Hypertrophy Drivers - Volume, metabolic stress, and Occlusion Training

[Mistersmiles1]

Volume is supposedly one of the best, if not the best, driver for hypertrophy. If this is true, then why does BFR (blood-flow restricted) training produce as much hypertrophy as heavy-load training?

xbodyconcepts (DOT) com/blood-flow-restriction-training
by Brad Schoenfeld, PhD(c) T-Nation

It seems to me that if you use BFR you are reducing volume by a significant amount, but still producing as much hypertrophy. The article even states that the mechanics behind BFR hypertrophy aren't clear, and that metabolic stress is probably the main contributor. It also seems clear that metabolic stress is probably more important than volume as a driver since the studies about BFR hold true. Maybe the "pump" is more important to hypertrophy than some nay sayers speculate.

What do you guys think?

[Plateauplower]

There are two forms of hypertrophy. Metabolic stress likely plays a big part in sarcoplasmic hypertrophy. This is nothing more than increasing muscle size primarily in fluid holding capacity (glycogen and water) and is easy come easy go. Myofribular (sp?) hypertrophy is actual increase in structural factions of muscle which is best accomplished by progressive overload. Maximum size is going to be gained by increasing both, but it takes a lot longer to accomplish myofribular hypertrophy. I think of sarcoplasmic hypertrophy as a fast mile time, it can be gained and reduced pretty quickly. The physiological changes from myofribular take longer and are somewhat permanent even though peak strength would diminish after awhile if reduced stimuli, the changes in the cells (multinucleated) would remain.
That’s the best I can explain / remember it anyway.

[Mistersmiles1]

There are two forms of hypertrophy. Metabolic stress likely plays a big part in sarcoplasmic hypertrophy. This is nothing more than increasing muscle size primarily in fluid holding capacity (glycogen and water) and is easy come easy go. Myofribular (sp?) hypertrophy is actual increase in structural factions of muscle which is best accomplished by progressive overload. Maximum size is going to be gained by increasing both, but it takes a lot longer to accomplish myofribular hypertrophy. I think of sarcoplasmic hypertrophy as a fast mile time, it can be gained and reduced pretty quickly. The physiological changes from myofribular take longer and are somewhat permanent even though peak strength would diminish after awhile if reduced stimuli, the changes in the cells (multinucleated) would remain.
That’s the best I can explain / remember it anyway.

Interesting... +rep

[Farley1324]

Who uses blood flow restriction as a major component of their training?

[etet1919]

Who uses blood flow restriction as a major component of their training?

Maybe Vampirelol

[Filmbuff81]

Mike Israetel, Eric Helms, Layne Norton and others have discussed this.

Adding some BFR sets can beneficial because you’re building up metabolites in the muscle which can signal muscle growth of not only slow twitch fibres, but also of fast twitch fibres due to the lack of oxygen.

and it allows you to train with lighter loads when injured or feeling beat up.

There’s even been studies on occlusion methods being used on bed-ridden patients to mitigate muscle loss.

You don’t want to use it on every exercise, but isolation movements are pretty good for it and I’ve seen some people use it on super light squats when working around something like a groin injury.

[Plateauplower]

Who uses blood flow restriction as a major component of their training?

Nobody should. It’s not really meant for that though. I’ve used BFR a few times for doing isolation arm work while having elbow tendinitis. It seems to have diminishing returns quickly to me, but the first few times it resulted in an insane pump and made me sore using light weights in the 15 rep range. Quick release tourniquets work well for arms. I know people have used knee wraps for doing isolation leg stuff (need stronger ligature), but that sounds more risky to me, embolism potential and whatnot.

[ironwill2008]

Volume is supposedly one of the best, if not the best, driver for hypertrophy. If this is true, then why does BFR (blood-flow restricted) training produce as much hypertrophy as heavy-load training?

xbodyconcepts (DOT) com/blood-flow-restriction-training
by Brad Schoenfeld, PhD(c) T-Nation

It seems to me that if you use BFR you are reducing volume by a significant amount, but still producing as much hypertrophy. The article even states that the mechanics behind BFR hypertrophy aren't clear, and that metabolic stress is probably the main contributor. It also seems clear that metabolic stress is probably more important than volume as a driver since the studies about BFR hold true. Maybe the "pump" is more important to hypertrophy than some nay sayers speculate.

What do you guys think?

The "best" driver for hypertrophy is progression. Everything else is, at best, secondary.

[OldFartTom]

There is a detailed discussion of this (probably too detailed!) in an episode of barbell shrugged, let me see if I can find it, and edit this reply too add a link...

As an asside, oxidative stress (free radical oxygen) may be a contributor in BFR gains, although not mentioned in the barbell shrugged, and while definitely not contradicting a healthy diet, mega-dosing on antioxidants (A C E etc) might actually be detrimental to muscle growth, health and mortality according to evidence based research. But whether this relates to the above topic is a bit tenuous

BFR might be an exotic tool in the toolbox, but let's not get overexcited and send all the squat racks to the scrapyard just yet. I'm still not convinced it's a big priority unless you're an astronaut

Edit: mentioned here https://youtu.be/4bWc36cWnGU but not as much detail as I thought... Still think it's a fad, but worth understanding though