Rethinking Hst

[Jester]

This thread is very interesting, despite all the roughness of it.

I believe there are multiple pathways to reach hypertrophy, each one with its own advantages and limitations.

I moved to a new house 15 days ago and I'm completely out of time to train, many things to adjust. I'm not sure but I think my last session was around 18 days ago. I thought I'd loose a great amount of muscle but lost only some size due to poorer glycogen storage. In fact I seem to have lost much less than I was expecting. I don't appear smaller, but less fuller, like we get when on a cut. I remember some @O&G thoughts on this a few months ago, when he talked about people he met in the past and today were incredibly small, when other were as big as before even without training.

I believe the pathway of growing by getting stronger, focusing on higher %RM, delivers a greater ratio of myofibrillar / sarcoplasmic hypertrophy, thus allowing a more "stable" growth. I remember my early years of lifting when usually I had to stop training for a few days and always lost a great amount of size. At that time I was training with the traditional 8-12 rep range always, because I didn't know other way.

Obviously the ideal path to acquire maximum size is to prime both types of growing, but personally I believe that training for size AND strength has clear advantages, one of them being the "persistency" of gains.

For some people like me is very frustrating to being in an yo-yo trend, so I prefer a slower rate of growth but that this growth come solid and more stable.

There is still zero evidence by way of studies to support the contention that one type of training creates different hypertrophy to another - i.e. no proof of myofibrillar vs sarcoplasmic hypertrophy. Generally speaking, both effects will occur when the load stimulus is sufficient. Is it likely that one is favoured by way of ratio over the other? I would say so.

 

[Mojo77]

I think this is an interesting thread but I got lost in the middle.
It was said going to failure is needed, to achieve muscle growth. How are you going to go to failure when hst has you starting at 75% of your respective rm's?

 

[HST_Rihad]

This is easily solved by doing as many sets as are necessary to get closer to failure because of the accumulating fatigue. Or you can simply rep out in the single working set you do. I myself have no patience to do several half-assed sets and prefer doing only one all-out set, not necessarily until failure in the strictest sense, but damn close to that (slowest rep of'em all).

 

[Totentanz]

There is still zero evidence by way of studies to support the contention that one type of training creates different hypertrophy to another - i.e. no proof of myofibrillar vs sarcoplasmic hypertrophy. Generally speaking, both effects will occur when the load stimulus is sufficient. Is it likely that one is favoured by way of ratio over the other? I would say so.

A little late, but here is a good article by Dan Moore about this subject:

http://www.weightrainer.net/physiology/Moore_Sarcoplasmic.html

Basically, rep range doesn't really matter when it comes to myo vs sarco.

 

[adpowah]

Good to see you active again @Totentanz

 

[NWlifter]

Hey some current discussion on here, interesting thread, just popped in to see if you guys were still around!