Discussion in 'Hypertrophy-Specific Training (HST)' started by Jester, May 31, 2018.
Hey max stun you wrote, I know typo but gives a funny mental image lol
Apple’s autocorrect being overly active, as always...
LOL I know how that goes, but sometimes the auto IN correct (lol) creates something amusing!
Cluster training is likely superior for strength and power, and may be better when working with heavy (5RM+) loads, but given the potentiating effect of metabolic stress it is likely inferior to straight sets (or Myo-reps) at lighter loads.
So Dan was on to something when he pointed out the importance of volume/work for hypertrophy, but Max-Stim is IMHO missing a crucial ingredient if you want maximal hypertrophy.
What about PITT-Force? I remember when Dan first started Max Stim, Nicole posted how she found it, and it was similar to Karsten's PITT-Force. PITT-Force was almost 1/2 between myo reps and max stim, it's more like Myo-Reps but with heavier loads (rest pause, high fatigue, heavy loads). Of course, like you've pointed out, various loads can cause equal stimulation.
PITT-Force is just about the same thing, and I believe it uses heavier loads, yes.
Awesome, thanks Jester.
Yeah see it was always this that confused me, which you've clarified here. The relationship between continuous time under tension and hypertrophy. So continuous tension is needed for higher reps due to a different pathway (metabolic stress), whereas for lower reps/heavier weights a different pathway and subsequent hypertrophy trigger is working here (mechanical strain/tension), hence why you can use Max-Stim (and don't need the muscle under constant tension or as long a tension time as you would in lighter weights).
Would this be accurate? Because those training styles which only view training as a mathematics equation (work= weight x volume) doesn't sit well with me, it seems more than that, and it's not so conceptual and logical...
Yes, that is also in line with Bryan’s previous posts - and one might even consider minimizing the metabolic stress component towards the very end of the HST cycle to prolong the SD period for the metabolic pathways, and focus on the more mechanical component.
This is just my hypothesis, and we don’t have any good data to tell us whether this makes any difference at all - so it would be great to have Bryan weigh in on it.
Ah cool, cheers for that. Yep makes sense, and even having that semi-SD from each type makes sense too. I've seen programs even start a cycle with heavier stuff, and end with more metabolic style work, as they've upped their strength from the first phase and can use heavier weights for the higher rep phase. But I like the HST way, as it has still has both, but allows progressive load throughout the entire cycle.
So in the end, Lyle has always had it right?
2x3x12-15. Metabolic stress.
Twice per week.
I'm still myself not sold on the whole muscle tension idea... it seems stimulation is so much 'per fiber', and fibers don't create less tension with lesser loads, they just create their full tension less often until fatigue increases...
I’m using the word tension as a synonym for load. I could swap with that, or intensity etc.
Tension is simply the force experienced due to muscle being loaded. Heavier load = more tension.
And one thing is indisputably clear; if you want to gain muscle continuously, the load applied has to increase over time - progressive overload. Doesn’t matter if you’re training with 1RM, 5Rm, 10RM or 20RM ... that number needs to go up as the months and years continue.
Lyle’s Generic Bulking Routine simply covers heavier loads, metabolic work, and a frequency that the literature supports - i.e. we aren’t talk once a fortnight workouts.
I understand the concept, but am fairly certain I disagree with the premise that tension do don’t increase across the fibers as load goes up.
Let’s assume we are at 83-85% or more, sufficiently warmed up etc.
All muscle fibers are now recruited. When load goes up, how is it being transferred to the tendon if not via the individual fibers?
And ultimately, I feel the distinction comes down to semantics (i.e. the differences in subjective meaning and use of words) rather than a practical outcome or application.
Lift heavy enough, eat enough, often enough, repeat. That is 90% of it, maybe even more.
This study is looking at how often it happens (synchronization) but in general you can see that two MU's can be recruited yet most of the time are 'taking turns' firing, not both just purely 'on'.
Plus again, you can't put tension on a fiber, it 'creates' tension when activated and it creates the tension proportional to the number of parallel crossbridges it contains (roughly the number of fibrils in parallel).
Synchronization of motor-unit firings in several human muscles.
De Luca CJ1, Roy AM, Erim Z.
1. Synchronization of concurrently active motor-unit firings was studied in six human muscles performing isometric constant-force contractions at 30% of the maximal level. The myoelectric signal was detected with a quadrifilar needle electrode and was decomposed into its constituent motor-unit action-potential trains with the Precision Decomposition technique, whose accuracy has been proven previously. 2. Synchronization was considered as the tendency of two motor units to fire at fixed time intervals with respect to each other more often than would be expected if the motor units fired independently. A rigorous statistical technique was used to measure the presence of peaks in the cross-interval histogram of pairs of motor-unit action-potential trains. The location of the center of peak as well as their width and amplitude were measured. A synch index was developed to measure the percentage of firings that were synchronized. The percentage of concurrently active motor-unit pairs that contained synchronized firings was measured. 3. Synchronization of motor-unit firings was observed to occur in two modalities. The short-term modality was seen as a peak in the cross-interval histogram centered about zero-time delay (0.5 +/- 2.9 ms, mean +/- SD) and with an average width of 4.5 +/- 2.5 ms. The long-term modality was seen as a peak centered at latencies ranging from 8 to 76 ms. On the average, the peaks of the long-term synchronization were 36% lower but had approximately the same width as the peaks for the short-term synchronization. Short-term synchronization was seen in 60% of the motor-unit paris, whereas long-term synchronization was seen in 10% of the pairs. 4. Short-term synchronization occurred in bursts of consecutive firings, ranging in number from 1 to 10, with 91% of all synchronized firing occurring in groups of 1 or 2; and the bursts of discharges appeared at sporadic times during the contraction. 5. The amount of synchronization in motor-unit pairs was found to be low. In the six muscles that were tested, an average of 8.0% of all the firings were short-term synchronized, and an average of 1.0% were long-term synchronized. The synch index was statistically indistinguishable (P = 0.07-0.89) among the different muscles and among 9 of the 11 subjects tested. 6. Sixty percent of concurrently active motor-unit pairs displayed short-term synchronization, 10% of the pairs displayed long-term synchronization, and 8% displayed both modalities.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 400 WORDS).
One more for ya
Motor unit (MU) synchronization is the simultaneous or near-simultaneous firing of two MUs which occurs more often than would be expected by chance. The present study sought to investigate the effects of exercise training, muscle group, and force level, by comparing the magnitude of synchronization in the biceps brachii (BB) and first dorsal interosseous (FDI) muscles of untrained and strength-trained college-aged males at two force levels, 30% of maximal voluntary contraction (MVC) and 80% MVC. MU action potentials were recorded directly via an intramuscular needle electrode. The magnitude of synchronization was assessed using previously-reported synchronization indices: k', E, and CIS. Synchronization was significantly higher in the FDI than in the BB. Greater synchronization was observed in the strength-trained group with CIS, but not with E or k'. Also, synchronization was significantly greater at 80% MVC than at 30% MVC with E, but only moderately greater with CIS and there was no force difference with k'. Synchronization prevalence was found to be greater in the BB (80.1%) than in the FDI (71.5%). Thus, although the evidence is a bit equivocal, it appears that MU synchronization is greater at higher forces, and greater in strength-trained individuals than in untrained subjects.
Motor unit synchronization in FDI and biceps brachii muscles.... Available from: https://www.researchgate.net/public...eps_brachii_muscles_of_strength-trained_males [accessed Jun 03 2018].
But, if you have evidence that this is wrong, I'm open to it.
How I understood it, was that say two different motor units would be flashing on and off from each other, like
So get MVC it would be
to get say 90% of MVC it would be
that way the full force of each would be on and off to summate over all to the right needed force.
I had read a physiology text that I remember said 'All human movement involves tetanic contractions'....
I did a bunch of reading here, and I cannot find the answer to the question we need answered for this....
When a motor unit is fired by rate coding, is it's force varied like this...
100,0,100,0,100,0 = 50%
50,50,50,50,50 = 50%
What happens during the action potential, I 'thought' once it was reached, a full cross bridge effect took place, just like the piston engine scenario, and more force is by 'firing per time', not actually altering the force of each 'firing'.
Maybe your right about it being a matter of perspective, it seems like 'average tension' increases at higher rate coding levels, yet each 'pulse' is actually full tension.
Note that the number of active cross-bridges (in other words, the tension in the muscle), is a function of the Ca++ concentration. Each excitation of the muscle cell leads to a puff of intracellular Ca++ that is sufficient to bind all troponin molecules and fully expose all of the myosin binding sites on the thin filament. However the Ca++ concentration drops rapidly as Ca++ is pumped out of the cytoplasm by Ca++-ATPases in the membrane of the sarcoplasmic reticulum. As the Ca++ concentration falls, fewer myosin binding sites become available, fewer cross-bridges interact, and tension falls. This is known as relaxation.
So technically, if all crossbridges ratchet with each action potential, that is full fiber force for that millisecond. there is no way to control the number of crossbridges attaching, it's an 'all or none' kinda thing.
Ah ha, found this
A twitch is a muscle contraction that occurs in
response to a single, rapid stimulus that evokes a
single, isolated action potential in a muscle fiber.
Although single, isolated twitches are not in and
of themselves very useful for generating
controlled, coordinated movements needed for
maintaining homeostasis, observations of twitch
contractions present invaluable insights into the
basic physiology by which muscle fibers
Because the action potential is an “all or
none” response, the contraction of a muscle fiber
in response to a single action potential is
likewise an all or none response. Therefore,
there is a minimum stimulus strength that must
be applied to the muscle fiber in order to reach
threshold, evoke the action potential and, in turn,
induce the contraction. Once the action
potential occurs, though, no further increase in
stimulus strength will increase the strength of
contraction, as the Ca
gates in the sarcoplasmic
reticulum are open for a fixed amount of time
Individual muscle fibers respond to isolated
stimuli in an all or none fashion. However, a
muscle organ, such as the gastrocnemius muscle,
is composed of many individual muscle fibers.
By varying the number
muscle fibers innervated by a singe somatic
motor neuron) contracting at a given time, the
amount of tension gene
rated by the whole
muscle can vary. In one of the experiments we
are performing today, you will note that the
strength of the contraction varies with the
strength of the stimulus applied (Fig 9.7). This
does not violate the all or none principle.
Rather, as stimulus strength is being increased,
progressively more muscle fibers reach their
thresholds and contract. Thus, the change in
tension is due to the number of contracting
muscle fibers, not a change in how much tension
the individual fibers are generating.
contractions are generated by a combination of
twitches and partial-tetanic contractions by
different motor units whose motor neurons are
stimulating the fibers at different intervals and at
Interestingly, the amount of tension
generated during a tetani
c contraction is often
substantially higher than that of a maximal
twitch. There are several reasons for this. First,
when a muscle begins to contract, some of the
tension generated by the muscle is absorbed by
stretching elastic elements within the muscle’s
attachments. This can reduce the total tension
generated on the attachments in a twitch
contraction whereas tetany, these elastic
elements are fully stretched and more tension is
exerted directly on the attachments.
So, inside the fiber, every twitch is full force, but the force transmitted to the end of the fiber, (the connective tissue) can vary with twitch speed (rate coding) due to elasticity soaking up some of the force so to speak. So WHERE are the points of elasticitiy?
Apparantly the crossbridge force is fixed, but what about the ends of the sarcomeres?
Where the fibrils attach?
Is there a 'shock absorber' attribute in those areas?
If so, I have to rethink all of this!
Bryan, where are you? !!!!!!!!!
ok, removed those posts, I have to figure this out before I go spouting this. This has bugged me for YEARS, thought I had it down...
Now not sure..........
I debated with Dave Maurice on the HGRT about this like 15 years ago, he was saying tension is always max (like I was saying) I was on your side saying it can't be...
I gotta think about this and do more reading, I think I'm on to an angle that might help.
Separate names with a comma.