Hypertrophy and RBE responses

Heavy Duty dude

New Member
Let's say the hypertrophy phenomenon consists of 10 steps in cascade. Since those steps are all biological, none of them are going to be linear.

For instance, if there is twice as much microtrauma, how much more microtrauma "notification" is sent to the nucleus? Probably not twice as much..

The thing I want to get to is that after 10 steps that are each non linear, the end result is going to be VERY non linear. Hence the fact that the hypertrophic response is very non linear with the volume.

Same for the RBE, except that the steps are different.

The likely consequence also is that the RBE and the hypertrophy are likely to be non linear with each other, because each are composed of many different steps that are non linear.

So it's not impossible that someone who makes like 10 times more microtrauma - 10 times greater initial stimulus - may end up with a RBE/hypertrophy ratio if you will 5 times greater or whatever. The guy would condition very fast for not much more hypertrophy.

The reverse could be true also.. Isn't that
crazy.gif
:confused:??

Ok, ok I'm going back to sleep..  
sleeping.gif
 
sleeping.gif
 
sleeping.gif
 
[b said:
Quote[/b] (Heavy Duty dude @ Oct. 27 2005,6:31)]Let's say the hypertrophy phenomenon consists of 10 steps in cascade. Since those steps are all biological, none of them are going to be linear.

For instance, if there is twice as much microtrauma, how much more microtrauma "notification" is sent to the nucleus? Probably not twice as much..

The thing I want to get to is that after 10 steps that are each non linear, the end result is going to be VERY non linear. Hence the fact that the hypertrophic response is very non linear with the volume.

Same for the RBE, except that the steps are different.
The likely consequence also is that the RBE and the hypertrophy are likely to be non linear with each other, because each are composed of many different steps that are non linear.

So it's not impossible that someone who makes like 10 times more microtrauma - 10 times greater initial stimulus - may end up with a RBE/hypertrophy ratio if you will 5 times greater or whatever. The guy would condition very fast for not much more hypertrophy.

The reverse could be true also.. Isn't that
crazy.gif
:confused:??
Ok, ok I'm going back to sleep..  
sleeping.gif
 
sleeping.gif
 
sleeping.gif
Most definatley more but ok

Ok

Yup

Yup

Ahah, I thought you said in the 2nd part this is nonlinear, therfore how can 10X MT=10X stimulus?

Goodnight ;)
 
When I say 10 times more stimulus, I mean 10 times more microtrauma. That's what I mean by stimulus.

Another thing I was thinking about is this.. the "perception" that say 1 set is not much.

We consciously have the impression that it's not much because we are "aware" of time passing in seconds.

Our notion of time even seems to be altered when we do a set. For example when I spot someone the set that the guy does seems much longer than when I do it myself.

This to say that we have the impression that 1 set is not much.

BUUUUT for the muscle it's different. Fibers are recruited every few hundreds of seconds. For them 50 seconds of TUT is long. One set may be long enough to get to the point where the response is not linear at all anymore.

In other words if you will, for us cousciously one set lasts 50 seconds, while for the fibers it lasts 5000 hundreds of seconds. One set seems to be short but it's not short at all. And 5000 hundreds of seconds or 50000 hundreds of seconds - 10 sets of 50 seconds - won't make much difference, because it's in the range where the response is very non linear.

Well, anyways, you see what I mean..
 
Hey :)

I don't see where the problem is.

Another benefit from training more frequently (thus having to keep volume in check) is that you don't go crazy on the volume. And RBE is often overestimated anyway. A significant weight can be effective for more than 2 weeks. In that aspect, the standard HST cycle is actually pretty short. If you cared to repeat each effective weight 3-6 times (which is way way before RBE can even set it), you can have a cycle that is much longer. How long depends on how big your increments are.

Nothing is ever linear in hypertrophy. Otherwise, Bryan could have developed something that "guaranteed" to add this many inches on your chest or biceps or quads in a fixed amount of days or weeks, using a fixed amount of weights for a fixed amount of reps.

But since nothing is linear, his advice is to simply manage your own training. Period. Good advice. Stick to that.

Regards,
-JV
 
I just wanted to give some thoughts about why volume doesn't play a big role in hypertrophy.

[b said:
Quote[/b] ]
And RBE is often overestimated anyway. A significant weight can be effective for more than 2 weeks.

Depends on the load and your level of conditionning. If you consider the "significant weight" to be your 5RM, a 6-8 weeks cycle is long.

Depends on how quickly you condition and how quickly you decondition. Not much research has been done on that, as far as I know at least..
 
[b said:
Quote[/b] (Heavy Duty dude @ Oct. 30 2005,6:20)]Depends on how quickly you condition and how quickly you decondition. Not much research has been done on that, as far as I know at least..
Not directly no, but indirectly it can be assumed that each loading adds a bit to the conditioning process. But this doesn't fully negate the response to conditioning, it's much more gradual.

Looking at hypertrophy only, it can be seen that gains can be continued for some time, even when using absolute loads of 5-8RM. Please remember though that absolute loading will be adjusted as warranted.

This will vary based on level attained, newbs show progress as long as a year and even more. Elite level trainees have a very difficult time adding either strength or size period. It's at this time that other variables may need to be included in ones training.

There are several other pieces one can look at in the research; myosin shifts, satellite cells, sarcomere remodeling, and MPS to name a few but overall, as JV said nothing is linear and one can grow for some time before gains are completely stagnated. To say that growth will halt after 8 weeks of 5RM isn't necessarily accurate.

Simply, it depends.

BTW, volume is important. ;) How important? Depends
sad.gif
 
I actually have a similar question. Say, for example, that for 8 weeks in a row you use the same weight for a given exercise, and the RBE does set in and you cease to grow. The next week you increase the weight for the same number of sets, reps, tut, etc. Will the RBE still be in effect, even thought the weight has increased?

My point is that the two week rep block seems random to me. If the RBE does not set in if you increase the weight on a given exercise, why not "milk" each weight dry until hypertrophy stops, and only then begin to increase the weight and increment?

Otherwise, it is possible to to fit an HST cycle in any time frame from 1 week to 2 months?

Any thoughts?
thehamma
 
Personaly I wouldn't want to do that because when you stop gaining muscle is when you start gaining more fat, and since it's hard to really know if you're gaining muscle - because of glycogen fluctuations, problems taking mensurations and so on -, you may gain just fat for like 2 weeks.
 
[b said:
Quote[/b] (Heavy Duty dude @ Oct. 31 2005,10:14)]Personaly I wouldn't want to do that because when you stop gaining muscle is when you start gaining more fat, and since it's hard to really know if you're gaining muscle - because of glycogen fluctuations, problems taking mensurations and so on -, you may gain just fat for like 2 weeks.
So you are saying that even though energy use and consumption hasn't changed that by simply whether or not training induces hypertrophy can change the relationship to fat gain?
Doubt it, seriously.
[b said:
Quote[/b] (quote=thehamma @ Oct. 31 2005,9:55)]I actually have a similar question.  Say, for example, that for 8 weeks in a row you use the same weight for a given exercise, and the RBE does set in and you cease to grow.  The next week you increase the weight for the same number of sets, reps, tut, etc.  Will the RBE still be in effect, even thought the weight has increased?
That my friend is the Million Dollar Question. How long each weight is effective at inducing hypertrophy? My opinion is during the 8 week trial eventually growth will stagnate but this depends on what state you started in as to when. Initial gains (strength) are mostly neural with limited hypertrophy. After that, hypertrophy contributes more to strength gains. This is not only dependant on conditioning but also muscle specific as the neural learning is much quicker in some muscles than others. So getting back to the question the faster the neural gains in strength come the faster you'll be increasing the load, the faster you'll be increasing the load the faster the stimulus will be increased over the previous load. With that in mind there should be no reason, unless you are really at your strength max, that you should be using the same weight for 8 weeks. If you were for some reason and then all of a sudden increased your load due to increases in strength then I would have to assume that the strength increases were not neural(assuming nothing else contributed IE change of leverage or ROM) and hypertrophy contributed to the gains. So you grew, indicating that RBE was circumvented or at least diminished.
 
[b said:
Quote[/b] ]
So you are saying that even though energy use and consumption hasn't changed that by simply whether or not training induces hypertrophy can change the relationship to fat gain?
Doubt it, seriously.

Don't you think that when there is a good hypertrophic stimulus less fat is gained?

For example someone who is in caloric surplus without training will gain much more fat than someone who trains? No?

What you say means that training doesn't affect the partitionning ratio - ratio of muscle/fat gained.
 
[b said:
Quote[/b] ]With that in mind there should be no reason, unless you are really at your strength max, that you should be using the same weight for 8 weeks. If you were for some reason and then all of a sudden increased your load due to increases in strength then I would have to assume that the strength increases were not neural(assuming nothing else contributed IE change of leverage or ROM) and hypertrophy contributed to the gains. So you grew, indicating that RBE was circumvented or at least diminished.

What I meant was to use a submaximal weight at a point where it would induce hypertrophy, like after an SD, and then increase the weight only after the RBE set in to continue growing.
For example, if a person were starting a HST cycle after an SD, and let's say their increments for squat for their 15rep block would normally look like this:
Mon:135 Wed:185 Fri:205
Mon:225 Wed:255 Fri:275
What I'm saying is why not stay on 135 until RBE sets in and then go to 185 and milk that out until you hit the RBE and then go to 205 and on and on...

This way you get more "bang for your buck" for each weight increment, and design the entire HST cycle around hypertrophy rather than convenient 2 week blocks with incrementing every workout.

thehamma
 
at the moment i use the same weight twice...to avoid zigzaging...i was thinking of using it 3 times to make a cycle longer but how do you know when rbe sets in...
 
[b said:
Quote[/b] (Heavy Duty dude @ Oct. 31 2005,12:22)]
[b said:
Quote[/b] ]
So you are saying that even though energy use and consumption hasn't changed that by simply whether or not training induces hypertrophy can change the relationship to fat gain?
Doubt it, seriously.
Don't you think that when there is a good hypertrophic stimulus less fat is gained?
For example someone who is in caloric surplus without training will gain much more fat than someone who trains? No?
What you say means that training doesn't affect the partitionning ratio - ratio of muscle/fat gained.
No that's not what I said nor is it what you said.

You made the assumption that if hypertrophy wasn't taking place that more fat would be gained, I said doubt it if nothing changed, IE, training was still taking place, nutrition hadn't changed. There would be a definite difference if training ceased, but we weren't taling about that so let's keep talking apples and not throw out some oranges.
 
[b said:
Quote[/b] (thehamma @ Oct. 31 2005,1:58)]What I meant was to use a submaximal weight at a point where it would induce hypertrophy, like after an SD, and then increase the weight only after the RBE set in to continue growing.
For example, if a person were starting a HST cycle after an SD, and let's say their increments for squat for their 15rep block would normally look like this:
                  Mon:135  Wed:185  Fri:205
                  Mon:225 Wed:255 Fri:275
What I'm saying is why not stay on 135 until RBE sets in and then go to 185 and milk that out until you hit the RBE and then go to 205 and on and on...
This way you get more "bang for your buck" for each weight increment, and design the entire HST cycle around hypertrophy rather than convenient 2 week blocks with incrementing every workout.
thehamma
But as Faz is asking how do you know when RBE is setting in? Without a lab in your weight room I don't think that you truly will. What can be measured without a lab is strength and muscle size. If you aren't gaining either then something is inhibiting them. Could be RBE, could be nutriton, could be genes, could be your choices of exercises (in the simplistic realm of, gee my arms aren't growing but I do 35 sets of leg extensions everyday, hmmmm ;)) and a list of other variables.

Now if you simply want to keep the weight the same for a predetermined amount of time, say even 2 weeks, then why not, although I would add that this is something that should be done in the heavier weights(my opinion). During the submax I'm not to sure where the advantage would be. Try it and see.
 
[b said:
Quote[/b] ]Could be RBE, could be nutriton, could be genes, could be your choices of exercises (in the simplistic realm of, gee my arms aren't growing but I do 35 sets of leg extensions everyday, hmmmm ;)) and a list of other variables.

Well, I was under the impression that you would know RBE was setting in for a certain muscle then you would be able to tell from:

- lack of strength
- no gains in muscle even after diet is adjusted (i.e. more kcals)

But that's why one of the main principals of HST is Strategic Deconditioning - to avoid these plateaus

and I must say - I love it.
thumbs-up.gif


-Colby
 
Bryan has written that 2 week blocks are a guideline only.

In my last cycle I extended the 10's another week or so and did the same with the 5's and continued to gain weight. I never zig-zag, but it made sense to just double the number of times I hit the last few workout's.
 
[b said:
Quote[/b] (dkm1987 @ Oct. 31 2005,4:09)]
[b said:
Quote[/b] (Heavy Duty dude @ Oct. 31 2005,12:22)]
[b said:
Quote[/b] ]
So you are saying that even though energy use and consumption hasn't changed that by simply whether or not training induces hypertrophy can change the relationship to fat gain?
Doubt it, seriously.
Don't you think that when there is a good hypertrophic stimulus less fat is gained?
For example someone who is in caloric surplus without training will gain much more fat than someone who trains? No?
What you say means that training doesn't affect the partitionning ratio - ratio of muscle/fat gained.
No that's not what I said nor is it what you said.
You made the assumption that if hypertrophy wasn't taking place that more fat would be gained, I said doubt it if nothing changed, IE, training was still taking place, nutrition hadn't changed. There would be a definite difference if training ceased, but we weren't taling about that so let's keep talking apples and not throw out some oranges.
But hypertrophy takes energy to occur, energy that will not be stored, no?
 
Sure but how much? I have never seen anything that pinpoints the energy needed to grow muscle tissue. There are lots of guesses, but nothing concrete. Take for example the bird wing studies, they grew very fast with no mention of additional nutrition. In humans it's been shown that the LBM can increase without additional nutrition and in some cases even when energy restricted (depending on obesity level). Besides this has little to do with RBE. Looking at Yu's work it can seen that the remodeling effect is what is occuring with eccentric strain, this remodeling is limited in it's impact with an acute bout. The number of sarcomeres impacted in relation to the whole muscle is very small and I doubt there is an immediate impact on whole muscle volume. Therefore RBE is a gradual process and using a heavy load for extended durations may limit growth, after a while. It comes down to how long "after a while is".
 
[b said:
Quote[/b] (colby2152 @ Oct. 31 2005,5:28)]
[b said:
Quote[/b] ]Could be RBE, could be nutriton, could be genes, could be your choices of exercises (in the simplistic realm of, gee my arms aren't growing but I do 35 sets of leg extensions everyday, hmmmm ;)) and a list of other variables.
Well, I was under the impression that you would know RBE was setting in for a certain muscle then you would be able to tell from:
- lack of strength
- no gains in muscle even after diet is adjusted (i.e. more kcals)
But that's why one of the main principals of HST is Strategic Deconditioning - to avoid these plateaus
and I must say - I love it.  
thumbs-up.gif

-Colby
This is the same thing I said, our only way of knowing is what we can visually see and or feel. If size is not changing or strength is not increasing this can be a sign the RBE is rearing it's ugly lil head, but doesn't prove it.

Sure SD can help, but where the problem lies is in ones application. To simply say OK I've finished my 8 weeks cycle so now I'm SD'ing may not be the best way. If RBE isn't stalling growth then you are effectively stopping any growth stimulus. All this is doing, when SD'ing too early is limiting how big your are getting.
 
RBE is almost impossible to determine because growing muscle is very complicated, lots of factors, lots of variables, most of them can't be observed with the naked eye.

Some points:
1.) Generally, the standard 8 weeks is pretty short. This is because, with all the load progresiion going on, weights are often not repeated when, in fact, RBE is still a long way from setting in.

2.) Yep, SD is a sure fire way to beat RBE, but SD too early and you do end up wasting some growth that could have been had, like Dan mentioned. Is this a big deal? Mathematically, yeah, it sums up. In a span of 2 years, for example, the more time you are training effectively versus the time you spend just in SD would generally mean getting more growth. "Traiing effectively" means useful training, which among other things means while still staying away from RBE.

3.) RBE isn't a "state", meaning it's either not there or not. Really. Think of it more like shades of gray. It's a battle between the weight (any weight you are using) and your level of conditioning, something like as you keep on using a weight, the more conditioned you get, until you reach the time you are so conditioned that it (a certain weight; but of course, this also means that not only is that weight affected, but weights heavier than it also is - their effectiveness may also be affected, depending on how heavy they are from the weight you kept on using) gives zero hypertrophy. When that is, or how long it usually takes, is still a mystery. Good guess? Again, around 4-6 weeks. So if you properly did your SD, and are dealing with significant weights, and have decent increments, repeating a weight for 2 or 3 times is no big deal - like duh, 2 or 3 workouts versus 4-6 weeks? Doesn't take a genius, my friend.

4.) RBE is a boogieman you should only fear if you are in a "traditional" non-HST routine where you plug against a weight for several weeks and progressive loading is simply not a part of training. Like I said, doesn't take a genius, mon ami.

That's it, in simple terms.
Hope that helps clear some things.
Regards,
-JV
 
Back
Top