’t going into insights gained about protein signalling pathways with different nutrition regimes, that’s great, but what else?
Is “light weight baby” actually what Ronnie means?
Again, why not just do relatively good intensity (relative to muscle load) cardio workout, which would achieve a much higher mechanical volume to achieve this effect on protein synthesis?
It would be nice if you hang around and chat about all this heavyscience if you are more up to speed on things with what is going on in that lab (you never know, we may get lucky and a real scientist might want to play not just guys who train lots and try to stay current)
[quote]its_just_me wrote:
As with most high volume training like this, it works up to a certain point, but soon progress grinds. I can understand doing this temporary like before photo shoots/contests, but not long term.
All that is happening is local “inflammation”, a pretty standard response which doesn’t produce consistent results. Anyone can get this response by getting punched in the face 20 times a week
Sooner or later, you’ve got to emphasise intensity for progression…[/quote]
Amen!
If I read that right, it was 30% of 1RM to failure on Leg Extension. I don’t about you guys, but that would well over 200 reps a set for me. Local inflamation would be the expected result.
Again, go out and full heartedly do this method (I didn’t bother reading) and see what results you get. Make sure to take before, during, and after pics.
What people don’t realize is the fact that there are more factors that contribute to muscle growth or fat loss that simply don’t show up or add up on paper. Just because one particular lift or style of resistance produces a spike in muscle activation or whatever doesn’t mean that while you sleep and recover and grow that any particular style will yield results.
I believe heavy as fuck deads and squats release more gh than exercises that don’t require you to exert as much effort. When your face contorts and the pain is almost too much to bear, then you’re forcing a result.
The body simply adapts to the environment and stresses in which it encounters.
Absolutely, you can not put much faith into static ‘snapshaps’ of anabolism (R.E. Myocellular signalling).
However, kinetic data gives you a much better idea of the adaptation that is occurring. In this study, the researchers have 1-4 h post exercise and also 21-24 h measurements. These data provide some interesting insight. More importantly, the low-intensity condition induced these significant increases in the myofibrillar fraction (which makes up ~60% of skeletal muscle) rather than the rapidly turning over sarcoplasmic fraction (comprises about 30% of skeletal muscle). So we can predict that over time there will be some muscle protein accretion.
Indeed, this 30FAIL paradigmn may simply be a ‘shock’ to the system and simply inducing muscle re-modelling (i.e., rapid protein turnover and less protein accretion). Regardless, still quite interesting!
As for the GH comment, exercise induced hormones at physiological levels are not anabolic towards skeletal muscle, its all local, and plenty of evidence to support this. Systemic IGF-1, GH, and T are down by 30 mins post-exercise… so this 30 min window is driving the adaptation-> ABSOLUTELY NOT.
[quote]HeavySci wrote:
Absolutely, you can not put much faith into static ‘snapshaps’ of anabolism (R.E. Myocellular signalling).
However, kinetic data gives you a much better idea of the adaptation that is occurring. In this study, the researchers have 1-4 h post exercise and also 21-24 h measurements. These data provide some interesting insight. More importantly, the low-intensity condition induced these significant increases in the myofibrillar fraction (which makes up ~60% of skeletal muscle) rather than the rapidly turning over sarcoplasmic fraction (comprises about 30% of skeletal muscle). So we can predict that over time there will be some muscle protein accretion.
Indeed, this 30FAIL paradigmn may simply be a ‘shock’ to the system and simply inducing muscle re-modelling (i.e., rapid protein turnover and less protein accretion). Regardless, still quite interesting!
As for the GH comment, exercise induced hormones at physiological levels are not anabolic towards skeletal muscle, its all local, and plenty of evidence to support this. Systemic IGF-1, GH, and T are down by 30 mins post-exercise… so this 30 min window is driving the adaptation-> ABSOLUTELY NOT.
[/quote]
Ok, here’s a question I’d like ur thoughts on. If you got these guys to do the 30FAIL protocol again, say once per week for the next two weeks, do you think you would actually see the same response? Or do you think this would show something like the repeated bout effect?
I don’t necessarily disagree with this study. Protein synthesis could be increased due to factors other than just rebuilding muscle. It could be due to increased substrate depletion. Which is not indicative of building muscle. There is also the fact that the quadriceps tend to respond better to longer time under tension. This does not mean that all muscles will respond as favorably. Higher volume load was most likely achieved during the 30% group. If the researchers made each do repeated sets to failure until the same volume load was reached, I can guarantee a much different outcome. I hate when researchers don’t take the time to put everything into context for the readers, or at least show the different angles.
Obviously, I still think that higher intensity training will be better in just about every way, but maybe the 30FAIL would be a nice finisher for leg day…
The protective effect of exercise has been proven for various activities and the low intensity exercise until failure would certainly not be exception. However, I have good confidence that performing the ‘30FAIL’ exercise mode after 10 wks of training would ultimately translate into training induced muscle gains as compared to higher intensities. 
Without a doubt contraction volume needs to be considered and is important variable driving anabolism. see below.
Resistance exercise volume affects myofibrillar protein synthesis and anabolic signalling molecule phosphorylation in young men.
Burd NA, Holwerda AM, Selby KC, West DW, Staples AW, Cain NE, Cashaback JG, Potvin JR, Baker SK, Phillips SM.
J Physiol. 2010 Jun 25. [Epub ahead of print]
I agree that lifting heavy is fun, especially when you are pressing/pulling greater loads than the person next to you!! I like this exercise RX just as much as the next guy: Pull the heavy deads and throw back a protein shake and call me in the morning.
But we can not forget the basic fundamental physiology principles (R.E. the Size principle) that we are operating with in.
At the end of the day, maximal fibre activation will build a bigger muscle, but there is more than one way to acheive this.
Ok, but the results from these protein synthesis studies are inferring maximal fibre recruitment, its not being measured.
The size principle is a force dependent descriptor (which people argue about as well, but that’s another discussion); just fatiguing someone doesn’t ensure high threshold motor recruitment. That’s an assumption which would then come back to just make your muscles tired, who cares how you do it, have your nutrition right and you’ll grow regardless…
So is the protein shake you throw down filled with Soy
Fiber type specific FSR is the next logically step… but the method needs to be refined, unless you want to sit and pull single fibers (which is impressive work!).
‘Soy protein’ those sound like fighting words… ‘Got Milk (proteins)’
Lets change tack and head down a more interesting path.
With absolutely no ‘research’ evidence to back this up I know of, I think rapid high volume accumulation will be more important for stimulating MPS than anything else, with the best way to do this being manipulation of load (higher) for stimulation of high threshold motor units combined with forcing repetitions (forcing a high volume) on minimal rest periods, more like a pause really…sound familiar?
I like to sit and pull a single fiber every now and then, yep I went there.
And who is going to guinea pig 10 weeks of 30%FAIL training for us, and show improvements in their local muscle endurance?? Someone who doesn’t train calves could do one leg 30%FAIL and the other leg, well, anything, and see what happens.
Ummm…
Aren’t quads famous for growing big from very high reps?
While other muscles aren’t?
And its stories like this (thanks to the other thread) that just piss me off, not cause of the story, but cause the researchers aren’t being responsible and getting the context of the results right.
Assuming those quotes to Prof. Phillips are accurate, that’s just terrible. What an overstatement of these findings and its going to lead to a whole new world of idiots who only ever take in 20g of protein, yes, that finding sucks too for issues with the study, and now are going to be repping it out to failure with light weight.
So caught up in the flash method without any decent training studies to back them up. This is the fucking ivory tower research that pisses people off, and I try to defend researchers cause I’ve worked with some good ones!!
So for guys out there like me trying to prescribe exercise, and get people to just fucking eat, and just fucking lift heavy weight, this is just going to give them another excuse to cop out. And we’re going to get another batch of young lifters frustrated they aren’t gaining appreciable size cause their heavy volume, light weight programme isn’t working.
Fuck em. I’m going to wreck myself in the gym tomorrow with the heaviest weight I can find, and I’m going to inhale hundreds of grams of protein, cause obviously neither of these things work.
Fuck it. Maybe I’ll just go do a real PhD and name the first article “You pussies can all get fucked”, followed by my method paper “Light weight is for bitches” followed by my main RCT named “If you don’t lift heavy and eat lots of protein fuck off”.
…
that feels better.