Muscle type and programs

B

bobpit

New Member
I remember I read this before. If you are fast twich/slow twich muscle type, then different rep ranges are more beneficial for you.

What test can I do to different bodyparts, in order to determine what type of muscles I have? How can I adjust my workout to this?

Most recommend to experiment and see what works for someone. Unfortunately too many parameters are involved. I may eat or sleep less/more at a given period. etc....
 
Like, I had found this test: Vertical jump. The less you bent your knees just before you jump, the faster the fibers you have.

If this is true, I have VERY fast muscle fiber in the legs. So should I exercise with low or high reps for legs?
 
This won't really matter. It's not rep range that determines what fibers are recruited. As always, LOAD is what dictates recruitment, not rep range.

Whenever you get within I think 80% or so of your 1 RM, all fiber types are recruited anyway.

When you think about it, "rep range" is kind of an artificial construct anyway. I don't think people should talk about rep range anymore because it leads to all kinds of stupid ideas. Maybe instead, we should speak of "load range" or speak in terms of % of 1 RM. Seems that would be more accurate.

So the point is - no, training for muscle fiber type would be a complete waste of time.
 
<div>
(Totentanz @ Feb. 23 2008,13:19)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">This won't really matter.  It's not rep range that determines what fibers are recruited.  As always, LOAD is what dictates recruitment, not rep range.

Whenever you get within I think 80% or so of your 1 RM, all fiber types are recruited anyway.

When you think about it, &quot;rep range&quot; is kind of an artificial construct anyway.  I don't think people should talk about rep range anymore because it leads to all kinds of stupid ideas.  Maybe instead, we should speak of &quot;load range&quot; or speak in terms of % of 1 RM.  Seems that would be more accurate.

So the point is - no, training for muscle fiber type would be a complete waste of time.</div>
I agree.
For lifting just stay above 80% of 1rm with good form and you are getting full recruitment of targeted muscles. No matter the fiber type.
 
Hmmm. Yes, but when I do sets of 10, then I have to use a load not greater than my 10RM. 10RM load is close to 80% of 1RM. Correct?

Thank you guys.
 
Unless you're using MS or Rest-pause. Mega recruitment there.
OTOH, drop sets and such work more from the fatigue standpoint and IMO should be less effective, so don't confuse the two systems. Workload is still King.
 
I've talked about my time as a Dr. Squat disciple in the past, and what I learned by reading his material was that fiber recruitment and type-specific training both are affected by load AND the movement involved - but not necessarily the rep count involved. For instance, if you're doing bench press and exploding the bar through the movement, you'll be hitting fast-twitch fibers for sure - and if the load is considerable, you'll recruit fast and slow-twitch alike to be able to handle the load.

However, if you do a workout specifically with high reps and light to moderate loads with slow movements, you'll hit the slow-twitch fibers first, and as you fatigue, you'll recruit whatever fibers you can to complete the reps. One of the workouts I remember was an attempt to completely decimate both types of fibers. You did a 5 x 5 (heavy load) with explosive movement, a 3 x 12 (moderate load) with rhythmic movement, and a 3 x 40 (light load) SLOW. By slow - it was a 2-3 count on the concentric part of each exercise, and then regular speed on the eccentric portion of the movement. The thought was that by paying attention not only to the load involved but also the movement type - explosive, rhythmic, or slow - you could effectively train both fast and slow twitch fibers.

To your original question though, bob - other than an MRI to determine fiber content, I'm not sure of a test to see what percentages of fast and slow twitch fibers you have in each muscle group. I knew a trainer once who claimed to be able to do so using a rather lengthy workout using all kinds of volume - but that just didn't make sense to me. At the end of the day, as everybody here has already said - fibers will be recruited as necessary to move the load, bottom line. Dr. Squat put all kinds of research behind his assertions - so if you want to give it a shot, try altering the way that you do your reps and see if you notice a difference. I can honestly say that I still use many of the things I learned in that vain, and have had great success.

Sorry for the rambling - I hope that helps.
 
When I made the initial post, I was thinking about the people who gain mass during the 15s as opposed to those making most gains during the 5s.

Lyl, I read the article. It says: &quot;Fast twitch fibers will hypertrophy first, and to a greater extent, due to their susceptibility to cellular micro-trauma during the eccentric portion of every rep.&quot;

So the eccentric part is the most important for microtrauma-hypertrophy. I stopped concentrating on the negative part of the movement ages ago. HST does not emphasize it. Right?
 
<div>
(bobpit @ Feb. 27 2008,11:07)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">So the eccentric part is the most important for microtrauma-hypertrophy. I stopped concentrating on the negative part of the movement ages ago. HST does not emphasize it. Right?</div>
Actually, many HST devotees practice doing negatives after the 5's as a way of continuing the cycle for a bit longer.
 
Yes, negatives are mentioned in HST as the &quot;peak&quot; of all loads in the cycle. But for those like me who workout at home and don't use a training partner/spotter they're pretty much not an option.
 
There's evidence for eccentric over concentric, and there's evidence for concentric over eccentric. One can produce articles effectively arguing that either one is superior. One can also produce articles concluding that neither is superior.

Each study seems to use a different routine of sets, reps, load, rest times, tempo, etc. And as is seen in the Conclusion section of each article, results are varied. This variability suggests that the superiority of one over the other depends on how each is used. Quite possibly there are other factors which aren't yet obvious. It is my desire that a research group will make a systematic, methodical study of the topic instead of conjuring up yet another seemingly random protocol with equally seemingly random results only to confound the issue further.

Ambiguity is not a hypertrophic stimulus. : (
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top