The science behind building muscle

[wlifter123]

I'm trying to put together a program and I'm having a hard time determining what rep range I want to use. currently I'm thinking something like Max-OT, but I have a few questions first that I was hoping someone here might be able to answer.

Does anybody really know what causes muscle failure in low rep ranges (4 to 6)? If so, what is it (lack of ATP? Wouldn't this result in a fully contracted muscle and not a relaxed one? Or is the amount of ATP remaining in the muscle enough to allow the muscle to relax?)? Does anybody know what causes muscle failure in high rep ranges (lack of available oxygen to the cells resulting in lactic acid?) If these are the causes of muscle failure, is one better for building muscle? Why?

I've read that eccentric contractions (negatives) are most likely to result in the damaging of muscle cells. I'm under the impression that it is this damage (at least on a surface level) that results in muscle growth. Why then are negatives not recommended in programs such as Max-OT?

Anyway, I know this is a boring post, thanks for reading.

-Dan

[XburningdesireX]

Wow i'd love to know the answer to those questions too.

[massmatters]

muscle failure in the low rep ranges is mostly caused by CNS failure. you CNS cuts off the signal to the muscles because it is a safety mechanism to prevent injury. the more experienced you become, the more your CNS will be able to handle.

muscle growth it's caused by training to failure, so it doesn't matter if you're training to failure or not. what causes muscle growth ( sarcomere hypertrophy ) is constant weight progression. say you bench 100lbs, that causes X amount of microtrauma, and with the proper nutrition that trauma is healed and results in thicker muscle fibers so that next time you bench 100lbs your muscle won't be so badly damaged. if you keep benching that 100lbs every time you train, then soon you muscles will become so accustomed to the weight that no microtrauma will be created, and hence no opportunity for growth. this is why it is important to progress the weight, as to keep inflicting microtrauma upon the muscles fibers.

muscles are built on the way down. here's a simple example. when you lift a weight say you are you using 10 muscle fibers, when you lower a weight you are using 3-5. the reason you are using less fibers is because you body is trying to conserve energy. and now that the load is being spread over a smaller amount of fibers, each fiber is under a much higher load than it was during the concentric, and hence resulting in greater microtrauma than on the concentric. this is why it's important to have a slow controlled negative. 1 second up, 3 seconds down.

[wlifter123]

Thanks massmatters!

That clears things up a bit. I was having a hard time figuring out how muscle failure could be due to a lack of ATP in this rep range (but then why is the use of creatine so effective?). I don't know what I was thinking about with: failure = muscle growth. I knew that micro-tears in the muscle fibers resulted in the growth, I guess I have just always (wrongly) assumed that the tearing of the muscle fibers occured during muscle failure (last rep or two). Anyway, thanks for the response, I'm just trying to know why things work the way they do. Do you know what happens on a cellular level that causes the CNS failure in low rep sets?

Also, since we know that eccentric motions result in greater muscle fiber damage, wouldn't it be most efficent to just workout using negitives? I know this can't be right or else a lot more people would be doing this, but does anybody know why this isn't utilized more?

Thanks,

Dan

[Tete]

Originally Posted by massmatters

muscle failure in the low rep ranges is mostly caused by CNS failure. you CNS cuts off the signal to the muscles because it is a safety mechanism to prevent injury. the more experienced you become, the more your CNS will be able to handle.

muscle growth it's caused by training to failure, so it doesn't matter if you're training to failure or not. what causes muscle growth ( sarcomere hypertrophy ) is constant weight progression. say you bench 100lbs, that causes X amount of microtrauma, and with the proper nutrition that trauma is healed and results in thicker muscle fibers so that next time you bench 100lbs your muscle won't be so badly damaged. if you keep benching that 100lbs every time you train, then soon you muscles will become so accustomed to the weight that no microtrauma will be created, and hence no opportunity for growth. this is why it is important to progress the weight, as to keep inflicting microtrauma upon the muscles fibers.

muscles are built on the way down. here's a simple example. when you lift a weight say you are you using 10 muscle fibers, when you lower a weight you are using 3-5. the reason you are using less fibers is because you body is trying to conserve energy. and now that the load is being spread over a smaller amount of fibers, each fiber is under a much higher load than it was during the concentric, and hence resulting in greater microtrauma than on the concentric. this is why it's important to have a slow controlled negative. 1 second up, 3 seconds down.

I was reading on professionalmuscle.com that slow negatives were only good IF u were using supramaximal (sp?) weight....
Gene from avantlabs said a long time ago that faster negatives would recruit more fibers. Rob Thoburn said something like that 2

[Jotun]

Originally Posted by Tete

I was reading on professionalmuscle.com that slow negatives were only good IF u were using supramaximal (sp?) weight....
Gene from avantlabs said a long time ago that faster negatives would recruit more fibers. Rob Thoburn said something like that 2

Faster negatives recruit more muscle fibers? I don't think so, but the reversal of a fast negative (coupled with the myotatic reflex) will involve more muscle fibers.

[dookie1481]

Originally Posted by massmatters

muscles are built on the way down.

Then explain the incredible trap development of many Olympic weightlifters.

[Cosmonaut]

Originally Posted by dookie1481

Then explain the incredible trap development of many Olympic weightlifters.

Im pretty sure concentric part damages the muscle fibre as well and since olympic weightlifters workout like 10-30 times a week using the same movement, its probably enough to stimulate some kind of growth.

[hepennypacker52]

Originally Posted by Cosmonaut

Im pretty sure concentric part damages the muscle fibre as well and since olympic weightlifters workout like 10-30 times a week using the same movement, its probably enough to stimulate some kind of growth.

There is no cocentric portion of olympic lifts.

[TheOak]

Originally Posted by hepennypacker52

There is no cocentric portion of olympic lifts.

what about the part where they stand up with the weigh and their quads contract along with many other muscles and the part where they push the weight up and all the muscles that do the upward pushing contract like triceps and shoulders and...

[Defiant1]

Originally Posted by wlifter123

I'm trying to put together a program and I'm having a hard time determining what rep range I want to use. currently I'm thinking something like Max-OT, but I have a few questions first that I was hoping someone here might be able to answer.

Does anybody really know what causes muscle failure in low rep ranges (4 to 6)? If so, what is it (lack of ATP? Wouldn't this result in a fully contracted muscle and not a relaxed one? Or is the amount of ATP remaining in the muscle enough to allow the muscle to relax?)? Does anybody know what causes muscle failure in high rep ranges (lack of available oxygen to the cells resulting in lactic acid?) If these are the causes of muscle failure, is one better for building muscle? Why?

I've read that eccentric contractions (negatives) are most likely to result in the damaging of muscle cells. I'm under the impression that it is this damage (at least on a surface level) that results in muscle growth. Why then are negatives not recommended in programs such as Max-OT?

Anyway, I know this is a boring post, thanks for reading.

-Dan

The correct answer to which rep range to use is........Yes.

Use them all. With experience, you will find which range to concentrate on for each of YOUR muscle groups.

This is not meant as an insult, but you are thinking too much. Try what has worked for others, don't try to reinvent the wheel until later. Working out is not rocket science. Everything works to some extent. As long as you are training you are on the right track. Believe me, if you get your info from "science" you will always doubt yourself, as the science always changes. If you get the knowledge from your own experience, your confidence will be ROCK SOLID, as it won't MATTER what anyone else says.

[Cosmonaut]

Originally Posted by hepennypacker52

There is no cocentric portion of olympic lifts.

Ok, im assuming that they bring the weight up somehow.

[wlifter123]

Defiant, thanks for the response. I am working out, experimenting and trying new things and can appreciate the advice you gave me. I am going to be trying what seems to have worked for others, I'll be starting Max-OT in about another week and most likely trying something else after 12 weeks of that.

But I find it hard to listen to others regarding lifting, I always have this feeling that most people don't know what they're talking about. I feel a lot of people either don't understand what they've heard, believe everything they read, or contribute gains they made to something other than what actually made them stronger. I just want to cut through all the BS and know exactly what works and why so I can make my training more effecient. I like being in the gym, and I'd happily do 5 sets of 15 reps if that was most effecient, but if I can build muscle much faster with negatives, I'd like to do it. Eventually I will try to put negatives into my workout, but that will be at least 12 weeks away, mean while I might as well try and see if I'll be wasting my time.

Also, I've got a B.S. in biology, more focused on ecology though, but this stuff holds some interest with me and I feel that I should already know the answers to this stuff. The fact that I don't drives me crazy.

But you bring up a good point, real world experiance. Has anyone done a program that includes a lot of negatives? Was it effective?

[Defiant1]

Originally Posted by wlifter123

Defiant, thanks for the response. I am working out, experimenting and trying new things and can appreciate the advice you gave me. I am going to be trying what seems to have worked for others, I'll be starting Max-OT in about another week and most likely trying something else after 12 weeks of that.

But I find it hard to listen to others regarding lifting, I always have this feeling that most people don't know what they're talking about. I feel a lot of people either don't understand what they've heard, believe everything they read, or contribute gains they made to something other than what actually made them stronger. I just want to cut through all the BS and know exactly what works and why so I can make my training more effecient. I like being in the gym, and I'd happily do 5 sets of 15 reps if that was most effecient, but if I can build muscle much faster with negatives, I'd like to do it. Eventually I will try to put negatives into my workout, but that will be at least 12 weeks away, mean while I might as well try and see if I'll be wasting my time.

Also, I've got a B.S. in biology, more focused on ecology though, but this stuff holds some interest with me and I feel that I should already know the answers to this stuff. The fact that I don't drives me crazy.

But you bring up a good point, real world experiance. Has anyone done a program that includes a lot of negatives? Was it effective?

You will find that what's right now will be wrong later, and vice versa. Negatives have been around for awhile (in principle I mean, starting basically with NAUTILUS); if they were the be-all end-all for size building, everyone would be doing them.

Don't fall into the trap of thinking that no one else knows what they are talking about. You have to understand that, while bodybuilding has intellectual elements about it, it is not an intellectual activity, it is more of an art. Don't let your brain hold your body back. Exercise physiology is a soft science right now. Some may argue this, but that's the way that it is. There is no ONE best way to train: beware those who say there is.

I am in favor of trying different things, but always keep an open mind while you are trying them. Avoid dogmatic programs like HIT etc. that claim everyone else is wrong. Don't kid yourself, if it was the best, everyone would be doing it. There is no "hidden" training technique that will make you huge.

[hepennypacker52]

Originally Posted by TheOak

what about the part where they stand up with the weigh and their quads contract along with many other muscles and the part where they push the weight up and all the muscles that do the upward pushing contract like triceps and shoulders and...

LOL my bad sorry I knew before I even read these responses. I mixed up cocentric and eccentric.

[EP87]

I guess I'm expected to answer this. I don't want to argue with Defiant, but science is still much, much more stable than bodybuilding lore. Some stuff has been asserted as fact, which will remain unchanged from now until the end of time. Some stuff has not. At any rate, bodybuilding fads change much more frequently than science does. But definately agree that working with your own body is the best way to go. And like he says, pretty much everything will work to some degree.

With low rep ranges, you reach failure due to run down of ATP. But you never run out, mind you, because ATP is required to both attach, rotate, and and detach the proteins. As atp stores break down, your body switches to alternative energy systems to preserve what is remaining. Energy is released as ATP molecules are broken down. Phosphocreatine is easily, and very quickly broken down to rebuild ATP. When these stores deplete, the body is unable to replace ATP at a quick enough rate to maintain near-maximal efforts, causing "failure". That is also how creatine loading acts to increase the length of time which you can exercise at high intensities.

By high rep ranges, I'm not quite sure what you mean.

High meaning about 20+ reps or so, you're reaching failure of the glycolysis system. You use glucose, converted directly into ATP, and a byproduct of that conversion is lactic acid. Build up of it causes fatigue.*

More complicated version below, if you're into that.
(Actually, build up of lactic acid which is not cleared dissociates into lactate, causing an accumulation of hydrogen ions. This H+ accumulation causes acidosis, which can actually destroy muscle cells. But your body also has natural buffers like bicarbonate, HCO3. Still, the drastic PH changes dropping below 6.4 adversely affect energy production and muscle contraction.... but I'm not going to go into it because nobody wants to hear about bio chemistry... congrats if you actually bothered to read all that.)

Why Max-OT? Well, why volume? Or why HIT? Or DC? BTW, muscle can be damaged to the point of catabolism. It's not as simple as the more damage, the better.

[Defiant1]

Originally Posted by EP87

I guess I'm expected to answer this. I don't want to argue with Defiant, but science is still much, much more stable than bodybuilding lore. Some stuff has been asserted as fact, which will remain unchanged from now until the end of time. Some stuff has not. At any rate, bodybuilding fads change much more frequently than science does. But definately agree that working with your own body is the best way to go. And like he says, pretty much everything will work to some degree.

With low rep ranges, you reach failure due to run down of ATP. But you never run out, mind you, because ATP is required to both attach, rotate, and and detach the proteins. As atp stores break down, your body switches to alternative energy systems to preserve what is remaining. Energy is released as ATP molecules are broken down. Phosphocreatine is easily, and very quickly broken down to rebuild ATP. When these stores deplete, the body is unable to replace ATP at a quick enough rate to maintain near-maximal efforts, causing "failure". That is also how creatine loading acts to increase the length of time which you can exercise at high intensities.

By high rep ranges, I'm not quite sure what you mean.

High meaning about 20+ reps or so, you're reaching failure of the glycolysis system. You use glucose, converted directly into ATP, and a byproduct of that conversion is lactic acid. Build up of it causes fatigue.*

More complicated version below, if you're into that.
(Actually, build up of lactic acid which is not cleared dissociates into lactate, causing an accumulation of hydrogen ions. This H+ accumulation causes acidosis, which can actually destroy muscle cells. But your body also has natural buffers like bicarbonate, HCO3. Still, the drastic PH changes dropping below 6.4 adversely affect energy production and muscle contraction.... but I'm not going to go into it because nobody wants to hear about bio chemistry... congrats if you actually bothered to read all that.)

Why Max-OT? Well, why volume? Or why HIT? Or DC? BTW, muscle can be damaged to the point of catabolism. It's not as simple as the more damage, the better.

But how does ANY of that change your workout from what people used to do or do now? Or, put another way, how has it improved your workouts from workouts from "bodybuilding lore"?

Most bodybuilding "fads" are people following some kind of "scientific" advice LOL. The "science" is what keeps changing.

Imagine yourself talking to a bodybuilder like Johnny Fuller, who used to do sets of 36 reps, telling him he is wrong because of "science". It would be laughable.

Bodybuilding "lore" is not really an accurate term. If you say bodybuilding "experience", suddenly it sounds more accurate and less hokey.

If there really were one "scientific" way to train, then bodybuilders would have stumbled upon it years ago, and science would just now be catching up.

[hepennypacker52]

Originally Posted by Defiant1

If there really were one "scientific" way to train, then bodybuilders would have stumbled upon it years ago, and science would just now be catching up.

HST....bwahahahahahaaaaaaaa.

[Kane Fan]

Originally Posted by EP87

I guess I'm expected to answer this. I don't want to argue with Defiant, but science is still much, much more stable than bodybuilding lore. Some stuff has been asserted as fact, which will remain unchanged from now until the end of time. Some stuff has not. At any rate, bodybuilding fads change much more frequently than science does. But definately agree that working with your own body is the best way to go. And like he says, pretty much everything will work to some degree.

With low rep ranges, you reach failure due to run down of ATP. But you never run out, mind you, because ATP is required to both attach, rotate, and and detach the proteins. As atp stores break down, your body switches to alternative energy systems to preserve what is remaining. Energy is released as ATP molecules are broken down. Phosphocreatine is easily, and very quickly broken down to rebuild ATP. When these stores deplete, the body is unable to replace ATP at a quick enough rate to maintain near-maximal efforts, causing "failure". That is also how creatine loading acts to increase the length of time which you can exercise at high intensities.

By high rep ranges, I'm not quite sure what you mean.

High meaning about 20+ reps or so, you're reaching failure of the glycolysis system. You use glucose, converted directly into ATP, and a byproduct of that conversion is lactic acid. Build up of it causes fatigue.*

More complicated version below, if you're into that.
(Actually, build up of lactic acid which is not cleared dissociates into lactate, causing an accumulation of hydrogen ions. This H+ accumulation causes acidosis, which can actually destroy muscle cells. But your body also has natural buffers like bicarbonate, HCO3. Still, the drastic PH changes dropping below 6.4 adversely affect energy production and muscle contraction.... but I'm not going to go into it because nobody wants to hear about bio chemistry... congrats if you actually bothered to read all that.)

Why Max-OT? Well, why volume? Or why HIT? Or DC? BTW, muscle can be damaged to the point of catabolism. It's not as simple as the more damage, the better.

where did you get your info about ATP?
I thought it was pretty well settled the CNS/Golgi Tendon caused failure generally as a safety feature?
I mean if it was really ATP depletion after you did a set to failure you shouldn't be able to do a rep with even just 95 lbs or so but you can (strip sets) at least that's one possible idea against ATP depletion = failure.

[EP87]

Originally Posted by Kane Fan

where did you get your info about ATP?
I thought it was pretty well settled the CNS/Golgi Tendon caused failure generally as a safety feature?
I mean if it was really ATP depletion after you did a set to failure you shouldn't be able to do a rep with even just 95 lbs or so but you can (strip sets) at least that's one possible idea against ATP depletion = failure.

University courses...
No...the golgi tendon organ is a mechanoreceptor that works only under extreme tension, causing relaxation of the muscle.

Maybe you didn't understand the post. ATP is recovered post-exercise by the aerobic ATP system. That's why you are able to lift again after a set to failure... the atp-cp stores are recovered. And they were never fully depleted. Just that you didn't have enough to activate all the fibers necessary to lift the weight at which you're failing. ATP depeletion as in ATP can't be rebuilt quickly enough to supply all the muscle fibers necessary to lift the weight. You don't actually run out, until you're dead.

Originally Posted by Defiant1

But how does ANY of that change your workout from what people used to do or do now? Or, put another way, how has it improved your workouts from workouts from "bodybuilding lore"?

Most bodybuilding "fads" are people following some kind of "scientific" advice LOL. The "science" is what keeps changing.

Imagine yourself talking to a bodybuilder like Johnny Fuller, who used to do sets of 36 reps, telling him he is wrong because of "science". It would be laughable.

Bodybuilding "lore" is not really an accurate term. If you say bodybuilding "experience", suddenly it sounds more accurate and less hokey.

If there really were one "scientific" way to train, then bodybuilders would have stumbled upon it years ago, and science would just now be catching up.

The "scientific advice" that spawns BB fads isn't given by the medical community. It's usually some random BB who stumbles across 1 piece of information without understanding the whole picture, and creates some half-ass program with it. To use a very simple example, maybe some guy noticed that each time he lifted, he got a little bigger- which is true. So he lifts more often, maybe 3 times a day, everyday. He didn't see the other side of lifting beyond recovery abilities causing overtraining.

Bodybuilding "lore" was what you had called it back in the other thread. They're your words.

And BBer's would've stumbled across it long ago? Why do you say that? Just cause they've been doing it a long time, and tried a bunch of different things? There's an infinite number of things which can be tried.

By your logic, current medical science and all the vaccines/procedures that came from it should've been "stumbled upon" by all the indian tribe shamans/witch doctors who've been doing it a long time and tried a bunch of different things.

[Kane Fan]

Originally Posted by EP87

University courses...
No...the golgi tendon organ is a mechanoreceptor that works only under extreme tension, causing relaxation of the muscle.

Maybe you didn't understand the post. ATP is recovered post-exercise by the aerobic ATP system. That's why you are able to lift again after a set to failure... the atp-cp stores are recovered. And they were never fully depleted. Just that you didn't have enough to activate all the fibers necessary to lift the weight at which you're failing. ATP depeletion as in ATP can't be rebuilt quickly enough to supply all the muscle fibers necessary to lift the weight. You don't actually run out, until you're dead.



The "scientific advice" that spawns BB fads isn't given by the medical community. It's usually some random BB who stumbles across 1 piece of information without understanding the whole picture, and creates some half-ass program with it. To use a very simple example, maybe some guy noticed that each time he lifted, he got a little bigger- which is true. So he lifts more often, maybe 3 times a day, everyday. He didn't see the other side of lifting beyond recovery abilities causing overtraining.

Bodybuilding "lore" was what you had called it back in the other thread. They're your words.

And BBer's would've stumbled across it long ago? Why do you say that? Just cause they've been doing it a long time, and tried a bunch of different things? There's an infinite number of things which can be tried.

By your logic, current medical science and all the vaccines/procedures that came from it should've been "stumbled upon" by all the indian tribe shamans/witch doctors who've been doing it a long time and tried a bunch of different things.

in reverse order your comment about indian tribe shamans is not well thought out, not every tree or insect was avilable to the tribal shamans nor were they able to alter or test drugs as well as we currently are
whereas with the human body the way lifting impacts us hasn't really altered at all and all rep range varients have always been readily available

also I think you missunderstood
I think I get the Golgi Tendon thing (possibly) being something that would stop a given weight but not necessarily reps
but if ATP depletion is what causes failure then how do you explain strip sets?

[EP87]

Originally Posted by Kane Fan

in reverse order your comment about indian tribe shamans is not well thought out, not every tree or insect was avilable to the tribal shamans nor were they able to alter or test drugs as well as we currently are
whereas with the human body the way lifting impacts us hasn't really altered at all and all rep range varients have always been readily available

also I think you missunderstood
I think I get the Golgi Tendon thing (possibly) being something that would stop a given weight but not necessarily reps
but if ATP depletion is what causes failure then how do you explain strip sets?

No, not enough ATP to fuel enough muscle fibers to lift the current weight. Say you need X amount of fibers recruited to lift 100 lbs. You only have enough ATP to work 100 fibers less than X. So you won't be able to recruit enough fibers to lift 100lbs. But ATP to work X-100 fibers is enough to lift 90 lbs. That's the difference for strip sets. Got it? Read it slow.

About the indian thing again, you think the only reason we can perform neurosurgery and advanced medicine is because we have access to more bugs or trees than the guy jumping around a bonfire shaking a dead lizard? When's the last time you ate a bug to vaccinate against the flu?

Science was required to discover what the active ingredient was, isolate it, and put it into a usable form. It is ridiculous that you have to argue this. Education and science obviously work. Physiology and biochemistry obviously have some real world bearing on the body. All the things we've been able to do for the human body wouldn't exist if they didn't. They're all based off this science.

[Kane Fan]

Originally Posted by EP87

No, not enough ATP to fuel enough muscle fibers to lift the current weight. Say you need X amount of fibers recruited to lift 100 lbs. You only have enough ATP to work 100 fibers less than X. So you won't be able to recruit enough fibers to lift 100lbs. But ATP to work X-100 fibers is enough to lift 90 lbs. That's the difference for strip sets. Got it? Read it slow.

About the indian thing again, you think the only reason we can perform neurosurgery and advanced medicine is because we have access to more bugs or trees than the guy jumping around a bonfire shaking a dead lizard? When's the last time you ate a bug to vaccinate against the flu?

Science was required to discover what the active ingredient was, isolate it, and put it into a usable form. It is ridiculous that you have to argue this. Education and science obviously work. Physiology and biochemistry obviously have some real world bearing on the body. All the things we've been able to do for the human body wouldn't exist if they didn't. They're all based off this science.

again in reverse order
science isolated the ingredient yes
but you disprove your origional argument!
science isolated it, the shaman were already using it!
for instance take asparin (sp?) the active ingrediant is found in treebark (not all treebark of course) and same was used to treat toothaches and other maladies!

and as to ATP
that is interesting BUT, if ATP determines how many fibers we recruit, how do we get stronger? increased ATP? or increase in fiber size
if it's increase in fiber size and ATP is a constant then every strength gain would equate to a size gain and that isn't the way it works

[waynelucky]

Hi there,

So your saying when you get stronger you don’t get bigger ??? Not even bigger by a small amount, I think your very wrong there. So your saying then your body has more energy (it gets stronger) and that the mass does not increase ??? So if that is true where does the energy come from ???

Therefore, your saying Albert Einstein’s famous equation E = MC² is wrong the conservation of energy, the "equals" sign, the conservation of mass, and the speed of light. That MORE ENERGY = MORE MASS and vice versa, and all that wow.

Next, you will be telling me volume works hehehe only joking there, lets keep this friendly

Thank you Wayne

[dookie1481]

Originally Posted by waynelucky

So your saying then your body has more energy (it gets stronger) and that the mass does not increase ??? So if that is true where does the energy come from ???

Therefore, your saying Albert Einstein’s famous equation E = MC² is wrong the conservation of energy, the "equals" sign, the conservation of mass, and the speed of light. That MORE ENERGY = MORE MASS and vice versa, and all that wow.

Wayne, sometimes, just sometimes, you make me laugh. This is the worst rationale I have ever heard. Thank God no one is actually listening to you.

[dookie1481]

Wayne, read this: http://p086.ezboard.com/fbulkandpowe...cID=5399.topic

[EP87]

Originally Posted by Kane Fan

again in reverse order
science isolated the ingredient yes
but you disprove your origional argument!
science isolated it, the shaman were already using it!
for instance take asparin (sp?) the active ingrediant is found in treebark (not all treebark of course) and same was used to treat toothaches and other maladies!

and as to ATP
that is interesting BUT, if ATP determines how many fibers we recruit, how do we get stronger? increased ATP? or increase in fiber size
if it's increase in fiber size and ATP is a constant then every strength gain would equate to a size gain and that isn't the way it works

ATP is one of the factors that CAN determine how many fibers we recruit. Not the only factor. Motor neurons must be fired to activate the fiber. Then, if there is enough ATP, the nervous impulse through the fiber causes calcium ions to discharge from the sarcoplasmic reticulum into the sarcoplasm. Tropomyosin, which is normally covering the bonding sites of the actin filaments, has an affinity for the charged ions and is lifted, allowing myosin heads to attach to the filament. Looking at your styles of logic and grammar, I'm sure you don't understand that, but that's how it works. It's a lot simpler than it sounds if you can look at a diagram online. Neuromuscular efficiency allows the body to recruit more fibers simultaneously, and combined with partial inhibition of the golgi tendon organ, allows the body to become stronger without hypertrophy.

That is all extremely basic stuff, which you should be able to find on google.

Where did the moronic idea of the GTO and CNS causing muscle failure come from? You hear it from some guy and just started repeating it without checking to see if it made any sense? Didn't you think to ask how it happens? What the supposed trigger was for the GTO to cause failure? And how it senses that?

About the shaman thing again- No, shamans aren't doing everything we are. Many of them have been practicing medicine for much longer than the typical MD, but they're not performing successful neurosurgery to the brain, they're not creating vaccines like we are. Even access to the things we have, it's because of advances in technological science that allowed us to build jets, engineer new lab equipment, etc. How do you think people decided to start supplementing with creatine? Science studied the role of creatine in the ATP-CP system, isolated it, and increased muscle stores by loading. You can try wandering around the woods eating random ****, but you're not likely to find the effects of creatine by doing that. Same with anabolic steriods.
Listen, trying to argue the benefits of science's application to the human body is senseless. It's given way too much to modern life to disprove now. Even the computer you're typing on was built by science. Nobody just started putting piles of silicon, copper, and glass together and got it to recognize keystrokes and perform math.

[waynelucky]

Hi there,

Sorry if me and Albert Einstein’s famous equation E = MC² is wrong the conservation of energy, the "equals" sign, the conservation of mass, and the speed of light. That MORE ENERGY = MORE MASS and vice versa, and all that, and if you read Ellington Darden Supertraining Mel C Siff proved that, muscle fibers do not increase but just get bigger.

SO YOUR SAYING PEOPLE CAN GET STRONGER = MORE ENERGY BUT THE MASS DOES NOT INCREASE, AND Albert Einstein IS WRONG, YOU COULD COMPACT SOMETHING, BUT IT WOULD GET HEAVER.

I REALLY THINK YOU SHOULD TRY AND READ BASIC PHYSICS BEFORE YOU START SHOUTING THE REALMS OF FANTASY

PLEASE WHERE DID YOU GET YOUR INFORMATION. YOU ARE TRYING IN A VERY BAD WAY TO SAY THE OPPOSITE WHICH IS KNOWN IN THE SCIENTIFIC WORLD
(1) READ, THAT HUMAN MUSCLE DOES NOT INCREASE MUSCLE FIBERS THEY JUST GET BIGGER. SUPERTRAINING MEL C SIFF.
(2)Albert Einstein’s famous equation E = MC² is NOT WRONG BUT YOU ARE.
(3) READ SUPERTRAINING IT IS ALL IN THERE.

Why do people try to change the laws of physics, so you are saying that someone that trains will get smaller and stronger, wow you really got a prob.

And that the big guys are bigger and stronger but not really are, and the smaller weaker guys are stronger than the bigger guys, OK LIGHTWEIGHT PICK UP 200 AND HEAVY WEIGHT PICK UP 500 YOUR SAYING THAT’S WRONG

OK Albert Einstein’s NOT HERE TO LAUGH AT YOU, BUT STEPHEN HAWKINS IS HEHEHE, MORE ENERGY MORE MASS, MORE MASS MORE ENERGY, and STOP BEING SO Unprofessional, so if I add 50 pounds to my curl, I will not increase my energy, mass or weight but it will stay the same, but will just get stronger. I thing you just proved to me that maybe you really believe in father Christmas, wow, I really not fussy on people that do not follow science

THANK YOU Wayne

[waynelucky]

Hi there,

Therefore, you are saying that you recruit more fibers, but there is not more mass wowow,

Thank you Wayne

[gettin_in_shape]

Originally Posted by waynelucky

Hi there,

...

THANK YOU Wayne

bozhemoi!! keep liftin bud -_-