Discussion in 'Hypertrophy-Specific Training (HST)' started by Old and Grey, Dec 18, 2018.
Chew on this:
That's fascinating... and I'd always wondered this. Makes sense that it's maybe because of the higher usage of legs throughout the day and them being used to being used all the time. I wonder if it's related to size of muscle at all as well?
And whether it's applicable only for strength-based training? I remember Bryan said awhile ago that a muscle doesn't have to be fully recovered for it to be hit again (in terms of hypertrophy), but depends what recovery we're referring to.. (whether it's strength, or just level of soreness/fatigue)
(Does that also mean we should really have a dedicated Arms day once a week ;D )
That’s extremely valuable information. Thanks
I would not base my workout on this study. It used only "young untrained males". To me that means someone probably about college age who is not a 300 pound sloth and has probably been active in sports or running or biking or other normal activities that use the quads quite a bit but not necessarily the arms so much. Thus his legs are probably more "trained" than the rest of his body and recover more rapidly. To a conditioned lifter, probably the majority of the people who find their way to this website, all their muscles are already pretty conditioned and, thus, can take multiple hits per week. I tend to pay more attention to meta studies rather than this type of singular study.
That being said, there are many studies that show that excessive workouts or volumes do not lead to more hypertrophy than does two to three workouts per week with about three working "effective" sets per muscle group per workout. Strength, and in particular when used for Olympic style lifting does, however, benefit from more volume because there is a portion of the lift that requires a learned skill which comes from repeated interaction between the brain and the muscles involved.
So, Simon, I would say no to just a single arm dedicated workout per week unless your goal is to just set a new record for a one-armed, bent over, overhead barbell press similar to what circus performers used to do in the "olden" days when barbells actually looked like bars with round bells on each end.
Also, see next post.
This older study confirms that recovery from a given strength training workout is slower in untrained than in trained individuals, most likely because of greater muscle damage occurring.
Although this may appear intuitive, the finding should not be overlooked.
Greater muscle damage will likely lead to more prolonged central nervous system fatigue, which will affect training frequency. For a workout of the same volume, untrained individuals will likely need to use a lower training frequency for any given muscle group.
Thanks O&G for posting.
Makes sense that recreational folks have more trained legs than upper bodies. And we know from much research and experience that recovery goes faster the more trained one is.
The question I still ask, and have yet to get any conclusive answer to from any source:
How long does it take for ATROPHY to set in? How long do you keep your Gainzzz?
That is sort of the opposite question of what is the absolute soonest you can train again. If we had some guidelines to how long we keep gains at the end of a cycle, or a single workout, that helps determine the length of SD. It could effect workout frequency, but maybe not as much, in an HST program where optimization is the goal. Getting Mom off the couch and please do some air squats once a week is way better than being totally sedentary. But that is not the crowd HST is trying to address.
So is it true that in highly trained folks, like all us iron heads on these forums, that the time course for atrophy is about the same as the time course for hypertrophy? Any where close?
It would be great if Bryan, et al would respond to this.
Dean, I had an 8 month SD due to shoulder surgery this year and did not see much muscle loss. I picked up where I left off and two months later I am seeing some good gains from where I was pre-surgery. I think much off that muscle retention is from having worked out for about 60 years. Someone who has not worked out for very long probably would see greater losses. Like muscle memory, I believe that muscles become acclimated to being a certain size over time. Can't prove it though! And I do not know where the time line ends and hope to never have to find it out.
8 months of no training and minimal loss? Do the horses keep you fairly active each day?
I was raised on a farm in the country. There is always work to do
I am down to 3 horses now but they still keep me busy and active.
Great to hear you're back training O&G
Yep I definitely think this is the case too.
Interesting, and I bet it's different individually too, man I KNOW my quads take forever, they will feel buzzy and 'weakish' for days after a hard workout.
Edit, ok found this on atrophy, but this is with spinal cord isolation so very different than an active person. I remember one study with humans on bed rest and after 3 weeks, atrophy was just beginning.
Submitted 28 March 2003 ; accepted in final form 23 April 2003
The goal of this study was to use the model of spinal cord isolation (SI), which blocks nearly all neuromuscular activity while leaving the motoneuron muscle-fiber connections intact, to characterize the cellular processes linked to marked muscle atrophy. Rats randomly assigned to normal control and SI groups were studied at 0, 2, 4, 8, and 15 days after SI surgery. The slow soleus muscle atrophied by 50%, with the greatest degree of loss occurring during the first 8 days. Throughout the SI duration, muscle protein concentration was maintained at the control level, whereas myofibrillar protein concentration steadily decreased between 4 and 15 days of SI, and this was associated with a 50% decrease in myosin heavy chain (MHC) normalized to total protein. Actin relative to the total protein was maintained at the control level. Marked reductions occurred in total RNA and DNA content and in total MHC and actin mRNA expressed relative to 18S ribosomal RNA. These findings suggest that two key factors contributing to the muscle atrophy in the SI model are 1) a reduction in ribosomal RNA that is consistent with a reduction in protein translational capacity, and 2) insufficient mRNA substrate for translating key sarcomeric proteins comprising the myofibril fraction, such as MHC and actin. In addition, the marked selective depletion of MHC protein in the muscles of SI rats suggests that this protein is more vulnerable to inactivity than actin protein. This selective MHC loss could be a major contributor for the previously reported loss in the functional integrity of SI muscles. Collectively, these data are consistent with the involvement of pretranslational and translational processes in muscle atrophy due to SI.
*Strength loss after rest is neurological, fibers showed starts of atrophy after 2 weeks, but had not atrophied at that point.
Strength decrements observed after extended (4-6 wk) periods of muscle unloading are associated with significant atrophy. Because early (up to 2 wk) strength gains from resistance exercise are related to improved neural recruitment, we hypothesized that the loss of strength resulting from 2 wk of muscle unloading [unilateral lower limb suspension (ULLS)] was due to impaired neural activation of the affected muscle. Blood samples, muscle biopsy specimens, muscle function data, and electromyography (EMG) recordings were analyzed before and after 14 days of muscle unloading. Pre- to postunloading data showed significant (P 0.05) decrements in peak torque and total work performed by knee extensors and flexors. This was coupled with decreased EMG activity, but no change in neuromuscular efficiency (total torque/EMG). Resistance to muscle fatigue was enhanced after ULLS. The 14-day intervention failed to alter the size or fiber type distribution of muscle samples. However, resting plasma cortisol levels were significantly increased after muscle unloading, suggesting an endocrine environment favorable to muscle atrophy. Our data confirm that the diminution in muscle function displayed after 2 wk of unloading is mainly due to neural, rather than contractile, disturbances.
Yup. It does a lot to improve my psyche. No more 's.
Thanks NW, interesting. This does support lower frequency for maintenance and "just good" results.
Or equal, or sometimes better results too, depending on the person and program
Maintenance, or suspended atrophy, volume is amazing low. Bryan has written something about it several years back but I couldn't find it.
Using very low volume/frequency just to prevent atrophy?
Sure, if you are happy with where you are currently but do not want to lose any muscle. As long as your diet is spot on with your activity level and encourages the production of testosterone and not cortisol, you can go years with just one or two 1/2 hour full body workouts per week and not lose any significant musculature. Assuming, of course, you are not starting in contest shape and have just 4% body fat.
Wouldn't though, we also add 'non progressive' workouts? Many make great gains with 2 full body per week, not just maintain
Separate names with a comma.