- This topic has 15 voices and 56 replies.
-
Posts
-
I would agree that slow reps cause more muscle damage (especially slow eccentrics), but muscle damage has a poor correlation with muscle growth. Mechanical tension is the king when it comes to muscle growth.
But sufficient "mechanical tension" simply causes muscle damage. You don't create muscle in the gym, you damage it. Muscle is repaired (and subsequent growth created as your body tries to compensate for the overload) during recovery. Without some damage, there is nothing to trigger growth - you just recover from being tired.
I would agree that slow reps cause more muscle damage (especially slow eccentrics), but muscle damage has a poor correlation with muscle growth. Mechanical tension is the king when it comes to muscle growth.
But sufficient "mechanical tension" simply causes muscle damage. You don't create muscle in the gym, you damage it. Muscle is repaired (and subsequent growth created as your body tries to compensate for the overload) during recovery. Without some damage, there is nothing to trigger growth - you just recover from being tired.
All exercises are going to cause muscle damage, but muscle damage itself is the least important predictor of hypertrophy. Mechanical tension (how much a muscle activates) and metabolic stress (getting a pump) both have a stronger influence on hypertrophy.Stretching a muscle is mainly what causes the muscular damage, especially if you are overloading it. It's possible to stretch (like a simply static stretch) a muscle and create massive amounts of damage, but little hypertrophy will result. Why? Because there is little mechanical tension. Conversely, there are exercises that cause very little muscular damage in comparison and still result in muscle growth like cycling and Olympic lifts.
I understand the “damage” (perhaps “micro trauma” is more appropriate) caused by resistance training is what we're talking about, not just any type of damage (lol, such as whacking yourself with a hammer). 😀But to say (regarding resistance training), "muscle damage has a poor correlation with muscle growth" doesn't agree with what I've read on the subject.Also... some trainers are now saying that negative-emphasized training (eccentric) actually does produce more hypertrophy than concentric - but by creating greater damage, it also requires greater recovery time (10-21 days), which would explain its unpopularity (and even lack of success) among the general lifting population, as many of them can't seem to stop training for more than a few days even when injured.I highly recommend checking out Drew Baye's website (there's a link in my signature), as he provides a lot of free info and references in this area. Body By Science (by Doug McGuff and John Little) is another good read, though it's not free.
I understand the "damage" (perhaps "micro trauma" is more appropriate) caused by resistance training is what we're talking about, not just any type of damage (lol, such as whacking yourself with a hammer). 😀But to say (regarding resistance training), "muscle damage has a poor correlation with muscle growth" doesn't agree with what I've read on the subject.Also... some trainers are now saying that negative-emphasized training (eccentric) actually does produce more hypertrophy than concentric - but by creating greater damage, it also requires greater recovery time (10-21 days), which would explain its unpopularity (and even lack of success) among the general lifting population, as many of them can't seem to stop training for more than a few days even when injured.I highly recommend checking out Drew Baye's website (there's a link in my signature), as he provides a lot of free info and references in this area. Body By Science (by Doug McGuff and John Little) is another good read, though it's not free.
Nope, I'm referring to the same type of muscle damage you are. I don't mean to be condescending, but what you are espousing is pretty outdated and yes, many TRAINERS (i.e. people with no background in the hard sciences) believe that muscle growth is caused by muscle damage because that is what experience tells them.I'm not a fan of HIT, but it's funny you bring up HIT. The reason why HIT works is because of the large amount of mechanical tension that results from using a HIT protocol.I highly recommend Brad Schoenfeld. He is a person who actually publishes peer review research and is considered the worlds top expert on this subject. Here is something for free: http://img2.timg.co.il/forums/1_158907702.pdf
Well, I've read it. And I don't mean to be condescending either, but I'm wondering whether you did. This document certainly doesn't promote mechanical tension over muscle damage as the main factor regarding hypertrophy. I'm not even sure it gives them equal value, but the author states very little unequivocally (theorize this, hypothesize that), so it's a bit like trying to nail jello to the wall. ???Page 2861, under "Initiation of Exercise-Induced Muscle Hypertrophy""It is hypothesized that 3 primary factors are responsible for initiating the hypertrophic response to resistance exercise: mechanical tension, muscle damage, and metabolic stress (38,79,153,185)."Page 2862, under "Mechanical Tension"From the 5th paragraph:"Although mechanical tension alone can produce muscle hypertrophy, it is unlikely to be solely responsible for hypertrophic gains associated with exercise (79). In fact, certain resistance training routines employing high degrees of muscle tension have been shown to largely induce neural adaptations without resultant hypertrophy (28,188)."Page 2862, under "Muscle Damage"From the 1st paragraph:"Exercise training can result in localized damage to muscle tissue which, under certain conditions, is theorized to generate a hypertrophic response (38,69)."From the 4th paragraph:"This gives credence to the possibility that nerves impinging on damaged fibers might stimulate satellite cell activity, thereby promoting hypertrophy (187)."Page 2863, under "Volume"From the 2nd paragraph:"It is not clear whether the hypertrophic superiority of higher-volume workloads is the product of greater total muscle tension, muscle damage, metabolic stress, or some combination of these factors."You might also check Page 2862 under "Metabolic Stress" (1st paragraph), where it mentions metabolic stress doesn't seem to be essential for muscular growth, and the 2nd paragraph, where it's also hypothesized that the greater acidic environment from glycogenic training may lead to greater muscle fiber degradation (i.e. damage), and therefore increased hypertrophy (I'm paraphrasing here).There's more, but I'm tired of typing (this would have been easier with text and copy/paste rather than an image file). But I found nothing that states (or leads me to believe) normal muscle damage/micro-trauma/myotrauma (not injury) from resistance training does not cause (or at least contribute) to hypertrophy. Please let me know if I missed something.And thanks for the document, it contains some interesting info.
The paper discusses two primary factors other than muscle damage that cause and several other factors as well. The point of me posting the article was to show you that there are factors other than muscle damage that lead to hypertrophy. The paper has done thatYou have to understand that these factors rarely occur independent of each other. And yes, neither of them are "essential" because you can always trigger hypertrophy using the other methods.
The point of me posting the article was to show you that there are factors other than muscle damage that lead to hypertrophy. The paper has done that
As mentioned, the document states very little as fact, but a good bit as hypothesis and theory.Indeed, there probably are many little known/understood factors involved at the cellular/molecular level, but as you stated, "All exercises are going to cause muscle damage." And since we agree that muscle damage is a common denominator, it certainly doesn't seem absurd IMO to assume there is also a correlation with any resultant hypertrophy. But we can still agree to disagree on this point if you wish.At the end of the day, all I really need to know is which routine returns the most bang for my limited effort involved (more interested in strength than hypertrophy at present). Knowing the inner workings (or not) won't change that.
Whatever you do, DO NOT go down the rabbit hole and try to adjust your training to allow you to eat more carbs in the backload. The results are not pretty for those try that.
I really appreciate the feedback, Bob. I am sure exactly what you mean by the above. Do you mean that I shouldn't try to rationalize any amount of carbs based upon extra sets or something? Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Whatever you do, DO NOT go down the rabbit hole and try to adjust your training to allow you to eat more carbs in the backload. The results are not pretty for those try that.
I really appreciate the feedback, Bob. I am sure exactly what you mean by the above. Do you mean that I shouldn't try to rationalize any amount of carbs based upon extra sets or something? Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
What he means is that folks tend to try to do "more" so that they get in the mindset they can have "more" carbs than what their body can handle. What is ideal is to training to fit your goals, i.e. strength; hypertrophy; etc, then tail your actual macros/calories to keep performing at a high quality state as well as achieving muscle growth.
@mac @ibobland08I appreciate the discussion. You both live up to the "iron sharpens iron, as one man sharpens another" proverb! 🙂 Well done. Probably safe to say that whether the resistance is very slow and controlling the movement or quicker and more max rep focused, one would benefit over the sitting on one's dead ass! Lol. Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
That's sorta what I figured. Chapter 1 of CBL was very impacting for me. The idea of carbohydrates as being a very powerful drug just made a lot of sense to me. Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Whatever you do, DO NOT go down the rabbit hole and try to adjust your training to allow you to eat more carbs in the backload. The results are not pretty for those try that.
I really appreciate the feedback, Bob. I am sure exactly what you mean by the above. Do you mean that I shouldn't try to rationalize any amount of carbs based upon extra sets or something? Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
What he means is that folks tend to try to do "more" so that they get in the mindset they can have "more" carbs than what their body can handle. What is ideal is to training to fit your goals, i.e. strength; hypertrophy; etc, then tail your actual macros/calories to keep performing at a high quality state as well as achieving muscle growth.
Tex nails it. This is exactly what I mean. Don't get me wrong though, if you have a social function where you will likely eat a lot of carbs and desserts, you can modify your training schedule so your backload coincides with it.What you want to avoid is adding extra sets or reps so you can eat more carbs on a regular basis.
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.