• All new members please introduce your self here and welcome to the board:
    http://www.professionalmuscle.com/forums/showthread.php?t=259
Buy Needles And Syringes With No Prescription
M4B Store Banner
spc
Riptropin Store banner
Generation X Bodybuilding Forum
Buy Needles And Syringes With No Prescription
Buy Needles And Syringes With No Prescription
Mysupps Store Banner
IP Gear Store Banner
Anabolic Hormones Store Banner
Ganabol Store Banner
Spend $100 and get bonus needles free at sterile syringes
Professional Muscle Store open now
LandmarkChem Email Banner
Medtech Store Banner
Bruce Labs Store banner
qtropin
Professional Muscle Store open now
over 5000 supplements on sale at professional muscle store
sunrise
ESPECIL-2
Buy Needles And Syringes With No Prescription
over 5000 supplements on sale at professional muscle store
over 5000 supplements on sale at professional muscle store
over 5000 supplements on sale at professional muscle store
over 5000 supplements on sale at professional muscle store
over 5000 supplements on sale at professional muscle store
over 5000 supplements on sale at professional muscle store
over 5000 supplements on sale at professional muscle store
over 5000 supplements on sale at professional muscle store

Scientific method to trainings affect on building muscle.

Thebigone

New member
Kilo Klub Member
Joined
Oct 28, 2009
Messages
3,621
One pet peeve I have always had is that everybody responds differently to certain ways of training. It's extremely annoying because you can spend decades trying different methods to figure out what works for you and you still may not know what works 100% for you. With dieting it makes sense that some people can take in more carbs than others due to insulin resistance and sensitivity. It also makes sense that your body type can affect your metabolism which can also impact how you diet so I understand how dieting can be different but when it comes to actually pure muscle building I don't see how there isn't a scientific method proving what type of training will cause ultimate muscle growth. You have people like Ben Pakulski who's approach is everything by science. Apparently he states that 8reps is the exact number for the maximum amount of muscle building and 40 to 60 seconds rest is the exact amount of time between sets for muscle building. But he also gets a lot of crap for incorrect information. Then you have articles saying that hypertrophy is the only true way to build muscle. I believe the article on hypertrophy I read was 8 to 12 reps with 60 to 90 seconds rest if I recall correctly. But then I asked myself what about heavy strength training? Resting 4 to 5 minutes in between sets will allow you to lift more weight than you ever could have with shorter rest periods. If you are lifting more weight you should build more muscle. The only difference between individuals aside from gear/food intake that would affect muscle building that I can think of is recovery. Your body type could determine this but I still don't see how there isn't a scientific proven method to build muscle so you know what you're doing every day in the gym is building muscle if that is your goal.
 

maldorf

Featured Member / Kilo Klub
Featured Member
Registered
Joined
Mar 16, 2007
Messages
22,157
Another difference between people is how their muscle breaks down by what types they have proportionately. Some are slow twitch oxidative (more aerobic and endurance based) and some are more fast twitch glycolytic (anaerobic and strength). Muscle cells exist on a spectrum that spreads between those two extremes and each person has a different percentage of each type.

Training the body to grow muscle might have to change slightly due to that. Research has shown though, I was involved in helping out with some in grad school, that the "type" of the muscle will actually change in response to the stimulus of weight training. Cells that were more slow twitch can actually become more fast twitch in nature. When training stops though the muscles go back to their original status pre training. So I don't know how much influence the muscle type really has. We experimented with men 65 years and older and even they were able to increase muscle mass. Their muscle typing changed during the training.

Just something to think about.
 
Last edited:

asteelz

Featured Member / Kilo Klub
Featured Member
Kilo Klub Member
Joined
Jan 19, 2009
Messages
1,839
Another difference between people is how their muscle breaks down by what types they have proportionately. Some are slow twitch oxidative (more aerobic and endurance based) and some are more fast twitch glycolytic (anaerobic and strength). Muscle cells exist on a spectrum that spreads between those two extremes and each person has a different percentage of each type.

Training the body to grow muscle might have to change slightly due to that. Research has shown though, I was involved in helping out with some in grad school, that the "type" of the muscle will actually change in response to the stimulus of weight training. Cells that were more slow twitch can actually become more fast twitch in nature. When training stops though the muscles go back to their original status pre training. So I don't know how much influence the muscle type really has. We experimented with men 65 years and older and even they were able to increase muscle mass. Their muscle typing changed during the training.

Just something to think about.
Point well made, muscle cells are constantly adapting based on what the body requirements are. Training in different ways and causing a constant need for adaptation would, in theory, be the ideal way to make continued progress
 

maldorf

Featured Member / Kilo Klub
Featured Member
Registered
Joined
Mar 16, 2007
Messages
22,157
Point well made, muscle cells are constantly adapting based on what the body requirements are. Training in different ways and causing a constant need for adaptation would, in theory, be the ideal way to make continued progress
I was a grad student just helping out a Phd candidate and professor in the lab. They had me identifying the cell type and counting each in the microscope. It was a surprise initially for academia to see the cells changing like that. Initially for years researchers thought that the cells were always a certain type and couldn't change. By the time I got there they already knew about how they could change but they were doing further research on it. The professor I helped out was a decent amateur bodybuilder himself. We lifted together in a small gym that was private for our department. We used that gym for the exercise testing too. We took muscle biopsies prior to training, during training, and then again at the end.
 

asteelz

Featured Member / Kilo Klub
Featured Member
Kilo Klub Member
Joined
Jan 19, 2009
Messages
1,839
I was a grad student just helping out a Phd candidate and professor in the lab. They had me identifying the cell type and counting each in the microscope. It was a surprise initially for academia to see the cells changing like that. Initially for years researchers thought that the cells were always a certain type and couldn't change. By the time I got there they already knew about how they could change but they were doing further research on it. The professor I helped out was a decent amateur bodybuilder himself. We lifted together in a small gym that was private for our department. We used that gym for the exercise testing too. We took muscle biopsies prior to training, during training, and then again at the end.
I'm jealous that you had the opportunity and funding capacity to study this subject. I would never get the funding in my arena of academia. Were you able to observe hyperplasia to any degree ?
 

maldorf

Featured Member / Kilo Klub
Featured Member
Registered
Joined
Mar 16, 2007
Messages
22,157
I'm jealous that you had the opportunity and funding capacity to study this subject. I would never get the funding in my arena of academia. Were you able to observe hyperplasia to any degree ?
I had an assistantship so that I was teaching anatomy lab to undergraduates while I earned my masters and tuition was free. We also got paid about $800 a month too, that helped pay rent etc.

I did not see any hyperplasia. The study wasn't really looking at that. I would like to know though. It was really cool to see 60+ year old guys getting stronger and healthier. They had to pass a physical, but none of them were weight lifters. All fairly new to it.

The university did have good funding and I am not certain why. THe head of our department was a coach for the Olympic rowing team, so that helped. We also had a medical school. I took gross anatomy and physiology with the med students.
 
Last edited:

brutus69

Well-known member
Kilo Klub Member
Registered
Joined
Aug 27, 2010
Messages
1,786
muscle science is like nutrition science. not much "science" involved.
when u have so-called experts using "medical studies" to tout their workout routines, and some say heavy is the only way to grow, while others say absolutely no and light is the way-
when failure is cited as necessary and other studies "prove" u should never hit failure-
on and on. humans arent that different, we're the same species after all.
the more ive learned on this subject, the less i know. im ocd on the subject.
training for performance seems to have specifics that work universally, while simply training for muscle, for the look, is all over the place.
 

Thebigone

New member
Kilo Klub Member
Joined
Oct 28, 2009
Messages
3,621
Wouldn't it make sense that the more weight you lift(with proper form) will build the most muscle? It just seems like if you are 275lbs bench for 8-10 reps with 60sec rests vs 315lb bench with 8-10sets but resting 3-5min you are hitting the same reps with an additional 40lbs. That just seems like that is what would build more muscle but maybe not.
 

asteelz

Featured Member / Kilo Klub
Featured Member
Kilo Klub Member
Joined
Jan 19, 2009
Messages
1,839
I had an assistantship so that I was teaching anatomy lab to undergraduates while I earned my masters and tuition was free. We also got paid about $800 a month too, that helped pay rent etc.

I did not see any hyperplasia. The study wasn't really looking at that. I would like to know though. It was really cool to see 60+ year old guys getting stronger and healthier. They had to pass a physical, but none of them were weight lifters. All fairly new to it.

The university did have good funding and I am not certain why. THe head of our department was a coach for the Olympic rowing team, so that helped. We also had a medical school. I took gross anatomy and physiology with the med students.
You sir are lucky to have been a part of that while still in school. A unique experience compared to many of us in the medical field who learn very little about muscle growth in our didactic programs.

I asked about hyperplasia because it interests me on a personal level, but also a professor of endocrinology who I'm lucky enough to have has mentioned under certain hormonal conditions with proper stimulus the body will develop more muscle cells from undifferentiated cells allowing for more future growth. He's not a bodybuilding fan or athlete, but he has vested interest in muscle growth regarding wasting disease.

The big one- I have always rationalized this as well. But my experience has been pradoxal where often the most progress I made was when lifting with inconsistent weight reps exercises etc. bizarre.. agreed.. the more I learn the less I know
 

nothuman

Featured Member / Kilo Klub
Featured Member
Kilo Klub Member
Registered
Joined
Jan 15, 2011
Messages
11,573
Maybe consider the fitnessgenes.com genetics test as a guide for what type of training you respond best to based on your DNA?
 

Chipper Jones78

Verified Customer
Kilo Klub Member
Registered
Verified Customer
Joined
Aug 30, 2007
Messages
2,074
Maybe consider the fitnessgenes.com genetics test as a guide for what type of training you respond best to based on your DNA?
Pardon the ignorance here, but is this even possible?
 

nothuman

Featured Member / Kilo Klub
Featured Member
Kilo Klub Member
Registered
Joined
Jan 15, 2011
Messages
11,573
Curious as well. It's only 289 but seems more like suited for someone new to fitness? I may be wrong but sounds iffy to me.
It's only worth it if you are curious. There are a lot of results but by no means is it necessary.
 

homonunculus

Featured Member / Kilo Klub
Featured Member
Kilo Klub Member
Registered
Joined
Sep 25, 2002
Messages
1,595
One pet peeve I have always had is that everybody responds differently to certain ways of training. It's extremely annoying because you can spend decades trying different methods to figure out what works for you and you still may not know what works 100% for you. With dieting it makes sense that some people can take in more carbs than others due to insulin resistance and sensitivity. It also makes sense that your body type can affect your metabolism which can also impact how you diet so I understand how dieting can be different but when it comes to actually pure muscle building I don't see how there isn't a scientific method proving what type of training will cause ultimate muscle growth. You have people like Ben Pakulski who's approach is everything by science. Apparently he states that 8reps is the exact number for the maximum amount of muscle building and 40 to 60 seconds rest is the exact amount of time between sets for muscle building. But he also gets a lot of crap for incorrect information. Then you have articles saying that hypertrophy is the only true way to build muscle. I believe the article on hypertrophy I read was 8 to 12 reps with 60 to 90 seconds rest if I recall correctly. But then I asked myself what about heavy strength training? Resting 4 to 5 minutes in between sets will allow you to lift more weight than you ever could have with shorter rest periods. If you are lifting more weight you should build more muscle. The only difference between individuals aside from gear/food intake that would affect muscle building that I can think of is recovery. Your body type could determine this but I still don't see how there isn't a scientific proven method to build muscle so you know what you're doing every day in the gym is building muscle if that is your goal.
You might find this video on biological inter-individuality interesting:

[ame="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PnqlTz14LTU"]Brain Candy: Why don't you look like a Pro yet?... - YouTube[/ame]

-S
 

homonunculus

Featured Member / Kilo Klub
Featured Member
Kilo Klub Member
Registered
Joined
Sep 25, 2002
Messages
1,595
Another difference between people is how their muscle breaks down by what types they have proportionately. Some are slow twitch oxidative (more aerobic and endurance based) and some are more fast twitch glycolytic (anaerobic and strength). Muscle cells exist on a spectrum that spreads between those two extremes and each person has a different percentage of each type.

Training the body to grow muscle might have to change slightly due to that. Research has shown though, I was involved in helping out with some in grad school, that the "type" of the muscle will actually change in response to the stimulus of weight training. Cells that were more slow twitch can actually become more fast twitch in nature. When training stops though the muscles go back to their original status pre training. So I don't know how much influence the muscle type really has. We experimented with men 65 years and older and even they were able to increase muscle mass. Their muscle typing changed during the training.

Just something to think about.
A bit more detail about muscle fiber types:

[ame="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0_1Ece19q80"]What you probably should know about Muscle "Fiber Types" (with some historical context). - YouTube[/ame]

:)

-S
 

homonunculus

Featured Member / Kilo Klub
Featured Member
Kilo Klub Member
Registered
Joined
Sep 25, 2002
Messages
1,595
muscle science is like nutrition science. not much "science" involved.
when u have so-called experts using "medical studies" to tout their workout routines, and some say heavy is the only way to grow, while others say absolutely no and light is the way-
when failure is cited as necessary and other studies "prove" u should never hit failure-
on and on. humans arent that different, we're the same species after all.
the more ive learned on this subject, the less i know. im ocd on the subject.
training for performance seems to have specifics that work universally, while simply training for muscle, for the look, is all over the place.
Any researcher or expert who speaks in absolute terms as you suggest some are doing doesn't recognize that science is a continual exploration and nothing is "proven" in the absolute sense. (I'd question such a person's status as an expert, TBH.)

There are studies suggesting higher loading and load in general is important as well as those demonstrating the role of metabolic stress (lighter load training) in producing muscle growth.

This extensive review by Brad Schoenfeld (and subsequent studies and reviews he's done, among a wealth of research literature) parses out the impact of the different factors that influence muscle growth.

1. Schoenfeld BJ. The mechanisms of muscle hypertrophy and their application to resistance training. Journal of strength and conditioning research / National Strength & Conditioning Association. 2010;24(10):2857-2872.


The data really aren't all over the place unless one tries to find absolutes as in some particular best way to train - a one size fits all. Looking for that kind of answer is going to be confusing as all hell.. LOL Doing so would be like trying to find the "best car" for everyone whereas folks are quite different in terms of there needs and preferences vehicle-wise.

This is a nice article examining variability in training adaptation:
1. Timmons JA. Variability in training-induced skeletal muscle adaptation. Journal of applied physiology (Bethesda, Md : 1985). 2011;110(3):846-853.


-Scott
 

Kaladryn

Featured Member / Kilo Klub
Featured Member
Kilo Klub Member
Registered
Joined
Jul 28, 2009
Messages
5,573
I think everyone is training with different levels of intensity, it might all LOOK the same, but it's not. One person's 6 intensity level (on the scale of 1-10) might look exactly the same as another person's 3. Both people THINK they are going "all out" but there is a vast difference.

There isn't a way to make the person with a 3 train with an 6, it just isn't possible for them (probably nervous system related), so the person training at the 3 will need much higher volume. If the person training at an 6 level used high volume like the 3, he would massively overtrain. Again, to the individual, the intensity levels all FEEL the same, they are going "all out." The both THINK they are training with a 10 intensity level.

It doesn't have to do with strength level either, that is completely separate imo...
 

maldorf

Featured Member / Kilo Klub
Featured Member
Registered
Joined
Mar 16, 2007
Messages
22,157
Thanks. The study I was helping out on was back in 1994 and it seems we have already learned some more about muscle fiber types.

When I was an undergrad I helped a Phd student do his study. I was just helping around the lab so I didn't really fully understand what he was doing. He would have rats swim in big barrels of water for many hours and then afterwards we would remove the poor guys and take them upstairs to a miniature guillotine. Chop off the head and then he was studying the response of part of the brain to exercise. The phd candidate was a bodybuilder too and interested in exercise. I studied for a masters in exercise physiology. Some interesting studies.
 

maldorf

Featured Member / Kilo Klub
Featured Member
Registered
Joined
Mar 16, 2007
Messages
22,157
I think everyone is training with different levels of intensity, it might all LOOK the same, but it's not. One person's 6 intensity level (on the scale of 1-10) might look exactly the same as another person's 3. Both people THINK they are going "all out" but there is a vast difference.

There isn't a way to make the person with a 3 train with an 6, it just isn't possible for them (probably nervous system related), so the person training at the 3 will need much higher volume. If the person training at an 6 level used high volume like the 3, he would massively overtrain. Again, to the individual, the intensity levels all FEEL the same, they are going "all out." The both THINK they are training with a 10 intensity level.

It doesn't have to do with strength level either, that is completely separate imo...
As a person trains they better develop the nervous system and the muscle connection it seems so that they are able to develop more intensity. As you detrain this will go away but can be regained again with more training. I do think that each individual though has different limits though to how high they can go, no different than intelligence etc.
 

homonunculus

Featured Member / Kilo Klub
Featured Member
Kilo Klub Member
Registered
Joined
Sep 25, 2002
Messages
1,595
Thanks. The study I was helping out on was back in 1994 and it seems we have already learned some more about muscle fiber types.

When I was an undergrad I helped a Phd student do his study. I was just helping around the lab so I didn't really fully understand what he was doing. He would have rats swim in big barrels of water for many hours and then afterwards we would remove the poor guys and take them upstairs to a miniature guillotine. Chop off the head and then he was studying the response of part of the brain to exercise. The phd candidate was a bodybuilder too and interested in exercise. I studied for a masters in exercise physiology. Some interesting studies.
No problem, man.

Yeah, folks are still digging deep in to muscle histochem, ultrastructure, etc. I kind of suspect it's getting more complicated than a casual observer / fitness hobbyist would be motivated to dig into, so the older simple notions of fiber types still persist. (We humans are like that with a lot of things.. LOL :) )

-S
 

Staff online

  • pesty4077
    Moderator/ Featured Member / Kilo Klub

Forum statistics

Total page views
503,861,729
Threads
123,751
Messages
2,365,418
Members
155,266
Latest member
xsyst
Top