- This topic has 16 voices and 51 replies.
-
Posts
-
So smaller muscle groups (ie; bi's, tri's, etc) they don't hold as much glycogen as say your quads and hamstrings, which are bigger muscles.
Do you know this for a fact? It is my understanding glycogen is mostly contained in TypeIIa muscle fibers and Type IIb muscle fibers to a lesser extent. Different muscles have different fiber compositions, which depends on the type of training and your genetics.
I've never dissected anyone, thankfully.. so no, I guess I don't know as fact. But I guess it just seems like a logical conclusion... A bigger muscle = more muscle fibers = more potential glycogen storage... So I guess if someone had trained specifically in a way that increased their 2a fibers in their arms, and in a way that increased mostly 2b fibers in their legs, the storage capabilities could be skewed. But I really don't know.As a practical application though, isn't this the very reason it's suggested that modulating the size of your backload based on the muscle groups worked that day can be beneficial? (IE: larger muscle groups = bigger BL and vice versa)Damn you for adding to my list of things that I'm now curious about and want to research. 😛
Regarding the backload regulation, that really isn't something I am a fan of. There are simply too many variables like volume, amount of ULC days, and also according to Kiefer, tGLUT translocates more easily in upper body muscles.
I can understand the variables.. I would still say that, following logic, a larger muscle group would have more capacity for glycogen. Even if it is only stored in certain types of muscle fibers, a larger muscle group-you would think-would have more of those fibers. BUT... I am completely open to the fact this could be inaccurate, I'm just drawing (leaping?) to a logical conclusion.
The problem is you are assuming you are more depleted after a workout with larger muscle groups. That may or may not be true because you have to consider your diet and activity several days before as well. You are also under the presumption that you must fully replenish glycogen when you backload, which actually not what we want to do, unless we are Density Bulking.Obviously you would use common sense and not backload much after curls and calf raises, but I would just not backload after a workout like that.I think you get much better results if you find a number or small range of carbs to backload with after every real workout. It's much easier to get everything dialed in.
So smaller muscle groups (ie; bi's, tri's, etc) they don't hold as much glycogen as say your quads and hamstrings, which are bigger muscles.
Do you know this for a fact? It is my understanding glycogen is mostly contained in TypeIIa muscle fibers and Type IIb muscle fibers to a lesser extent. Different muscles have different fiber compositions, which depends on the type of training and your genetics.
I've never dissected anyone, thankfully.. so no, I guess I don't know as fact. But I guess it just seems like a logical conclusion... A bigger muscle = more muscle fibers = more potential glycogen storage... So I guess if someone had trained specifically in a way that increased their 2a fibers in their arms, and in a way that increased mostly 2b fibers in their legs, the storage capabilities could be skewed. But I really don't know.As a practical application though, isn't this the very reason it's suggested that modulating the size of your backload based on the muscle groups worked that day can be beneficial? (IE: larger muscle groups = bigger BL and vice versa)Damn you for adding to my list of things that I'm now curious about and want to research. 😛
Regarding the backload regulation, that really isn't something I am a fan of. There are simply too many variables like volume, amount of ULC days, and also according to Kiefer, tGLUT translocates more easily in upper body muscles.
I can understand the variables.. I would still say that, following logic, a larger muscle group would have more capacity for glycogen. Even if it is only stored in certain types of muscle fibers, a larger muscle group-you would think-would have more of those fibers. BUT... I am completely open to the fact this could be inaccurate, I'm just drawing (leaping?) to a logical conclusion.
The problem is you are assuming you are more depleted after a workout with larger muscle groups. That may or may not be true because you have to consider your diet and activity several days before as well. You are also under the presumption that you must fully replenish glycogen when you backload, which actually not what we want to do, unless we are Density Bulking.Obviously you would use common sense and not backload much after curls and calf raises, but I would just not backload after a workout like that.I think you get much better results if you find a number or small range of carbs to backload with after every real workout. It's much easier to get everything dialed in.
"Type IIB fibres contain a low content of myoglobin, relatively few mitochondria, relatively few blood capillaries and large amounts glycogen." - found this http://athletics.wikia.com/wiki/Type_II_Muscle_Fiber
So smaller muscle groups (ie; bi's, tri's, etc) they don't hold as much glycogen as say your quads and hamstrings, which are bigger muscles.
Do you know this for a fact? It is my understanding glycogen is mostly contained in TypeIIa muscle fibers and Type IIb muscle fibers to a lesser extent. Different muscles have different fiber compositions, which depends on the type of training and your genetics.
I've never dissected anyone, thankfully.. so no, I guess I don't know as fact. But I guess it just seems like a logical conclusion... A bigger muscle = more muscle fibers = more potential glycogen storage... So I guess if someone had trained specifically in a way that increased their 2a fibers in their arms, and in a way that increased mostly 2b fibers in their legs, the storage capabilities could be skewed. But I really don't know.As a practical application though, isn't this the very reason it's suggested that modulating the size of your backload based on the muscle groups worked that day can be beneficial? (IE: larger muscle groups = bigger BL and vice versa)Damn you for adding to my list of things that I'm now curious about and want to research. 😛
Regarding the backload regulation, that really isn't something I am a fan of. There are simply too many variables like volume, amount of ULC days, and also according to Kiefer, tGLUT translocates more easily in upper body muscles.
I can understand the variables.. I would still say that, following logic, a larger muscle group would have more capacity for glycogen. Even if it is only stored in certain types of muscle fibers, a larger muscle group-you would think-would have more of those fibers. BUT... I am completely open to the fact this could be inaccurate, I'm just drawing (leaping?) to a logical conclusion.
The problem is you are assuming you are more depleted after a workout with larger muscle groups. That may or may not be true because you have to consider your diet and activity several days before as well. You are also under the presumption that you must fully replenish glycogen when you backload, which actually not what we want to do, unless we are Density Bulking.Obviously you would use common sense and not backload much after curls and calf raises, but I would just not backload after a workout like that.I think you get much better results if you find a number or small range of carbs to backload with after every real workout. It's much easier to get everything dialed in.
"Type IIB fibres contain a low content of myoglobin, relatively few mitochondria, relatively few blood capillaries and large amounts glycogen." - found this http://athletics.wikia.com/wiki/Type_II_Muscle_Fiber
That isn't their primary fiuel though. It is ATP and creatine phosphate.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skeletal_muscle
"Type IIB fibres contain a low content of myoglobin, relatively few mitochondria, relatively few blood capillaries and large amounts glycogen." - found this http://athletics.wikia.com/wiki/Type_II_Muscle_Fiber
That isn't their primary fiuel though. It is ATP and creatine phosphate.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skeletal_muscle
Which is generated/resynthesised using that glycogen! (;EDIT: And since that pathway is reasonably wasteful it can chew through a fair amount of glycogen. And anything thats going to boost lactate production is going to be even more wasteful of glycogen again. Obviously why HIIT is recommended for chewing through stored glycogen. Im starting to rethink how Glycogen demanding strength work can be. In theory a heavy set of 5 on squats is going to consume a large amount of glycogen through a type of debt effect. To regenerate that ATP its going to have to pull significantly on its glycogen stores. Though of course not at the same level as a lactate inducing workout such as sprint/interval training.But I think all this talk is purely academic. I mean there are plenty of sedentary people out there who eat high carb diets and are rake thin. They dont have the muscle mass or glucose storage potential most lifters have, yet they still tolerate high carb diets. "Yeah but they dont eat much food or calories overall" is the usual reply. Well then isnt that another plus for the calories in/calories out crowd? Clearly carbs are not the only factor in fat loss and fat gain. And I think that if you have to do workouts solely to deplete glycogen to lose fat that the rest of the diet is just bad to start with. Which is why I get the impression that its more just to be able to eat more carbs in the first place. Cut the carbs back and ditch the HIIT IMO.
Ketones can generate ATP too.. http://caloriesproper.com/?p=2786
"Type IIB fibres contain a low content of myoglobin, relatively few mitochondria, relatively few blood capillaries and large amounts glycogen." - found this http://athletics.wikia.com/wiki/Type_II_Muscle_Fiber
That isn't their primary fiuel though. It is ATP and creatine phosphate.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skeletal_muscle
Which is generated/resynthesised using that glycogen! (;EDIT: And since that pathway is reasonably wasteful it can chew through a fair amount of glycogen. And anything thats going to boost lactate production is going to be even more wasteful of glycogen again. Obviously why HIIT is recommended for chewing through stored glycogen. Im starting to rethink how Glycogen demanding strength work can be. In theory a heavy set of 5 on squats is going to consume a large amount of glycogen through a type of debt effect. To regenerate that ATP its going to have to pull significantly on its glycogen stores. Though of course not at the same level as a lactate inducing workout such as sprint/interval training.But I think all this talk is purely academic. I mean there are plenty of sedentary people out there who eat high carb diets and are rake thin. They dont have the muscle mass or glucose storage potential most lifters have, yet they still tolerate high carb diets. "Yeah but they dont eat much food or calories overall" is the usual reply. Well then isnt that another plus for the calories in/calories out crowd? Clearly carbs are not the only factor in fat loss and fat gain. And I think that if you have to do workouts solely to deplete glycogen to lose fat that the rest of the diet is just bad to start with. Which is why I get the impression that its more just to be able to eat more carbs in the first place. Cut the carbs back and ditch the HIIT IMO.
As I mentioned before, I when I ran Shieko (high volume strength training, no more than 4 reps) I was blowing through glycogen stores. So maybe you are on to something Glitche. I did not know that about creatine phosphate and APT. I guess it makes more sense. Gives more credance to my "just train hard and don't worry about glycogen depletion".
As I mentioned before, I when I ran Shieko (high volume strength training, no more than 4 reps) I was blowing through glycogen stores. So maybe you are on to something Glitche. I did not know that about creatine phosphate and APT. I guess it makes more sense. Gives more credance to my "just train hard and don't worry about glycogen depletion".
Couldnt agree more.
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.