Is increasing weight needed for hypertrophy?

[MaFi0s0]

To simplify my question before elaborating, is a workout with lower weight and higher reps following a workout with lower reps and higher weight going to encourage hypertrophy?

When Bryan speaks of "progressive load" is it literally load or could it be done through volume rather than weight?

The reason I ask is because I came across this article yesterday:
http://strengthandphysique.blogspot.com/2007/12/analysis-of-hst.html
Point 2 has been addressed by Bryan already but what interests me is point 3.

Now it makes sense because rather than targeting specific muscle fibers in 2 week blocks then giving them a break you would be targeting them each week.
But the problem is you cant go from 5 reps to 15 reps without decreasing the weight.

Apart from dropping the weight for the 1st workout each week another option would be to adjust the weight each set and use each rep range each day or atleast 2 rep ranges, 5 and 10.

So an example of what one exercise would be:
Set 1: 5 reps 50kg
Set 2: 10 reps 45kg

So I have given 2 alternative choices over the 2 week blocks, I am looking for peoples thoughts and to have this criticized.

 

[Bryan Haycock]

I know there are many here who can give you a more elaborate answer, but in short, a light weight will make all fibers hypertorphy a little, a heavy weight will make all fibers hypertrophy more. You can't really isolate fiber types.

Going from a heavy weight to a light weight will not encourage growth because the tissue will have become adapted to the ehavier weight making the lighter weight impotent to induce growth. Strength training is a different issue and involves manipulating "intensity" (i.e. fatigue) to allow for peaking strength on a specific date.

 

[MaFi0s0]

Thanks, that cleared some things up but raised another question for me, if a heavier weight will make all fibers hypertrophy more, why is it 5x5 routines dont put on as much mass as a 3x8-12 routine?
I have always been under the impression that the reason for rep ranges 1-5 vs 6-12 vs 13-20 was because it targets different muscle fibers.

 

[AnatolyR]

The fast twitch fibers (type II) has much more potential for hypertrophy and therefor if we want to recruit a fatigue them.
When you use heavy weight (more then 80-85% 1RM) you get fast fibers(type II) recruitment from the first rep)
When you use light weight (60-70% 1RM) those fibers going to be recruited only at the end of set, when your reps going to be "grindy"
I doubt if someone will get the same mass from 3x8-12 vs. 5x5
Because the volume is the same but intensity(and using of type II fibers) is much higher in second case.
You must also understand that there is a difference between miofibrial and sarcoplasmic hypertrophy

 

[abanger]

Komi @ ECSS

I know there are many here who can give you a more elaborate answer, but in short, a light weight will make all fibers hypertorphy a little, a heavy weight will make all fibers hypertrophy more. You can't really isolate fiber types.

Going from a heavy weight to a light weight will not encourage growth because the tissue will have become adapted to the ehavier weight making the lighter weight impotent to induce growth. Strength training is a different issue and involves manipulating "intensity" (i.e. fatigue) to allow for peaking strength on a specific date.

...This is something that further research is still, for example in connection with the occlusion effect, but as I said above is a main variable that we achieve full fiber activation and then you get into such a lot of reps at this point that the mechanical workload to compensate for the lower mechanical strain. Studies have also shown that protein synthesis is identical at 60% of 1RM as at 90% of 1RM, but we also know that when the muscle is accustomed to a given load area so the contrast (from low to high or from high to low) may be necessary to create muscle growth. Komi et al showed a presentation on the ECSS where they did not see any significant increase in protein synthesis in advanced powerlifters even if we increased the amount of training at the heavier weights. When, however, exposed them to light weights (around 20RM) saw a growth response again. Had it only been about mechanical load would not be easier weights than those 3RM charges they trained with regularly could create such a response. It is NOK explanation for the Nonlinear / non-linear accrual of heavy / medium / light weights in the same treningsuke has proven to be more effective for advanced practitioners (as a linear progression is as effective for beginners and middle advanced). Muscle growth is so multifaktorielt that there is much we still do not know with certainty.

MyRevolution Forum
​

 

[Bryan Haycock]

abanger, do you understand what Borge is talking about? I'm not trying to be rude, but you quoted him without any explaination. Are you refering to occlusion effects? Are you talking about the role of metabolic disturbances in hypertrophy? Or are you trying to say that reverse progression (i.e. going from heavy weight loads to light weight loads) is the way for "advanced practitioners"?

 

[abanger]

abanger, do you understand what Borge is talking about? I'm not trying to be rude, but you quoted him without any explaination. Are you refering to occlusion effects? Are you talking about the role of metabolic disturbances in hypertrophy? Or are you trying to say that reverse progression (i.e. going from heavy weight loads to light weight loads) is the way for "advanced practitioners"?

Bryan, the relevant discussions are linked after the quotes. Here's another:

Except that there's a lot of evidence pointing to heavy+light either within the same workout or microcycle/week being better than just lifting heavy or just lifting light (and high volume). Komi (look him up on Pubmed) had a presentation at the ECSS in June showing that advanced powerlifters and weightlifters barely showed a training effect or protein synthesis response with heavy loading, even if they increased volume. Then switched one group to lighter loads and higher volume - I think it was about 60% of 1RM or in the vicinity of that - and they saw a huge increase in MPS.

BodyRecomposition Support Forums

Borge's "advanced concept" is based on daily undulating periodization:

The explanation is that you get trained with both heavy and light weights in the course of a week with a nonlinear or DUP program, and for more advanced practitioners have shown that just lifting heavy or light lifting only lead to stagnation rather quickly. There are probably several reasons for this, but more advanced lifters can expose both the joints, muscles and nervous system of higher stress level with heavier weights as sessions with light weights in between provides a restorative respite effect. It is also additive effects in terms of muscle growth, such as occlusion / høyrepsstudiene shows - although heavy weights provides the highest mechanical strain and stimulation, then light weights activate alternative signals, increase blood flow and glycogen stores. Previous studies have shown that the combination of heavy and light weights in the workout was more effective than heavy or just light weights. To vary between heavy, medium and light weights in this nonlinear study is probably even more effectively - but so far no studies have compared this directly.

Nonlinear better than linear periodization for strength
​

 

[Lol]

Except that there's a lot of evidence pointing to heavy+light either within the same workout or microcycle/week being better than just lifting heavy or just lifting light (and high volume). Komi (look him up on Pubmed) had a presentation at the ECSS in June showing that advanced powerlifters and weightlifters barely showed a training effect or protein synthesis response with heavy loading, even if they increased volume. Then switched one group to lighter loads and higher volume - I think it was about 60% of 1RM or in the vicinity of that - and they saw a huge increase in MPS.

Is volume being used in the sense of load x total reps? If it is, then the group subjected to higher volume with reduced loading were obviously increasing total TUT.

How much volume were the advanced powerlifters and weightlifters actually doing and how much was the volume increased in real terms? How 'huge' was the huge increase in MPS? To me, this all seems a bit vague. Also, at the highest levels of PLing, drugs and hormone levels are probably going to play a large roll in any progress.

When you take someone like Mike Tuchscherer (over at http://www.reactivetrainingsystems.com -- big strong guy who seems to be doing all his training without the aid of AS) it seems pretty apparent that even at the very highest levels of PL training, heavy and frequent loading can still elicit enough of a PS response for him to continually make incremental improvements in all his lifts. His training volume is carefully controlled to allow him to train frequently with heavy loading but without frying his CNS.

I somehow doubt that anyone classified as an advanced lifter is going to make huge increases in MPS whatever they do, and especially not by lowering the loads dramatically. What could the mechanism(s) for such a huge response be?

So, the only thing that I can think of as a reason for this 'huge increase in MPS' is that there was a large enough increase in volume; but then I still find it hard to see how this would work so well for any advanced lifter. At advanced levels it's going to be really hard to make small incremental improvements -- unless the record books are all suddenly being rewritten following the Komi presentation.

 

[AnatolyR]

It might be "new" stimulus effect.
For someone who consistently(years of training) workout with high load switching to light load and much more volume might be benificial
For some time.

 

[Bryan Haycock]

Muscular adaptations to combinations of high- and low-intensity resistance

I think this study is a good example of what abanger is trying to express.


Goto K, et al. Muscular adaptations to combinations of high- and low-intensity resistance exercises. J Strength Cond Res. 2004 Nov;18(4):730-7.

Acute and long-term effects of resistance-training regimens with varied
combinations of high- and low-intensity exercises were studied. Acute changes in
the serum growth hormone (GH) concentration were initially measured after 3 types
of regimens for knee extension exercise: a medium intensity (approximately 10
repetition maximum [RM]) short interset rest period (30 s) with progressively
decreasing load ("hypertrophy type"); 5 sets of a high-intensity (90% of 1RM) and
low-repetition exercise ("strength type"); and a single set of low-intensity and
high-repetition exercise added immediately after the strength-type regimen
("combi-type"). Postexercise increases in serum GH concentration showed a
significant regimen dependence: hypertrophy-type > combi-type > strength-type (p
< 0.05, n = 8). Next, the long-term effects of periodized training protocols with
the above regimens on muscular function were investigated. Male subjects (n = 16)
were assigned to either hypertrophy/combi (HC) or hypertrophy/ strength (HS)
groups and performed leg press and extension exercises twice a week for 10 weeks.

During the first 6 weeks, both groups used the hypertrophy-type regimen to gain
muscular size. During the subsequent 4 weeks, HC and HS groups performed
combi-type and strength-type regimens, respectively. Muscular strength,
endurance, and cross sectional area (CSA) were examined after 2, 6, and 10 weeks.
After the initial 6 weeks, no significant difference was seen in the percentage
changes of all variables between the groups. After the subsequent 4 weeks,
however, 1RM of leg press, maximal isokinetic strength, and muscular endurance of
leg extension showed significantly (p < 0.05) larger increases in the HC group
than in the HS group. In addition, increases in CSA after this period also tended
to be larger in the HC group than in the HS group (p = 0.08). The results suggest
that a combination of high- and low-intensity regimens is effective for
optimizing the strength adaptation of muscle in a periodized training program.


This and other studies demonstrate the importance of metabolic stress to facilitate hypertrophy. This is why it is suggested that people do drop sets during the 5s. It is also the basis of many different name-brand routines that encourage short rest periods and high-ish reps.

 

[abanger]

Max-Stimulation

This and other studies demonstrate the importance of metabolic stress to facilitate hypertrophy. This is why it is suggested that people do drop sets during the 5s. It is also the basis of many different name-brand routines that encourage short rest periods and high-ish reps.

Paging Dan Moore:

The Switch
It has been noted by many researchers that protein synthesis does not occur for several hours after the exercise is completed (34-36). Recent work (37) has identified one possible mechanism that can be the cause. Called the “AMPK-AKT” switch (37), this switching of translational events leading to protein synthesis can be seen during the difference in exercise mode. Long duration endurance type activity causes increased activity in AMPK (5'AMP-activated protein kinase) this kinase then turns on events that switches off events that use ATP for anything other than fuel replenishment inside the cell, including the mTOR activated protein synthesis chain.

Max Stimulation
​

 

[Bryan Haycock]

Once again abanger, I'm not sure what you mean by simply copy/pasting quotes. Are you suggesting that the studies that demonstrate greater hypertrophy with at least some metabolic stress (including occlusion studies) contradict your quote from Dan?

Or are you saying that there is a difference between muscle activity that requires high rates of beta oxidation (known to activate AMPk) and the type of metabolic stress brought on by high activity of glycolytic pathways brought on by hypoxic states?

 

[dkm1987]

That study though was hugely reliant on the hypothesis of increased GH concentrations conferring increased hypertrophy, which may not be the case.
See Doessing et al Jphysiol 2009 and West et al JPhysiol 2009.

I don't think this is what Borge is getting at, his ideas are more revolved around the high rep sets being another means of achieving high activation levels. Regardless of high metabolic accumulation.

High metabolic accumulation may not be advantageous as seen in the studies referenced above and in fact a recent study in which rats performed 16 concentric reps per day (standing up to reach food) while weighted with 80-95% of MVSC saw little to no accumulation of lactate. Yet the plantaris and soleus muscles increased CSA substantially. The reps were performed in a manner that did not achieve a high level of metabolic acidosis, ie there were 8 reps performed in the morning with 3 minutes of rest between each rep then the same again in the evening. This was done 2X week for 12 weeks. Plantaris and Soleus muscle CSA increased some 29 and 22% respectively. Serum lactate did not significantly increase when measured 1 minute after exercise.

 

[dkm1987]

Is volume being used in the sense of load x total reps? If it is, then the group subjected to higher volume with reduced loading were obviously increasing total TUT.

How much volume were the advanced powerlifters and weightlifters actually doing and how much was the volume increased in real terms? How 'huge' was the huge increase in MPS? To me, this all seems a bit vague. Also, at the highest levels of PLing, drugs and hormone levels are probably going to play a large roll in any progress.

When you take someone like Mike Tuchscherer (over at http://www.reactivetrainingsystems.com -- big strong guy who seems to be doing all his training without the aid of AS) it seems pretty apparent that even at the very highest levels of PL training, heavy and frequent loading can still elicit enough of a PS response for him to continually make incremental improvements in all his lifts. His training volume is carefully controlled to allow him to train frequently with heavy loading but without frying his CNS.

I somehow doubt that anyone classified as an advanced lifter is going to make huge increases in MPS whatever they do, and especially not by lowering the loads dramatically. What could the mechanism(s) for such a huge response be?

So, the only thing that I can think of as a reason for this 'huge increase in MPS' is that there was a large enough increase in volume; but then I still find it hard to see how this would work so well for any advanced lifter. At advanced levels it's going to be really hard to make small incremental improvements -- unless the record books are all suddenly being rewritten following the Komi presentation.

Bingo, right on, nailed it, and so forth