<div>
(scientific muscle @ Jan. 20 2007,14:54)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">C'mon Dan! Everyone knows the best way to grow is to get your muscles sore. Just ask anybody at the gym! The best routine is to do 15 sets of 15 reps for 5 different exercises per muscle group. You won't even be able to get out of bed the next day the soreness wil be so bad!!! And since soreness=growth, that is a good thing!
[*heavy sarcasm here
]</div>
Load is still paramount, imho. It's also the position of "HST," as it were, as put forward by the honorable Bryan Haycock
Over time, muscles have to be exposed to greater levels of tension as per HST philosophy, but why?
I think load fits particularly into the equation insofar as satellite cell donation is concerned. Domain size of a given muscle fiber is limited based on the number of nuclei that fiber contains, thus the activation of satellite cells via growth factors and their subsequent differentiation and donation of myonuclei to muscle fibers = necessary for long-term (like years, to get anything close to one's genetic potential) growth. Dan has research showing growth in the absence of satellite cell donation for many months, but in the long run, I think we can safely conclude it IS a necessity.
Otherwise, consider that, matched for ATP turnover, lower intensities (like 60% 1 RM) elevate protein synthesis as much as higher intensities (e.g. 80% 1 RM). Ron (fairly) brings up this point a lot.
In the HST FAQ, Bryan comments that microtrauma is actually the key player for satellite cells to do their thing, and that this is brought about by (sufficient) load and eccentric action, and to a lesser degree, hypoxia. I'm not sure whether it's literally microtrauma per se or simply 'adequate strain/distortion' based on conversations with Dan, but assuming this basic idea is correct, it is very important imho.
Thus, I think heavier loads over time, particularly in the context of eccentric action, is what may be allowing long-term, continued growth. And this pretty much tracks with a huge amount of anecdote over the past century.
Going back to the above point on varying intensities and protein synthesis, remember that muscle gain over any time period = (protein synthesis - protein degradation), so even if we manage to stimulate protein synthesis, if protein degradation ramps up to match it, we haven't actually grown at all.
Thus, while comparatively lighter weights when matched for ATP turnover might be as valuable as heavier weights for ramping up protein synthesis, if the domain size of our muscle fibers can't support an increase in protein content, then protein degradation might simply ramp up along with protein synthesis. Ergo, greater load, particularly in the context of eccentric action, might be necessary over time to perpetuate growth.
However, we also need to understand that this increase in load over time that perpetuates growth is NOT necessarily synonymous with "adding weight to the bar." Almost imperceptible changes in form, literally outside of conscious control, can alter form such that tension on a given muscle does NOT scale with weight on the bar, may not even increase at all with relatively large jumps in loading. See again the 8 RM vs. 3 RM tension on the quads example in olympic lifters referenced prior.
This is where, imho, people like some of the HITers (old AJ stuff and IART, believe it or not) as well as a lot of bodybuilders past and present had/have a pretty good point in terms of monitoring the actual feedback we are getting from the muscles we are working, both inside and outside of the weight room.
I'm sure most of us here concentrate on "good form," but there exist feedback mechanisms, if we pay careful attention, by which we can ascertain how "worked" a muscle is, and this trend should continue WHILE we continue to add weight to the bar. It's not even close to an exact science, but it's a step in the right direction over "the bar went up + I had good form + I added weight to the bar = my muscles were exposed to greater strain."
Note that a lot of people in the past have reported that they actually grew better in the 10s than the 5s. I think one of the reasons is that as load increases, we often compensate in our motor patterns, even if our form is still "good" overall, and that the muscles we're trying to make grow aren't really being exposed to significantly more load-->tension.
If one isn't careful, it's not hard to imagine the idea that subtle changes in form could account for the change in loading between the 10s and 5s, thus the latter might not actually be working the muscles we're intending to work any better than the former.
So, going full circle, this is why stuff like DOMS might be of SOME, albeit limited, value. It's not that it's a requirement for growth - I think we can safely say that it absolutely is NOT a requirement for growth. But that, when it does occur, it is,
potentially, an indicator that something real is happening to the muscle we're trying to make grow, perhaps some change in stimulus that might be inducing remodeling.
Again, this does not mean that if we DON'T get sore this isn't happening, but that it is ONE form of feedback that might actually be useful to indicate that what we are doing may actually be working.
I think I just typed a lot.
