…if training and getting stronger in the “hypertrophy” range?
I don´t get that.
You can get stronger via the cns or hypertrophy.
If you don´t train in the maximum strenght range but in the “hypertrophy range” AND get stronger-why shouldn´t someone get bigger too?
thats a point i never understood. Sure the answers break then down to eating enough-but when you get srtonger in the hyp range FROM WHERE COMES THE STRENGTH if you don´t get bigger/stronger via sarcomer or sarcoplasmatic hypertrophy?
just because you do 12 reps doesnt mean that your body turns off cns efficiency and myofibril growth and only focuses on sarcoplasmic growth… youre getting a bit of everything all the time…
LOL. And the phenomenon with no proof continues to grow.
This is just like “roid rage”. It may not exist, but damn it, that won’t stop them from pretending it does until so many people believe it, it may as well be true.
At least in my experience, that is. I had 16 inch arms and 24 inch legs $when i first started reading T-Nation 2 years ago. My arms are above 18 after working out even know when dieting down, and my legs are now 26, down from 27 when i weighed 252.
I personally think that sarcoplasmic hypertrophy concepts are a scientifically irrelevant and were originally created to just get people to do Higher or lower reps instead of sticking in the 6-12 range for the rest of their lives.
[quote]stevo_ wrote:
Q - Why Would Someone NOT Get Bigger?
A - Beacuse they worry about shit like this.[/quote]
yeah eh? dont worry about all this science type jibberish. Just get your ass into a gym and lift some weights. TMUSCLE has enough well explained articles to get you anywhere you might want to go, porno mag and lube in hand.
At least in my experience, that is. I had 16 inch arms and 24 inch legs $when i first started reading T-Nation 2 years ago. My arms are above 18 after working out even know when dieting down, and my legs are now 26, down from 27 when i weighed 252.
I personally think that sarcoplasmic hypertrophy concepts are a scientifically irrelevant and were originally created to just get people to do Higher or lower reps instead of sticking in the 6-12 range for the rest of their lives.
Clever, but causes a mess.[/quote]
It wasn’t clever at all. When these personal trainers do shit like create scientific mountains out of theoretical ant hills, all they cause is confusion in the long run. That is why these newbs actually believe that the muscle you build doing a certain number of reps is somehow structurally different than the muscle built in another rep range.
That is why they are confused enough to believe that you either train for STRENGTH or SIZE but that both are so different than they need special attention for each.
98% of the people reading these articles need to shut the fucking computer off and would be far better suited by getting a gym membership that gets used daily, a college level biology and A&P book, and following what the really big guys are doing.
Sadly, because of this personal trainer promoted confusion, there are far fewer big guys even around lately.
[quote]science wrote:
…if training and getting stronger in the “hypertrophy” range?
I don�´t get that.
You can get stronger via the cns or hypertrophy.
If you donÃ?´t train in the maximum strenght range but in the “hypertrophy range” AND get stronger-why shouldnÃ?´t someone get bigger too?
thats a point i never understood. Sure the answers break then down to eating enough-but when you get srtonger in the hyp range FROM WHERE COMES THE STRENGTH if you don�´t get bigger/stronger via sarcomer or sarcoplasmatic hypertrophy?
You know how you don’t get bigger by lifting weights in the hypertrophy range? I’m not sure because I do not know what the hypertrophy range is. However, I can say that when I am working 80 hours a week, I need a lot of sleep to grow, and a lot of food. Which reminds me I need to buy more baby wipes and shave my ass.
The rep range model is not clear cut, more a continuum. Training for maximum strength can give you mass gains and training for mass can give you strength gains.
Things are much more complicated than just "cns adaptation and “hypertrophy.” Hypertrophy itself is defined as “the result of increased protein synthesis and decreased protein degradation, which leads to increases accumulation of proteins within the muscle cell.”
There are two types of hypertrophy, Myofibrillar and sarcoplasmic.
“In myofibillar hypertrophy, more actin, myosin, and other asociated proteins are added to those already existing in the cell. More contricle elements within the cell means more actin/myosin interactions and more force production. This type of hypertrophy is typical of low-repetition, high-intensity training. It adds less mass but produces greater increases in the force generated per unit area of muscle than the second type of hypertrophy, sarcoplasmic hypertrophy. In sacoplasmic hypertrophy there are more cytoplasmic and metabolic substrate accumulations than in myofibillar hypertrophy. Lower-intensity, high-volume training produces a significant addition of myofibrillar elements, but less than that added by high-intensity, lower-volume work.”
Also, I believe that after the beginners stage of training, most gains in strength can be accounted for by muscle growth.
Edit: Both types of hypertrophy mentioned above refer to “cell hypertrophy” which is the enlargement of individual cells, not “cell hyperpalastia” which is an increase in the cell numbers. “The works of Phil Gollnick and Ben Timson clearly demonstrate than cell hypertrophy is responsible for muscle hypertrophy.”
Quotes taken from Practical Programming for Strength Training.
LOL. And the phenomenon with no proof continues to grow.
This is just like “roid rage”. It may not exist, but damn it, that won’t stop them from pretending it does until so many people believe it, it may as well be true.[/quote]
X, I dont think you understood my comment. I was saying you CANNOT train one type of muscle growth with any type of rep range (i.e. high = sarcoplasm, low = myofibril). I assume you meant to say that targeting one vs another is a phenomenon - which I AGREE with. I know the word “sarcoplasm” usually conjures up a big argument, so I can see why you would’ve jumped to the conclusion.
To quote “Crazy Eyes Killer” on “Curb Your Enthusiasm”…“Motherfucker, what the fuck???” Lift, eat, sleep, repeat consistently. Stop the fucking bullshit, please !!!
