"bulk" vs. "lean" muscle

Have you ever heard of HIIT cardio? Apparently it increases V02 (or sum shot like dat) levels in your body, which causes your body to store more glycogen, of course with a high carb approach. Now, people think there isn't a difference between, bulk and lean muscle tissue. Which is true, but they are just terms, and used incorrectly. When people "bulk" they are putting on muscle tissue, as well as fat and a lot of water retention. People identify that muscle as "bulk" muscle, because it's a lot larger, even though the actual LEAN MUSCLE TISSUE hasn't grown that much. I see people who think they have made huge muscle gains in one month of bulking because they look bigger and "more muscular" when in truth they have put on a lot of WATER BLOAT. the best way to achieve this is to eat a lot of carbs, coupled with a caloric surplus. And the best way for your body to store this is through high intensity volume work, very similar to HIIT cardio, which diminishes glycogen stores rather fast, but supercompensates the amount of glycogen your muscles are able to hold, in turn makin your muscles "bigger". But there isnt a lot of new lean muscle tissue there, just a lot of muscle that has gone through volume work, which can now handle more glycogen storage. The best way to build LBM, lean muscle, is to lift slowly, while contracting the muscle and having full control of the weight and muscle control, and without too many sets, because volume work doesn't necessarily build muscle, it just makes muscle look bigger due to what i states before with glycogen. Going slow on your lifts and saving your energy is very useful, and with that left over energy, you could go ahead and do some HIIT cardio and get the same affects as a killer high volume lifting session while maximizing glycogen storage in your muscles, while getting a cardio workout, which can be done while bulking or cutting, and saving your joints and muscles the pain of slaying weights around uselessly for hours, thinking "more sets = more muscle". neg me If I'm wrong, this is just an opinion, but to me it makes a whole lot more sense.

I don't really know the exact science of what I do as much as others. I just go by results. And for me, volume = king.

I'm not a powerlifter or bodybuilder going for freakish mass gains though.

[QUOTE=brehbrah;995502933]I don't really know the exact science of what I do as much as others. I just go by results. And for me, volume = king.

I'm not a powerlifter or bodybuilder going for freakish mass gains though.[/QUOTE]

See, this might be a better approach for LBM gain without the water retention/glycogen storage, unless of course you are throwing in some HIIT, or something in that favor. But going slow might just give you better muscle control, and more muscle fiber contraction/damage, than volume. SO it won't make you more "massy" looking, but rather more muscular, and smaller in a shirt, and smaller with your clothes off than a guy who does high volume approach, but it doesn't mean he has more LBM than you.

wat



myofibrilar hypertrophy vs. sarcoplasmic hypertrophy is the only real difference

technically sarcoplasmic hypertrophy brings little strength benefit; but you cant have much of one without the other, and you'll never see a guy and be like "zomg thats all sarcoplasmic hypertrophy, hes weak!". Sarcoplasmic hypertrophy is limited by myofibrillar size so yea, cant really have much sarcoplasmic hypertrophy without considerable myofibrillar hypertrophy.'

TLDR NO

By the way, i'm pretty sure glycogen supercompensation is merely for performance benefits and serves no hypertrophic purpose

[QUOTE=FeelTheFear;995505123]wat



myofibrilar hypertrophy vs. sarcoplasmic hypertrophy is the only real difference

technically sarcoplasmic hypertrophy brings little strength benefit; but you cant have much of one without the other, and you'll never see a guy and be like "zomg thats all sarcoplasmic hypertrophy, hes weak!". Sarcoplasmic hypertrophy is limited by myofibrillar size so yea, cant really have much sarcoplasmic hypertrophy without considerable myofibrillar hypertrophy.'

TLDR NO[/QUOTE]

You misunderstood mate. Glycogen storage is a lot higher with volume and intensity, but a lot of guys at the gym just go heavy without complete proper form, but work their ass off to achieve better glycogen storage, because they are putting more performance into their lifting, rather than focus. I believe hypertrophy is best achieves through slow contraction of the muscles, volume has nothing to do with it.

ITT Volume has nothing to do with hypertrophy. Nice

[QUOTE=FeelTheFear;995505513]By the way, i'm pretty sure glycogen supercompensation is merely for performance benefits and serves no hypertrophic purpose[/QUOTE]

I agree, what I'm saying is, a one hour heavy, high volume intense lifting session, is almost like a 20 minute HIIT session, in terms of glycogen compensation throughout the body. But during that lifting session, one might not be lifting completely for hypertrophy, by going to heavy and eliminating muscle control and contraction, even while maintaining form, but not achieving full hypertrophy vs. Slowly contraction, and controlled contraction of muscle fibers.

[QUOTE=Almogmon;995509683]You misunderstood mate. Glycogen storage is a lot higher with volume and intensity, but a lot of guys at the gym just go heavy without complete proper form, but work their ass off to achieve better glycogen storage, because they are putting more performance into their lifting, rather than focus. I believe hypertrophy is best achieves through slow contraction of the muscles, volume has nothing to do with it.[/QUOTE]

I didn't misunderstand you. Sarcoplasmic hypertrophy is increase in muscle size from glycogen and other non-contractile mass. And simply put you can't grow considerably through that without also growing considerably in your actual muscle tissue because the size of of the non-contractile components is restricted by the size of the contractile component.

cliffs brah

[QUOTE=FeelTheFear;995511363]I didn't misunderstand you. Sarcoplasmic hypertrophy is increase in muscle size from glycogen and other non-contractile mass. And simply put you can't grow considerably through that without also growing considerably in your actual muscle tissue because the size of of the non-contractile components is restricted by the size of the contractile component.[/QUOTE]

while that is probably true, I am just saying there is a better approach to myofibril hypertrophy, and a better approach to sacroplasmic hypertrophy, IMO.
lifting slowly, contraction of muscles = myo
HIIT, or something in that sense = sacro