Mechanisms of hypertrophy

[dk8594]

Gang,

Found this today and thought I would share. Puts names to the different paths to hypertrophy and describes what programming takes you down which path.

-Long rest periods vs short
-Fast reps vs slow
-Whole body workouts vs muscle specific
-New muscle fibers vs enlarging new ones.

It addresses each and illustrates which path it will take you down (mechanical tension, muscle damage, metabolic overload) also throws in some basics on Ways testosterone and high support growth.

Dense read, but will allow you to evaluate the usefulness when someone says do xyz.

http://img2.timg.co.il/forums/1_158907702.pdf

 

[brock8282]

I like most of the stuff Brad puts out and he is a great person to follow for more of the science side of bodybuilding. Some studies done I just don’t think apply to enhanced advanced bodybuilders with the anecdotal evidence I have seen. With that said there is still a ton of great information in there.

for example the whole volume debate, the study he always references had guys going 30,40 maybe higher (can’t remember now) sets to failure per bodypart with results getting better the higher the sets went. In the real world I don’t see anyone advanced going nearly that high who actually know how to perform a movement to true failure with the significant amount of weight advanced guys lift. The longer you have lifted the better you are at recruiting motor units, the deeper into true failure you can push. At some points this year I’ve pushed my volume to 10 sets every 5 days and I ended up battered and regressing on my lifts quickly and I’m not someone who is genetically inferior in terms of ability to recover.

Don’t quote me but I also think the rest period data is out dated as I believe there have been several newer studies showing longer rest periods are better for muscle growth then moderate rest periods when total amount of sets done is the same,

 

[dk8594]

I like most of the stuff Brad puts out and he is a great person to follow for more of the science side of bodybuilding. Some studies done I just don’t think apply to enhanced advanced bodybuilders with the anecdotal evidence I have seen. With that said there is still a ton of great information in there.

for example the whole volume debate, the study he always references had guys going 30,40 maybe higher (can’t remember now) sets to failure per bodypart with results getting better the higher the sets went. In the real world I don’t see anyone advanced going nearly that high who actually know how to perform a movement to true failure with the significant amount of weight advanced guys lift. The longer you have lifted the better you are at recruiting motor units, the deeper into true failure you can push. At some points this year I’ve pushed my volume to 10 sets every 5 days and I ended up battered and regressing on my lifts quickly and I’m not someone who is genetically inferior in terms of ability to recover.

Don’t quote me but I also think the rest period data is out dated as I believe there have been several newer studies showing longer rest periods are better for muscle growth then moderate rest periods when total amount of sets done is the same,

He cites Wolfe's Quantitative analysis of single- vs. multiple-set programs in resistance training, but can't get my fingers on anything other than the abstract.

Agreed with what you're saying about volume. See it all the time in newer guys who do 20 sets of biceps 5x a week and still increase with each workout and most of us were that guy at some point.

 

[CJ]

for example the whole volume debate, the study he always references had guys going 30,40 maybe higher (can’t remember now) sets to failure per bodypart with results getting better the higher the sets went.

It was 45 sets. But to his credit, I've heard him say several times on different podcast that he would never program that, but that that's what the data shows.

He was saying how it shows the potential of a short, very high volume block for a specific body part, while everything else is on maintenance volume.

 

[brock8282]

here's the newer study he did that i cited where they ended up performing up to 45 sets per week for a given bodypart for any of those interested.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6303131/

 

[Seeker]

His 2nd edition to this is out now. It's called
Science and development of muscle hypertrophy 2nd edition. Lol. And yes, he has recently confirmed that longer rest periods are better for growth.

 

[brock8282]

It was 45 sets. But to his credit, I've heard him say several times on different podcast that he would never program that, but that that's what the data shows.

He was saying how it shows the potential of a short, very high volume block for a specific body part, while everything else is on maintenance volume.

yeah ive seen him say this as well but then you have guys like mike israetil (sp) cite it to claim that volume is the main driver of hypertrophy and then sell program's with ascending volume building up to these super high volume routines.

also i believe they did something like 60 or 90 second rest periods in the study, i believe if they would have done longer like 3+ minute rest periods the low volume group may have done significantly better then higher volume groups.

 

[BrotherIron]

Andy Galpin has a series out with scientific evidence in regards to sets, reps, weight, intensity, diet, etc... all for muscle hypertrophy. You may want to check his stuff out.

 

[CJ]

Andy Galpin has a series out with scientific evidence in regards to sets, reps, weight, intensity, diet, etc... all for muscle hypertrophy. You may want to check his stuff out.

I love Dr Andy!!! :32 (16):

 

[dk8594]

here's the newer study he did that i cited where they ended up performing up to 45 sets per week for a given bodypart for any of those interested.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6303131/

So I tend to nitpick these things, but if am I understanding it correctly the weekly volume was as such



Interesting that they came to their conclusion based on bicep (only indirectly trained) and thigh (45 weekly sets to failure) growth.

Hats off to those in the study who were able to train that volume to failure for legs with 90 seconds rest between sets. I puked just thinking about it.

 

[BrotherIron]

That's interesting. Dr. Galpin talked about some studies showing only 25 sets are needed for growth to take place in trained athletes and for those untrained less sets are needed to illicit a response from the body.