Sarcoplasmic Hypertrophy

[MEGALORD]

I find it self contradicting to say that rep counts higher than 5 becomes non-functional 'bodybuilder bulky' physique when endurance training is a high repetition work. Anyone? I have seen videos of sport athletes such as a sprinter who weight lifts performing 10-12 repetition. And let's not forget body-weight exercises performed by athletes where all perform reps higher than 5 counts with excellent stamina not to mention excellent physiques, non-functional? I don't think so and none of them carry 'bodybuilder' bulks as this new sarcoplasmic myth ( which is what many are starting to say ) that is being spread everywhere. What is your thought on this?

[SuffolkPunch]

> 5 ...

but < 20 also.

Bodybuilders use all rep ranges and exercise all visible muscles.
Athletes use a rep range appropriate to their event and train muscles in combinations specfic to their event.

[Retardo-pex]

I find it self contradicting to say that rep counts higher than 5 becomes non-functional 'bodybuilder bulky' physique when endurance training is a high repetition work. Anyone? I have seen videos of sport athletes such as a sprinter who weight lifts performing 10-12 repetition. And let's not forget body-weight exercises performed by athletes where all perform reps higher than 5 counts with excellent stamina not to mention excellent physiques, non-functional? I don't think so and none of them carry 'bodybuilder' bulks as this new sarcoplasmic myth ( which is what many are starting to say ) that is being spread everywhere. What is your thought on this?

Although it is more complicated then I am about to describe, it basically comes down to energy systems. Your body has a few ways to make sure your muscles can move and keep moving. For heavy or intense activities that last a very short amount of time (like sprinting or lifting a 5 rep max) your msucles don't need oxygen, they will utilized some stored energy to perform the task. When you do saomething like run a mile or do a set of 20 reps, your muscles will be using oxygen and all the little organelles within the cell will be put to work.

If you need to produce more force, your muscles contractile proteins grow in size/girth and your nervous system gets better at recruiting more of the muscle/muscle groups to perform the task. When you stress your muscles like a bodybuilder, your muscle adapts by increasing the amount of organelles in each cell to be able to handle more total work.

Think of it this way, if you an office, you can either hire a few really smart guys who can get everything done and simply get better and smarter each time they do all of their work you will be able to handle the workload (myofibril) If your managers want to hire more employees to do the work they will need to eventually increase the space in which you all work (sarcoplasmic).

Both processes occur in every athlete though, no one only gets sarcoplasmic hypertrophy or myofibril, there is always overlap just some people focus on one more then the other.

[MEGALORD]

Although it is more complicated then I am about to describe, it basically comes down to energy systems. Your body has a few ways to make sure your muscles can move and keep moving. For heavy or intense activities that last a very short amount of time (like sprinting or lifting a 5 rep max) your msucles don't need oxygen, they will utilized some stored energy to perform the task. When you do saomething like run a mile or do a set of 20 reps, your muscles will be using oxygen and all the little organelles within the cell will be put to work.

If you need to produce more force, your muscles contractile proteins grow in size/girth and your nervous system gets better at recruiting more of the muscle/muscle groups to perform the task. When you stress your muscles like a bodybuilder, your muscle adapts by increasing the amount of organelles in each cell to be able to handle more total work.

Think of it this way, if you an office, you can either hire a few really smart guys who can get everything done and simply get better and smarter each time they do all of their work you will be able to handle the workload (myofibril) If your managers want to hire more employees to do the work they will need to eventually increase the space in which you all work (sarcoplasmic).

Both processes occur in every athlete though, no one only gets sarcoplasmic hypertrophy or myofibril, there is always overlap just some people focus on one more then the other.

Thanks for the reply, it is said that myofibril do not increase in numbers, they simply enlarge in size. And that one cannot have one particular hypertrophy without the other. The idea that high reps create bodybuilder bulks becomes illogical when none of these high rep performing athletes carry a 'bodybuilder' physique. What is your thought on that? Besides it is said that endurance training predominate slow twitch muscle fibers which do not take up so much space ( small in amount ). I understand what you are saying, I am just confused with this whole immediate, "hey reps higher than 5 is non-functional hypertrophy," is certainly exaggerating, don't you think?

It has also been said that glycogen stores which comes with water weight is mistaken to be sarcoplasmic hypertrophy i.e glycosome organelle gets big but not the sarcoplasm fluid. And think about it, the bodybuilder physique is clearly a drug induced physique on top of high calorie diet and supplements, it is illogical and judgmental to put the blame on repetition count.

If you take MMA fighters, they work on both endurance and strength to become an all around functional athlete which means a lot of high repetition work, who dares to say they are non-functional let alone 'bodybuilder bulks / sarcoplasm' ? Certainly we have the sarcoplasm fluid which is just like the cytoplasm of other cells, but to claim that they increase in amount the way it has been fussed about seems to raise a doubt.

[MEGALORD]

> 5 ...

but < 20 also.

Bodybuilders use all rep ranges and exercise all visible muscles.
Athletes use a rep range appropriate to their event and train muscles in combinations specfic to their event.

You are right bodybuilders use all rep ranges, especially when it is a progressive resistance training, as the load gets heavier repetition is bound to decrease. This means the attack on pro bodybuilders being non-functional all show no go hypertrophy is plain blindness.

[SuffolkPunch]

To me, "functional" training involves complex movements coordinating several muscle groups. For example, if you have super strong legs and upper back - but lower back is weak as f**k then you are not going to be able to lift an atlas stone.

This is why I mentioned athletes and chains of movements - bodybuilders tend to isolate muscles more. Probably the better ones will not allow such weaknesses to develop.

[SumDumGoi]

Thanks for the reply, it is said that myofibril do not increase in numbers, they simply enlarge in size. And that one cannot have one particular hypertrophy without the other. The idea that high reps create bodybuilder bulks becomes illogical when none of these high rep performing athletes carry a 'bodybuilder' physique. What is your thought on that? Besides it is said that endurance training predominate slow twitch muscle fibers which do not take up so much space ( small in amount ). I understand what you are saying, I am just confused with this whole immediate, "hey reps higher than 5 is non-functional hypertrophy," is certainly exaggerating, don't you think?

It has also been said that glycogen stores which comes with water weight is mistaken to be sarcoplasmic hypertrophy i.e glycosome organelle gets big but not the sarcoplasm fluid. And think about it, the bodybuilder physique is clearly a drug induced physique on top of high calorie diet and supplements, it is illogical and judgmental to put the blame on repetition count.

If you take MMA fighters, they work on both endurance and strength to become an all around functional athlete which means a lot of high repetition work, who dares to say they are non-functional let alone 'bodybuilder bulks / sarcoplasm' ? Certainly we have the sarcoplasm fluid which is just like the cytoplasm of other cells, but to claim that they increase in amount the way it has been fussed about seems to raise a doubt.

From a practical standpoint, rep count is not going to favor sarcoplasmic or myofibrillar hypertrophy. Higher reps (~10-12) are also associated with improving your 1 RM and lower reps (~5-6) also will produce increases in your 12 RM. In fact there is a very strong correlation between the number of reps you can perform with a given weight and the person's 1 RM. So yes, any stated differences in the type of hypertrophy resulting from the number of reps performed is overstated.
This does not imply that different types of hypertrophy do not exist. It is just that both types will increase proportionally when performing rep ranges that are most commonly performed in the gym.

Also, increasing glycogen stores is not "mistaken" to be sarcoplasmic hypertrophy. It IS sarcoplasmic hypertrophy. Anything that is responsible for increasing the sarcoplasm of the skeletal muscle cell. This includes creatine supplementation as well.

[MEGALORD]

From a practical standpoint, rep count is not going to favor sarcoplasmic or myofibrillar hypertrophy. Higher reps (~10-12) are also associated with improving your 1 RM and lower reps (~5-6) also will produce increases in your 12 RM. In fact there is a very strong correlation between the number of reps you can perform with a given weight and the person's 1 RM. So yes, any stated differences in the type of hypertrophy resulting from the number of reps performed is overstated.
This does not imply that different types of hypertrophy do not exist. It is just that both types will increase proportionally when performing rep ranges that are most commonly performed in the gym.

Also, increasing glycogen stores is not "mistaken" to be sarcoplasmic hypertrophy. It IS sarcoplasmic hypertrophy. Anything that is responsible for increasing the sarcoplasm of the skeletal muscle cell. This includes creatine supplementation as well.

I am not an expert in physiology but isn't glycogen storage in glycosome granule which means the granule increases in size but not the fluid / cytoplasm / sarcoplasm that holds it? Unless this is what is termed as 'sarcoplasmic hypertrophy'. However I am sure it all comes down to calorie intake, I mean one can only increase so much of glycogen storage based on calorie intake instead of singularly dependent on rep count. What is your thought on this sentence? :

"Reps 10-12 builds sarcoplasmic non-functional bodybuilder bulks."

I disagree with this, it gives the same panic that this myth gives ,"women should not weight train because it makes them bulky." As if as soon as rep range exceeds 5 the muscle explodes into bodybuilder bulks, just crazy, if only muscle building was that easy for those who wants to get big.

[SumDumGoi]

An increase in muscle glycogen storage inside of the muscle results in drawing more water inside of the cell. This results in an increase in the sarcoplasmic volume. This may be interesting from an academic standpoint, but from a practical standpoint, it doesn't matter.

Also, I am not sure what you are quoting in the second half of your post. Certainly it is not from me and I agree. This is because you are not going to increase one form of hypertrophy over the other due to differences in rep range.

[Finnegan Bell]

The guy who holds the world record of pullups has a huge lats. But you don't know whats his training regimen like. I mean what make you sure that atheletes or sprinters don't include heavy weights with low reps in their routines??

[MEGALORD]

An increase in muscle glycogen storage inside of the muscle results in drawing more water inside of the cell. This results in an increase in the sarcoplasmic volume. This may be interesting from an academic standpoint, but from a practical standpoint, it doesn't matter.

Also, I am not sure what you are quoting in the second half of your post. Certainly it is not from me and I agree. This is because you are not going to increase one form of hypertrophy over the other due to differences in rep range.

That quote is the 'current' belief being spread around in most ( even among 'experts' ) fitness articles. Something that I couldn't agree with, so I decided to see how accepted is that belief in bodybuilding.com. Thank u for the replies.

[MEGALORD]

The guy who holds the world record of pullups has a huge lats. But you don't know whats his training regimen like. I mean what make you sure that atheletes or sprinters don't include heavy weights with low reps in their routines??

Certainly they do, even among MMA fighters, there is no concluding anyone based on sports, you can have two fighters who train in different rep ranges and two other sport athletes training in different rep ranges and then those who mix the two. I just wanted to see how accepted is this belief that rep higher than 5 builds non-functional bodybuilder hypertrophy that is being spread around as the 'current' understanding.

[712blaster712]

I find it self contradicting to say that rep counts higher than 5 becomes non-functional 'bodybuilder bulky' physique when endurance training is a high repetition work. Anyone? I have seen videos of sport athletes such as a sprinter who weight lifts performing 10-12 repetition. And let's not forget body-weight exercises performed by athletes where all perform reps higher than 5 counts with excellent stamina not to mention excellent physiques, non-functional? I don't think so and none of them carry 'bodybuilder' bulks as this new sarcoplasmic myth ( which is what many are starting to say ) that is being spread everywhere. What is your thought on this?

sarcoplasmic hypertrophy develops an energy field of fluid around muscles. they swell up. bodybuilders shrink easy if they stop working a muscle. myofibrillar lasts way better. myofibrillar is actual fiber. I still have alot of my teen muscle when i was a laborer for a brick mason. You can build muscle without working out, just carry cement blocks all day. Both types of fiber will be used on any amount of rep. majority fiber is the deal. if you do 6 rep heavy, you will get stronger then do the rep for 10. you have progressed into more sarco rep from starting heavy. strength and size gain. you could stay at 10 for awhile or bump up the weight and reset to 6.

[SumDumGoi]

sarcoplasmic hypertrophy develops an energy field of fluid around muscles. they swell up. bodybuilders shrink easy if they stop working a muscle. myofibrillar lasts way better. myofibrillar is actual fiber. I still have alot of my teen muscle when i was a laborer for a brick mason. You can build muscle without working out, just carry cement blocks all day. Both types of fiber will be used on any amount of rep. majority fiber is the deal. if you do 6 rep heavy, you will get stronger then do the rep for 10. you have progressed into more sarco rep from starting heavy. strength and size gain. you could stay at 10 for awhile or bump up the weight and reset to 6.

You are currently 38 years old and claim to have a lot of your "teen" muscle.

[Orlando1234977]

sarcoplasmic hypertrophy develops an energy field of fluid around muscles.

[SumDumGoi]

Yeah, that too

[MEGALORD]

Have any of you guys read The Myth of Non-Functional Hypertrophy article? My post count is too little to post it here but you can read it online if you haven't.

Other than that Mike Tyson barely carried any weights I agree with the rest of what is said in that article. If glycogen storage is sarcoplasmic hypertrophy, then it comes down to calorie intake, one can only store so much based on how much he eats. So basically the article says endurance training makes the body to adapt storing more glycogen, but how much difference that makes is not a solid answer I would say I mean take a look at most endurance athletes, carrying bulks? No freaking way, telling that to a marathon runner is laughable or take a look at the Marines, their body-weight workouts like pull ups, push ups etc are about doing the maximum rep possible, that's toughness, strength and endurance, non-functional bulks? No freakin way, this critically judgmental belief being spread around is creating a new panic just like any other associated with weight training.

[MEGALORD]

sarcoplasmic hypertrophy develops an energy field of fluid around muscles. they swell up. bodybuilders shrink easy if they stop working a muscle. myofibrillar lasts way better. myofibrillar is actual fiber. I still have alot of my teen muscle when i was a laborer for a brick mason. You can build muscle without working out, just carry cement blocks all day. Both types of fiber will be used on any amount of rep. majority fiber is the deal. if you do 6 rep heavy, you will get stronger then do the rep for 10. you have progressed into more sarco rep from starting heavy. strength and size gain. you could stay at 10 for awhile or bump up the weight and reset to 6.

The idea that 5 reps create better strength than 10 reps has been proven to be carrying no solid evidence based on size principle study. If a maximum or near maximum rep is used at the end of a workout the strength difference is not significant it seems. Speaking of your teen muscle, let me see if I get you, I understand that people who have done hard labor works carrying weights all day long build very strong grip and forearms, if this is better than doing forearm reps with a dumbbell then I guess there is a difference in training in a static hold or isometric contraction versus dynamic. If we compare Power-lifters to a Bodybuilder, for a Power-lifter there is no way you can do endless reps when your goal is to lift the heaviest, in that sense a Power-lifter seems to be building stronger tendons and stabilizer muscles, the intensity is greater so logically it would be a 1 rep max action versus a bodybuilder who is focused on intelligently using a weight to work a muscle group. However the heavy power-lifter style (compound exercises) training is also incorporated by bodybuilders so there is no way to stereotype bodybuilders. I believe it all comes down to type of training and how the muscle responds to each stimuli.

As for sarcoplasmic hypertrophy, energy field? Well sarcoplasm fluid assists in muscle contraction for calcium ion release ( I am no expert in this field but something like that ), I think that's what you mean by 'energy field'.

[gomez26]

The idea that 5 reps create better strength than 10 reps has been proven to be carrying no solid evidence based on size principle study. If a maximum or near maximum rep is used at the end of a workout the strength difference is not significant it seems.

5 reps works better to increase your 5RM i.e. '5-rep strength'
10 reps works better to increase your 10RM i.e. '10-rep strength'
1 rep works better to increase your 1RM i.e. '1-rep strength' etc.
this is the SAID principle.

for beginners the carryover between 1RM & xRM is very strong, but as you advance this correlation becomes weaker & eventually it becomes counterproductive to spend considerable effort increasing your x rep max if your goal is to develop the highest possible y rep max. if an elite powerlifter started to put in considerable effort to increase his 10RM, his 1RM would start to drop.

in your last sentence in my quote, u seem to be referring to the fact that if a lighter set is taken to failure then the largest, strongest fibers are recruited anyway due to fatigue of the other fibers. this is true, but the issue is how much energy/resources you are willing to spend to get to this point? 20+ rep sets to failure are quite exhausting metabolically, u can do a much more efficient job re protein degradation by using a heavier weight, say a 10 rep-max for several sets of 8 and you can stop a rep short of failure to conserve your resources. likewise training with very low reps (1-4) requires a very high volume to get adequate protein degradation but this is very exhausting on the cns due to the high loads used. so u have constraints from either side of moderate. for hypertrophy the goal is maximal protein degradation while keeping systemic demands (cns & metabolic) low, moderate loads facilitate this well. read this excerpt from zatsiorsky about rate of protein degradation (per rep) vs total protein degradation (per workout). http://forum.bodybuilding.com/attach...3&d=1322726918

[SumDumGoi]

5 reps works better to increase your 5RM i.e. '5-rep strength'
10 reps works better to increase your 10RM i.e. '10-rep strength'
1 rep works better to increase your 1RM i.e. '1-rep strength' etc.
this is the SAID principle.

for beginners the carryover between 1RM & xRM is very strong, but as you advance this correlation becomes weaker & eventually it becomes counterproductive to spend considerable effort increasing your x rep max if your goal is to develop the highest possible y rep max. if an elite powerlifter started to put in considerable effort to increase his 10RM, his 1RM would start to drop.

in your last sentence in my quote, u seem to be referring to the fact that if a lighter set is taken to failure then the largest, strongest fibers are recruited anyway due to fatigue of the other fibers. this is true, but the issue is how much energy/resources you are willing to spend to get to this point? 20+ rep sets to failure are quite exhausting metabolically, u can do a much more efficient job re protein degradation by using a heavier weight, say a 10 rep-max for several sets of 8 and you can stop a rep short of failure to conserve your resources. likewise training with very low reps (1-4) requires a very high volume to get adequate protein degradation but this is very exhausting on the cns due to the high loads used. so for hypertrophy the goal is maximal protein degradation while keeping systemic loads (cns & metabolic) low, moderate loads facilitate this well. read this excerpt from zatsiorsky about rate of protein degradation (per rep) vs total protein degradation (per workout). http://forum.bodybuilding.com/attach...3&d=1322726918

Please do show the evidence where this correlation becomes weaker with training.

[gomez26]

Please do show the evidence where this correlation becomes weaker with training.

Simply understanding the SAID principle is evidence enough. anyone who doesnt understand this simply does not understand the SAID principle, in particular the implications to elite athletes who are close to maxing out their full potential. beginning & intermediate athletes simply are unable to fully tap into all of their resources which is why the carry-over applies to them.

an elite competitive athlete dedicates most of his daily resources to maximum performance in the specific activity. the resources/recovery ability are obviously limited. any given rep max requires a very specific pattern (proportion) of imposed demands from the resources, most notably from the CNS, muscular system (with specific regard to protein degradation), fatigue of metabolic system etc.

a 1-rep max is at the extreme end of the scale in that it requires very high demands from the CNS, moderate demands from muscular system & low demands from fatigue of metabolic system. a 10 rep max requires roughly moderate demands from all these systems.

if an elite 1-rep max athlete (e.g. olympic-lifter or power-lifter) begins to spend considerable time trying to improve their 10 rep max of their lifts, their 1 rep max will start to regress. to maintain or improve their 1 rep max requires a high proportion of their limited resources to be spent on imposed demands that stress their CNS for the specific task of max output during the time it takes to compete a 1 rep max. by working seriously on boosting their 10 rep max will mean only moderate demands are being imposed on the CNS because more of their resources are now being spent on systems that are not as important for max output during a 1-rep max (most notably metabolic fatigue). so their 1-rep max will start to regress because their CNS will start to be under-trained.

a 1 rep max specialist must avoid metabolic fatigue demands as much as possible, they have to practice their 1 rep performances (with varying %'s) as often as possible while being as fresh as possible. a 10 rep max has considerable fatigue demands which is a waste of resources for a 1 rep max specialist.

lets say for the sake of an example an elite lifter has a total of 100 units of recovery ability resources (numbers are just for example to illustrate the concept).
maximizing a 1 rep max may require 60 units to be spent on CNS, 30 units on protein degradation of muscular system & 10 units on metabolic fatigue.
maximizing a 10 rep max may require 30 units to be spent on CNS, 40 units on protein degradation of muscular system & 30 units on metabolic fatigue.
the 30 units of recovery ability spent on CNS constitutes de-training given that 60 units are normally spent on it during training for 1-rep max.

Novice & intermediate athletes will readily improve their 1 rep max by increasing their 10 rep max's, just not as efficiently as focusing on their 1-rep max's. but take any elite athlete close to their maximum potential who has specialized on maximizing their 1-rep max & have them put in considerable effort to increase their 10 rep max & their 1-rep max will start to regress. its kind of obvious when comparing activities that differ to the extreme like sprinting & marathon running i.e. 10 second vs 3 hour performances. anyone can see that if any good sprinter started to spend time seriously practicing marathons their sprint times will not be as good anymore, while someone who is completely out of shape can easily improve both at once. the correlation becomes weaker much sooner. however a 1 rep max (say a 6 second performance) and a 10 rep max (say 30-40 second performance) are obviously much closer (than sprint vs marathon) so you can go much longer in improving both at once, but eventually there will be a point (advanced to elite) where an athlete who specializes in 1 rep max will see a drop in 1 rep max performance if he seriously started to focus on 10 rep max's.
one set of demands will eventually eat into the other when the limit of potential is close to being reached. this is the essence of the SAID principle.

[SumDumGoi]

Conjecture and evidence are not the same thing. Also, what is this comparison you are making between sprinters and distance runners? Since when is sprinting performance used to predict 5/10K or marathon times? When are 5/10K & marathons times used to predict sprinting performance?

You are making bull**** comparisons that don't exist to support your argument.

[gomez26]

Conjecture and evidence are not the same thing. Also, what is this comparison you are making between sprinters and distance runners? Since when is sprinting performance used to predict 5/10K or marathon times? When are 5/10K & marathons times used to predict sprinting performance?

You are making bull**** comparisons that don't exist to support your argument.

nice try to distort the argument & divert attention. the runner example was a very small part of the explanation just for some perspective, the concept is exactly the same & i pointed out myself it was an extreme comparison given that the differing rep situations we are specifically discussing are much, much closer. so rather than trying to derail the discussion just admit you learned something today & kindly exit the thread.

[SumDumGoi]

nice try to distort the argument & divert attention. the runner example was a very small part of the explanation just for some perspective, the concept is exactly the same & i pointed out myself it was an extreme comparison given that the differing rep situations we are specifically discussing are much, much closer. so rather than trying to derail the discussion just admit you learned something today & kindly exit the thread.

Great, now if you would just get to the part where you back up all that conjecture with actual facts. Also, no, the concept is not the same. And also, there is still a clear relationship that exists between the number of reps you can perform with a submax load comparison to 1RM strength. There might be some differences in the equation that you use due to different population groups (due to differences in muscle fiber types, anthropometric measurements, etc), but the correlation still exists. Sorry, but your made up bull**** in your earlier post only proves you have a love of typing, regardless of the validity of the content.

[gomez26]

And also, there is still a clear relationship that exists between the number of reps you can perform with a submax load comparison to 1RM strength. There might be some differences in the equation that you use due to different population groups (due to differences in muscle fiber types, anthropometric measurements, etc), but the correlation still exists.

i never said the correlation doesnt exist, thats a pretty weak strawman. im saying that at some point during advancement of an athlete the correlation weakens & the training must be highly specific, otherwise it will be eventually be counter-productive not just inefficient.

and yes the concept with the runners is the same, its just a more extreme example. sometime its easier for people to grasp the idea when considering an extreme example. perhaps this is a better example - usain bolt's 100m performance would be even better than it is today if he only ever practiced 100m sprints. the fact that he also competes in 200m holds him back in 100m sprints because the adaptions are diluted between the two demands, perhaps towards a 150m sprint. but the fact that he is good enough to win both is why its worth it for him to compete in both.

& btw i never mentioned differences between people within the population "(due to differences in muscle fiber types, anthropometric measurements, etc)" as u say, this is another thing u blatantly made up to try & get off the topic we are discussing & cloud the issue, my posts were aimed at the correlation changing within the same athlete as he advances.

[MEGALORD]

The thing about all this which rep is better debate is forever on going. There will always be someone to disagree and it happens even among top coaches and experts, there is no right answer and despite any 'new evidence' there will be other 'experts' with their own evidence. You can have different experts giving different and even conflicting recommendations. Certainly very high reps ( very light weight ) is poor when it comes to strength training. For general population sake a rep count of 1-3, 3-5, 6-10, 12-15 or 15-20 (RM) if taken to failure or near failure at the final rep or set according to the size principle does not carry any solid evidence to say that heavier is better when it comes to strength gain. But if it is true, if 1 RM training is the best which is no doubt risky then it is certainly a training not suited for everyone.

For the sake of the thread, what does Gomez have to say if any about Sarcoplasmic hypertrophy?

[MEGALORD]

nice try to distort the argument & divert attention. the runner example was a very small part of the explanation just for some perspective, the concept is exactly the same & i pointed out myself it was an extreme comparison given that the differing rep situations we are specifically discussing are much, much closer. so rather than trying to derail the discussion just admit you learned something today & kindly exit the thread.

I do feel that the 5 RM vs 10 RM being compared to sprinter vs marathon runner seems exaggerated. However if the 10RM guy is training in progressive loading manner, certainly as his load increases his rep count is bound to decrease. Maybe in that perspective rep range seems to be the answer but if observed, it is not, effort is the answer. No matter what rep is said to be the best which is a never ending debate, it is progressive loading that truly builds strength gain and the progressive loading system goes hand in hand with size principle. It is not about numbers, it is about effort, if a maximum or near maximum effort is experienced at the end of a rep or set, there is no significant strength gain difference when it comes to at which rep range you train or how much load you are carrying ( but again not too light because one cannot expect to experience maximum or near maximum effort with a weight that is too light-brings us back to manageable weight, proper form being progressive in nature )

[ironrat42]

Great, now if you would just get to the part where you back up all that conjecture with actual facts. Also, no, the concept is not the same. And also, there is still a clear relationship that exists between the number of reps you can perform with a submax load comparison to 1RM strength. There might be some differences in the equation that you use due to different population groups (due to differences in muscle fiber types, anthropometric measurements, etc), but the correlation still exists. Sorry, but your made up bull**** in your earlier post only proves you have a love of typing, regardless of the validity of the content.

Agreed, also, I don't understand how Gomez can claim that in any stage of a lifters career increasing a 10 rep max will lower a 1RM. Also, considerable time is very subjective, and you used the example of an olympic (the real olympics, not someone who does olympic lifts) lifter, which I find to be a little bit rediculous because these people are in a category alone, you cannot claim to know about how their bodies react to training because the reality is that they are "freaks of nature". Yes, there are still guiding principles that many of them follow, but trying to make claims about how their bodies are going to react to training, especially the one that is made by gomez is just ignorant. Now, I do agree with parts of what you say about the SAID principle, but you lay it out as if it is just black and white, and any person who has been researching lifting and practicing for at least a couple of years knows that lifting is primarily shades of gray with many basic principles underlying these shades.

[Orlando1234977]

That quote is the 'current' belief being spread around in most ( even among 'experts' ) fitness articles.

"Reps 10-12 builds sarcoplasmic non-functional bodybuilder bulks."

I just wanted to see how accepted is this belief that rep higher than 5 builds non-functional bodybuilder hypertrophy that is being spread around as the 'current' understanding.

No freakin way, this critically judgmental belief being spread around is creating a new panic just like any other associated with weight training.

The thing about all this which rep is better debate is forever on going.

Maybe in that perspective rep range seems to be the answer

it is not, effort is the answer.

It is not about numbers, it is about effort

I think you're trying to categorize terms and concepts into "best" and "worst" while trying to find the "answer".

Recognize many variables work together and when managed right can lead to progressive overload, which leads to moving closer to a goal. Unless there's a more specific false claim you're trying to refute..

Even your mystery quote of "Reps 10-12 builds sarcoplasmic non-functional bodybuilder bulks" isn't exactly refutable as worded, as bodybuilders do try to maximize every aspect of hypertrophy, which includes sarcoplasmic hypertrophy. That doesn't suggest 10-12 targets specifically one aspect.

[_XYDREX_]

Also, considerable time is very subjective, and you used the example of an olympic (the real olympics, not someone who does olympic lifts) lifter, which I find to be a little bit rediculous because these people are in a category alone, you cannot claim to know about how their bodies react to training because the reality is that they are "freaks of nature". Yes, there are still guiding principles that many of them follow, but trying to make claims about how their bodies are going to react to training, especially the one that is made by gomez is just ignorant. Now, I do agree with parts of what you say about the SAID principle, but you lay it out as if it is just black and white, and any person who has been researching lifting and practicing for at least a couple of years knows that lifting is primarily shades of gray with many basic principles underlying these shades.

Bodybuilding may have many shades of gray but Olympic lifting is pretty exact with respect to SAID principle.
You will not find any of them doing sets of 10 when practicing their lifts that's for sure.