"Lactic acid does not stimulate growth"...?

I

imported_dunhoonK

Guest
I was looking through this site of a guy name Josh Stone ( http://www.johnstonefitness.com/all/side/m.php )
and he has gotten quite ripped in a short amount of time...So I looked up his lifting plan called Max-OT and was reading through the general principles/foundation of this plan. Besides other contradicting principles of HST, it also stated:
[b said:
Quote[/b] ]Muscle Burn
The burning sensation that certain types of training bring on is believed by most to be a sign of a successful growth promoting workout. Many seek it out and strive to achieve this burning sensation as an indicator to a good workout.
Well let me tell you, that muscle "burn" is not an indicator of an optimum workout. This burn is caused by infusion of lactic acid. Lactic acid is a byproduct of glycogen metabolism in muscle tissue. Lactic acid is not good for muscle growth. In fact, it impairs growth. Where does this burning sensation come from? It comes from lactic acid due to high reps. Not only does high rep training supply insufficient overload for growth it also causes high muscle lactic acid levels that lead to tissue catabolism, oxidative stree and delayed muscle recovery.
Muscle Pump
The muscle pump you feel when training is a result of blood actually being "trapped" in the muscles being worked. The muscle pump is certainly a good psychological boost during training and accompanies just about all resistance exercise. And as your muscles become larger so will the pump you get while you train. Now while this muscle pump is not really a bad thing, it is not necessarily an indicator of optimum muscle overload. As you progress in your development you will find that achieving a noticeable pump even during your warm-up sets to be much easier and more prominent. More muscle - more "trapped" blood - bigger pump.
(The whole plan can be found at http://www.johnstonefitness.com/misc/MAX-OT.pdf )
It also stated that one muscle group a day per week (which means 6-7 rest days! ) is more than enough to stimulate the muscle and allow it to grow(induce hypertrophy). IMO this plan outrageously contradicts HST's method but he was still able to get insanely ripped :x.
Now CAN there be ANY truth behind all this nonsense?
tounge.gif
 
Don't treat HST like a religion.

HST is basically two things.

1) A description of how and why muscles grow, based on Bryan's interpretation of peer reviewed evidence
2) Bryan's default/customizable routine to optimize your training in respect to #1

Honestly, any halfway decent system of frequency/volume/intensity will have you getting bigger if you lift heavier stuff over time and eat enough. Max-OT will make you grow as will half of anything else as long as you train more or less smart.

All HST proposes to do is optimize the variables involved in muscle growth. This doesn't translate to "grow super duper fast!" It's just a way to get you to your long-term goals a bit quicker.

I mean seriously, look around at all the people who've gotten more muscular. What are they doing in common? Getting bigger doesn't take a genius, but optimizing that process is very worthwhile, and all Bryan is attempting to do is precisely that - get people to their goals more quickly by proposing a model of muscle growth which reflects peer reviewed literature.
 
[b said:
Quote[/b] ]Don't treat HST like a religion.

Son of Novak, kneeeeeeellll before The Bryan!!
tounge.gif


we got any General Zod fans here? just checking . . . .

cheers,
Jules

p.s. Max-OT is a pretty good program for hypertrophy. Some relatively minor changes to it could significantly improve one's results with it.
 
But to add on top of what these wonderful guys have said, lactate doesn't causes growth per se, but the actions involved in creating the lactic acid accumulation does interact favorably with certain enzymatic, molecular signalling processes that have been shown to induce hypertrophy.

Also being ripped is more about diet, anyone remember Clarence Bass, not a huge man by any stretch, but ripped to shreds.
 
[b said:
Quote[/b] (dunhoonK @ May 25 2005,6:14)]and he has gotten quite ripped in a short amount of time
It took him about 5 months to get what I would consider ripped, which is good, but not amazing. Also, the guy is not that big, just very lean with decent muscle mass. So when it comes to the effects of lactic acid, I'll agree with Bryan until some proof otherwise comes along.
 
I never thought there was any direct relationship between lactic acid build-up and hypertrophy in the first place. Correct me if I'm wrong, but from what I've read here it's my understanding that lactic acid has a beneficial effect on the joints and connective tissues.
 
[b said:
Quote[/b] (gripstrength @ May 27 2005,10:48)]I never thought there was any direct relationship between lactic acid build-up and hypertrophy in the first place. Correct me if I'm wrong, but from what I've read here it's my understanding that lactic acid has a beneficial effect on the joints and connective tissues.
It's not a direct relationship between Lactic Acid and Hypertrophy, lactic acid is a byproduct of rapid substrate breakdown, the hypoxic stress induced does have a direct relationship with the signalling protein ERK1/2. Such increases in metabolic work, the ones that induce Lactic Acid and increases in ERK1/2, give rise to increased oxidative capacity of the cell, IE improved quality.
 
Dan, I get the gist of it, but what exactly does that mean? As much as I've learned from this site, those of us without scientific backgrounds would benefit even more from a biochemistryese-to-English translator.  ;)
 
Ok, it means go for the burn during the 15's for connective tissue. Go for the burn during the later 10's and 5's for increases in work capactiy of the cell.
 
This is related to an interesting discussion NWLifter and I are having . . .

One of the problems with Max-OT is that it doesn't do a very good job improving work capacity for the muscle. Though you do many failure sets for a bodypart, they are very short sets. Moreover, you only hit a muscle once or twice per week, and so the aerobic conditioning you accrue doesn't accrue quickly. A friend of mine is doing Max-OT; I told him to ignore the Max-OT advice about lactic acid, and do a burn set at the end of his session.

I suppose the same applies for traditional HST. During 5s and post-5s, without any extra metabolic work, the metabolic stress goes down. Usually when people say they see the best size gains during 15s and/or 10s, it's for that reason. Specifically, it's because these trainees don't have muscles with highly developed energy systems (i.e. low capillary count, mitchondria, iffy glycogen storage capacity, etc) This is generally the case for more mature trainees, but this also applies for all of us who live an otherwise sedentary lifestyle. Now if you have the stereotypical ecto metabolism and/or you partake in sports, this probably doesn't apply to you. The reasons for taking creatine and NO2 relate to this.

The theory goes that by increasing your muscle's functional conditioning, you improve the metabolic environment where protein synthesis takes place. This makes your bulks a lot more *cough* "anabolic" because you increase glycogen storage and usage, as well as improving overall circulation and blood flow (i.e. the nutrient partioning effect.)

Which, finally, leads to the concept of training according to your diet. If you're on a big bulk, then you want to increase the metabolic stress in order for that bulk to work better for you.

Also, the notion of recovery has a lot to do with the relative metabolic conditioning of your muscle and overall aerobic conditoning.

If you're really, really out of shape, then each session will be a bigger ordeal (not necessarily improving the stimulation of hypertrophy), even if you eat big. Nutrient transporation may be inefficient. Glycogen synthesis may be inefficient. Uptake and conversion of amino acids may be inefficient. And so on. Many HDers actually train themselves out of shape due to constantly deconditioning themselves metabolically.

cheers,
Jules
 
[b said:
Quote[/b] ]
Ok, it means go for the burn during the 15's for connective tissue. Go for the burn during the later 10's and 5's for increases in work capactiy of the cell.
Now this I get!
thumbs-up.gif

Also, Jules--excellent synopsis.
worship.gif
 
[b said:
Quote[/b] (mikeynov @ May 26 2005,12:35)]Don't treat HST like a religion.
The power of hypertrophy compells you!

Honestly, I used Max-OT and got from 215 to 245 keeping my 16% bodyfat throughout. Any program provided you're not stupid about it will yield gains.
 
[b said:
Quote[/b] (shakeel @ May 28 2005,3:20)]that is why dc rep range works as the reps is up to 15 rest pause total?
That's for barbell presses. For dumbbell it's mostly 15-20 RP. Rest/pausing rules-
worship.gif
 
Hi vicious,
Thank you for all that you have been contributing to this board, and to HST.

[b said:
Quote[/b] (vicious @ May 27 2005,3:03)]Many HDers actually train themselves out of shape due to constantly deconditioning themselves metabolically.

Just to be certain on my side, would you say that this is a result of not performing higher-rep sets at least part of the time?

In another thread you mentioned adding pulses for the arms after the sets of 5s. I've got to tell you, for a long time, it didn't seem that I was getting any growth during the 5s ... until I added the pulses after the heavy sets. I've doing this every workout; my arms seem to be coming along now, and I have not noticed any drop in strength. Thanks for the tips, man!!!
 
Metabolic work is so dang important. Ever since doing metabolic work, the 5's are easily where the major gains come from. That's why i've been skipping out on the 15's and 10's, and just going into 5's and then post-5's. Metabolic work is in there from the beginning.
 
[b said:
Quote[/b] (combat_action @ May 28 2005,4:16)]
[b said:
Quote[/b] (mikeynov @ May 26 2005,12:35)]Don't treat HST like a religion.
The power of hypertrophy compells you!
:) :D
happy.gif
laugh.gif



Metabolic work is very important no matter if you use pulsing techniques, high rep sets, or drops just be sure to get it in there, especially during the 5's.
 
[b said:
Quote[/b] (dkm1987 @ May 27 2005,1:44)]
[b said:
Quote[/b] (gripstrength @ May 27 2005,10:48)]I never thought there was any direct relationship between lactic acid build-up and hypertrophy in the first place. Correct me if I'm wrong, but from what I've read here it's my understanding that lactic acid has a beneficial effect on the joints and connective tissues.
It's not a direct relationship between Lactic Acid and Hypertrophy, lactic acid is a byproduct of rapid substrate breakdown, the hypoxic stress induced does have a direct relationship with the signalling protein ERK1/2. Such increases in metabolic work, the ones that induce Lactic Acid and increases in ERK1/2, give rise to increased oxidative capacity of the cell, IE improved quality.
Any validation to this? Id be interested in reading some research to support this.

I've taken a great deal of time trying to understand the signaling of Hypertrophy. I can thank NWlifter for helping me :)

Kc
 
Sure start with the Studies, in the Studies FAQ.

Then read
Rennie MJ, Wackerhage H, Spangenburg EE, Booth FW.
Control of the size of the human muscle mass.
Annu Rev Physiol. 2004;66:799-828.

Also read
Plasticity in Skeletal, Cardiac, and Smooth Muscle
Invited Review: Contractile activity-induced
mitochondrial biogenesis in skeletal muscle
DAVID A. HOOD
J Appl Physiol 90: 1137–1157, 2001.
A quote from this
[b said:
Quote[/b] ]Since mitochondria are a major source of cellular ATP, we should not be surprised to learn that the number of them
per cell, as well as their intracellular locations, varies with
the type of cell and with its metabolic state
 
[b said:
Quote[/b] (dkm1987 @ May 30 2005,9:34)]Sure start with the Studies, in the Studies FAQ.
Then read
Rennie MJ, Wackerhage H, Spangenburg EE, Booth FW.
Control of the size of the human muscle mass.
Annu Rev Physiol. 2004;66:799-828.
Also read
Plasticity in Skeletal, Cardiac, and Smooth Muscle
Invited Review: Contractile activity-induced
mitochondrial biogenesis in skeletal muscle
DAVID A. HOOD
J Appl Physiol 90: 1137–1157, 2001.
A quote from this
[b said:
Quote[/b] ]Since mitochondria are a major source of cellular ATP, we should not be surprised to learn that the number of them
per cell, as well as their intracellular locations, varies with
the type of cell and with its metabolic state
worship.gif
thumbs-up.gif


Kc
 
Back
Top