The theory goes that:
- Heavy weight, low reps creates hard, dense muscle
- Light weight, high reps creates big, soft muscle
Always sounded like broscience to me. Muscle is muscle right?
Surely “soft” muscle would just mean you’re carrying extra fat (and to some extent, water weight)?
No I don't think you can pick one or the other by altering rep counts. Perhaps a very slight bias - mostly due to glycogen levels.
Some resources on this:
[url]https://www.strongerbyscience.com/sarcoplasmic-vs-myofibrillar-hypertrophy/[/url]
[url]https://www.strongerbyscience.com/sarcoplasmic-hypertrophy-relevant/[/url]
Bottom line for me is that if you make a muscle bigger it will also be stronger. You never get "pure" sarcoplasm growth and "weak bodybuilder" muscles. Intuitively I see the extra size from higher reps as an accomodation for more fuel for the greater endurance requirement - but this is speculation.
[quote]Looking at strength differences between bodybuilders and powerlifters or weightlifters is not a valid way to assess degree of sarcoplasmic hypertrophy. However, dismissing sarcoplasmic hypertrophy simply because there are better explanations for the observed differences in relative strength is foolhardy.[/quote]
[QUOTE=Ironface;1631948453]The theory goes that:
- Heavy weight, low reps creates hard, dense muscle
- Light weight, high reps creates big, soft muscle
Always sounded like broscience to me. Muscle is muscle right?
Surely “soft” muscle would just mean you’re carrying extra fat (and to some extent, water weight)?[/QUOTE]
[url]http://archive.is/Zg64T[/url]
Ask Stan Efferding. He flip flops between the sports and I’m sure the amount of muscle he carries definitely helps with powerlifting.
Ben Pollock says similar things, as does Wendler and Paul Carter. In other words: do both.
To clarify, myofibrillar hypertrophy is very well established, that's basically what you think of when you think of the word "hypertrophy". It refers to the actual growth of myofibrils (hence the name) in response to a stimulus, leading to larger and stronger muscles. It doesn't have anything to do with high vs low rep ranges, unless you want to get into the whole "optimal rep range" debate.
Sarcoplasmic hypertrophy is a bit more controversial, because the idea is essentially that training very high volumes with generally lower weights (just in order to pump the reps in) will lead to adaptations involving increased sarcoplasmic proteins and, iirc, small amounts of fluids. An increase of stuff in the sarcoplasm will have the result of larger muscles without actual GROWTH of the muscle, because it's simply being expanded.
There is some decent evidence that this happens, but you certainly won't end up with "big, soft muscle" by any means.
Wait, so are people saying that there are bodybuilding champs that didn't do myofibrillar but just had super jacked pumps that would eventually turn back into a regular person in 3 days?
[QUOTE=GeneralSerpant;1631972593]Wait, so are people saying that there are bodybuilding champs that didn't do myofibrillar but just had super jacked pumps that would eventually turn back into a regular person in 3 days?[/QUOTE]
The idea is that by training for a crazy pump often enough (which is super tough on your muscles) they'll adapt to accommodate that stress. Part of that accommodation involves increases in proteins and stuff in the sarcoplasm. So the effects would eventually become relatively permanent as long as the muscles were undergoing that training.
[QUOTE=SuffolkPunch;1631949013]Looking at strength differences between bodybuilders and powerlifters or weightlifters is not a valid way to assess degree of sarcoplasmic hypertrophy. [b]However[/b], dismissing sarcoplasmic hypertrophy simply because there are better explanations for the observed differences in relative strength is foolhardy.[/QUOTE]
I was reading this earlier, and I'm not concerned about just the semantics, but shouldn't it be [i]further[/i] or something different from the contradictive term that [i]however[/i] is?
I think both together would have a good benefit.
Heavy weight low reps though would be less effective for muscle hypertrophy but depending on type of muscle fiber(slow or fast twitch)some can make great gains but for the most part higher reps sarcoplasmic works best.
Patrick Tuor is a believer in sarcoplasmic hypertrophy
[QUOTE=bLinkMoore;1631974633]The idea is that by training for a crazy pump often enough (which is super tough on your muscles) they'll adapt to accommodate that stress. Part of that accommodation involves increases in proteins and stuff in the sarcoplasm. So the effects would eventually become relatively permanent as long as the muscles were undergoing that training.[/QUOTE]
Is progressive overload constant or consistent between the ideas/ supposed camps of training?
I'm more Interested in hyperplasia....
[QUOTE=MyEgoProblem;1631979973]I'm more Interested in hyperplasia....[/QUOTE]
I could be misremembering, but I'm pretty sure hyperplasia is super limited. Like, 10% of muscle growth or something is from hyperplasia and 90% is hypertrophy.
[QUOTE=GeneralSerpant;1631976123]Is progressive overload constant or consistent between the ideas/ supposed camps of training?[/QUOTE]
No clue tbh, I haven't looked into sarcoplasmic much. I'd imagine so, though, since the muscle would certainly still be undergoing myofibrillar hypertrophy and would require increased stress to make those sarcoplasmic adaptations
Two reviews published in the last year that touch on this topic for those who want to read more in depth:
[url]https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7372125/pdf/fphys-11-00816.pdf[/url] - this more directly addresses the question
[url]https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7582410/pdf/ejtm-30-3-9311.pdf[/url] - this goes through various mechanisms by which a person can get stronger, for those curious as it's somewhat related
Both are open access and I generally try not to summarize open access things but if they are too complicated/confusing for some reason I will provide summaries.
[QUOTE=bLinkMoore;1631980703]I could be misremembering, but I'm pretty sure hyperplasia is super limited. Like, 10% of muscle growth or something is from hyperplasia and 90% is hypertrophy.[/QUOTE]
The thing is we don't really know..
Which Intetests me much more than increases In csa and transient storage factors.
[QUOTE=MyEgoProblem;1631982903]The thing is we don't really know..
Which Intetests me much more than increases In csa and transient storage factors.[/QUOTE]
Very fair. The relatively unexplored areas are definitely the cool ones!
[QUOTE=bLinkMoore;1631984063]Very fair. The relatively unexplored areas are definitely the cool ones![/QUOTE]
🙏 Indeed..
Can never stop learning.. Just gotta ensure you don't get paralysis by analysis and get buried... Lol
[QUOTE=MyEgoProblem;1631996133] Indeed..
Can never stop learning.. Just gotta ensure you don't get paralysis by analysis and get buried... Lol[/QUOTE]
Basically what happened when I first started getting into this stuff in late middle school lol. My 13-year old head couldn't keep track of conflicting studies and stuff, I probably changed my mind about training styles every few weeks all the way through high school. Definitely screwed myself out of 3 or 4 years where I spun my wheels instead of making progress, but ah well.
Choop.. aahh! Choop.. aahh!
[QUOTE=bLinkMoore;1631999823]Basically what happened when I first started getting into this stuff in late middle school lol. My 13-year old head couldn't keep track of conflicting studies and stuff, I probably changed my mind about training styles every few weeks all the way through high school. Definitely screwed myself out of 3 or 4 years where I spun my wheels instead of making progress, but ah well.[/QUOTE]
I get bored pretty fast.. I like to research and try new things..
I mean how can you understand things you haven't tried 😂
[QUOTE=MyEgoProblem;1632001303]I get bored pretty fast.. I like to research and try new things..
I mean how can you understand things you haven't tried [/QUOTE]
A fair point hahah--well then in that case, I wasn't spinning my wheels, I was just testing the science ;)
[QUOTE=bLinkMoore;1632005073]A fair point hahah--well then in that case, I wasn't spinning my wheels, I was just testing the science ;)[/QUOTE]
Science IS cool.
Never really spun my wheels tho. Outside of tweaking my 25yr old shoulder injury over and over 😂
[QUOTE=MyEgoProblem;1631979973]I'm more Interested in hyperplasia....[/QUOTE]
I was wondering about this, as it has been brought up with the established take on muscle memory. What Scott Herman said with myonuclear recruitment in super regular training also, but I'm generally scared to ask about people's opinion on that.
I mean it generally seems to cover both high-rep and low-rep training, with sacroplasm and "real" hypertrophy having its place. Also gives me an idea technique development, which is pretty interesting when considering calisthenics (along with deadlift and other basic but complex exercises etc.)
[QUOTE=GeneralSerpant;1632008013]I was wondering about this, as it has been brought up with the established take on muscle memory. What Scott Herman said with myonuclear recruitment in super regular training also, but I'm generally scared to ask about people's opinion on that.
I mean it generally seems to cover both high-rep and low-rep training, with sacroplasm and "real" hypertrophy having its place. Also gives me an idea technique development, which is pretty interesting when considering calisthenics (along with deadlift and other basic but complex exercises etc.)[/QUOTE]
Scott seems a decent guy.. Is way off the mark with a lot of his stuff tho.
[url]https://www.strongerbyscience.com/myonuclear-muscle-memory/[/url]
This is a great read if anyone else cares 😂
Essentially bro science. All of these components have a job and are altered with resistance and/or endurance training, but not in the way they’re saying.
yes there is, but I don't think in the sense of how you framed it exactly