MB Madaera
Lost 31.7 lbs fat
Built 11.7 lbs muscle


Chris Madaera
Built 9 lbs muscle


Keelan Parham
Lost 30 lbs fat
Built 4 lbs muscle


Bob Marchesello
Lost 23.55 lbs fat
Built 8.55 lbs muscle


Jeff Turner
Lost 25.5 lbs fat


Jeanenne Darden
Lost 26 lbs fat
Built 3 lbs muscle


Ted Tucker
Lost 41 lbs fat
Built 4 lbs muscle

 
 

Determine the Length of Your Workouts

Evaluate Your Progress

Keep Warm-Up in Perspective


ARCHIVES >>

"Doing more exercise with less intensity,"
Arthur Jones believes, "has all but
destroyed the actual great value
of weight training. Something
must be done . . . and quickly."
The New Bodybuilding for
Old-School Results supplies
MUCH of that "something."

 

This is one of 93 photos of Andy McCutcheon that are used in The New High-Intensity Training to illustrate the recommended exercises.

To find out more about McCutcheon and his training, click here.

 

Mission Statement

H.I.T. Acceptable Use Policy

Privacy Policy

Credits

LOG IN FORUM MAIN REGISTER SEARCH
Type 2B Fibers: The Big Guns
First | Prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | Next | Last
Author
Rating
Options

southbeach

entsminger wrote:
==Scott==
Ok Marcrph and Serious strength and some of you others in this thread,the more I read this discussion the more I get confused about what you personally recommend to build size and strength.I'm personally more interested in size gains than strength so can each of you please give me a sample your best thoughts on building muscle size? Reps, sets, failure or not to failure, fast or slow reps, rest between sets, etc etc.

Thanks


Size and strength go hand in hand...you couldn't get larger and not also get stronger if you wanted to.

However, i understand you to mean that you'd rather not focus on improving your SKILL at lifting, but rather on true strength that comes from only hypertrophy. My interest in this regard paralles yourss scott.
Open User Options Menu

HeavyHitter32

From ironmanmagazine

August 12, 2010 - Posted in Training science

I tried to post the URL, but it's getting blocked by the site.



Can you lift light and still make muscle gains?

A long-standing tenet in bodybuilding is that if you want to promote muscular hypertrophy, or muscle size gains, you need to train heavy, using lower reps. Conversely, training with lighter weights will tone muscles, but isn't effective for promoting gains in muscular size and strength. Much of this is based on a physiological principle called the Muscle fiber recruitment hierarchy.

This principle states that the body activates only as many muscle fibers as possible to produce movement, beginning with the slow-twitch, or type-1 muscle fibers. As these fibers fatigue (and fatigue is the key word here, as we shall see), other muscle fibers, namely types 2-a and 2-b, also known as fast-twitch muscle fibers, are brought into play.

What activates these fast-twitch fibers are neuromuscular connections. Simply put, when enough resistance is placed on the muscle, a signal is sent to the cerebellum section of the brain requesting more neural input to the muscle fibers in order to recruit the type-2 fibers.

For years, it was thought that to recruit the type 2B muscle fibers required a greater neural input, and the best way to do this was to increase the intensity level of the imposed stress on the fibers. The best way to do this was to lift heavy. Indeed, most exercise physiology textbooks say that the fast-twitch type-2 muscle fibers are the fibers most amenable to gains in muscle size and strength.

Type-1 slow-twitch fibers are more related to endurance, and would be activated with lower intensity exercise, such as when doing endurance activity, or when using lighter weights for higher reps. Again, it was thought that the body won?t recruit the type-2 fibers unless it was necessary. But note that the type-2 fibers can also be brought into play when the type-1 fibers become fatigued, for whatever reason.

Bodybuilders had larger muscles because of a selective hypertrophy of type 2B fast-twitch muscle fibers, and they achieved this through lifting heavy weights. But in recent years, this notion has come into question. As I reported in an Ironman magazine article a while ago, muscle biopsies of champion bodybuilders showed that they had a preponderance of type 2A fast-twitch muscle fibers, rather than the expected type 2B fibers.

Type 2A fibers are considered an intermediate fiber, having characteristics of both type 1 and type 2 fibers. What this pointed to was that the typical bodybuilding workout of doing higher reps, averaging 8-12 per set, would likely produce better muscle gains compared to doing lower reps with heavier weight.

While many powerlifters and Olympic weightlifters undeniably are strong, many don't show the level of muscle hypertrophy that you would expect considering their chronic heavy lifting training routines, which usually involve heavy weights and low reps.

Occlusion training, which involves training with an impediment to blood flow, such as wearing an inflatable cuff while training, has been shown in several studies to produce significant gains in muscle size despite using light weights. Various reasons are offered to explain this effect, but the main mechanism seems to be an increase in localized fatigue products produced in the muscle as a result of the impeded blood flow.

This increased fatigue, in turn, is interpreted by the brain as a call to recruit the type-2 muscle fibers, which result in the muscle gains apparent following this type of exercise. I also reported on another study, in which subjects lifted light weights, but under high tension, meaning that they did the exercises slower than normal, and forcefully contracted the trained muscles during every rep.

Again, despite using weights only equivalent to 20% of one rep-maximum, which is very light, the subjects made gains in muscle size comparable to that achieved through lifting far heavier weights. The deciding factor here was again the level of local muscle fatigue produced in the trained muscle, which not only fully activated the type-2 fibers, but also promoted a greater release of anabolic hormones, such as growth hormone and IGF-1, which are stimulated by locallly produced muscle fatigue factors, such as increased lactic acid in the muscle.

In the latest study, 15 men, average age, 21, all of whom had at least 6 months of training experience, and had trained at least three times a week 6 months prior to the start of the study, did 4 sets of one-legged extensions using differing training protocols. These protocols were as follows:

1) 90% of one-rep maximum weight to failure (heavy weight)

2) 30% of one-rep maximum matched in reps and load to #1

3) 30% of one-rep maximum done to failure (light)

The scientists conducting the study calculated various rates of protein synthesis in the trained muscle, measuring both contractile protein synthesis and connective tissue or structural muscle protein synthesis. Increased muscle protein synthesis is directly related to increased gains in muscle size and strength, particularly the contractile proteins.

The study results showed that the light weight to failure style (#3) was more effective at increasing muscle protein synthesis compared to #1, or high load, heavy weight. The light training to failure produced a level of muscle protein synthesis that was similar to that of the heavy load 4 hours after exercise, but it was sustained for 24 hours after training only in the light weight to failure training.

The study authors suggest that the increased volume of training produced by the lighter weight to failure study resulted in more muscle fatigue, and more positively affected the amplitude of the muscle synthesis process. Only the #3 style of training produced sustained increases in the muscle protein synthesis rate of all proteins found in muscle: contractile, connective tissue, and mitochondrial.

This means in simple terms that this style of training may be capable of increasing muscle size, strength, and even endurance simultaneously. The total number of completed reps was 94 in group #3; 19 in #1; and 62 in #2. The greater number of reps in #3 appeared to promote a greater activity of several muscle protein synthesis signaling factors.

Group#3 also showed higher indicators of signaling factors for stimulation of muscle satellite cell activity, which is important for promoting muscle size and strength gains.

The authors suggest this information could be useful for prescribing exercise for those who are injured or too old to lift heavy weights.They point out that people over age 70 show an anabolic resistance to weight-training, meaning that they don?t show any significant increases in muscle protein synthesis following weight-training.

This resistance,however, can be overcome by increasing the volume of exercise in the aged. This jives with the findings of this new study, which suggests that lifting lighter, but doing reps to muscle failure, is capable of fully turning on the muscle protein synthesis machinery of the body. The key is to induce enough fatigue in the muscle to kick-start the muscle protein synthesis reactions.

And according to this study, it can be done by using lighter weights that feature higher reps to failure (reps in the study averaged 34 reps per set in the light weight to failure sessions). I believe that a key element of these findings is that even in the light weight group, each set was done to muscular failure, no matter how many reps that took.

Just lifting light weights and not training to failure won?t do diddly squat in promoting muscle gains, since it won?t activate the muscle protein synthesis signaling factors that play a central role in producing muscle gains.

Burd, M, et al. Low-load high volume resistance exercise stimulates muscle protein synthesis more than high-load low volume resistance exercise in young men.Plus One 2010;5:e12033.

Open User Options Menu

entsminger

Virginia, USA

southbeach wrote:
entsminger wrote:
==Scott==
Ok Marcrph and Serious strength and some of you others in this thread,the more I read this discussion the more I get confused about what you personally recommend to build size and strength.I'm personally more interested in size gains than strength so can each of you please give me a sample your best thoughts on building muscle size? Reps, sets, failure or not to failure, fast or slow reps, rest between sets, etc etc.

Thanks

Size and strength go hand in hand...you couldn't get larger and not also get stronger if you wanted to.

However, i understand you to mean that you'd rather not focus on improving your SKILL at lifting, but rather on true strength that comes from only hypertrophy. My interest in this regard paralles yourss scott.


===Scott==
I think one can get a whole lot larger with out necessarily corresponding strength to go with the size.If Mentzer was near as big as he was strong he's have been a whole lot bigger. I know of several fellows who can bench 350 or 225 for 25 reps at 170 pounds body weight yet you can hardly tell they workout.

I'm all for gaining some strength with size but at may age of 59 size is my main goal, not strength.I'm plenty strong for what I'll ever have to do in real life. I can't recall a situation where I needed more strength to do something I needed to do.

When would I ever have to display such strength as benching 350 in real life situations? It would be cool though to actually look bigger than I've been able to attain so far.
Open User Options Menu

summaHIT

Ontario, CAN

entsminger wrote:
southbeach wrote:
entsminger wrote:
==Scott==
Ok Marcrph and Serious strength and some of you others in this thread,the more I read this discussion the more I get confused about what you personally recommend to build size and strength.I'm personally more interested in size gains than strength so can each of you please give me a sample your best thoughts on building muscle size? Reps, sets, failure or not to failure, fast or slow reps, rest between sets, etc etc.

Thanks

Size and strength go hand in hand...you couldn't get larger and not also get stronger if you wanted to.

However, i understand you to mean that you'd rather not focus on improving your SKILL at lifting, but rather on true strength that comes from only hypertrophy. My interest in this regard paralles yourss scott.

===Scott==
I think one can get a whole lot larger with out necessarily corresponding strength to go with the size.If Mentzer was near as big as he was strong he's have been a whole lot bigger. I know of several fellows who can bench 350 or 225 for 25 reps at 170 pounds body weight yet you can hardly tell they workout.

I'm all for gaining some strength with size but at may age of 59 size is my main goal, not strength.I'm plenty strong for what I'll ever have to do in real life. I can't recall a situation where I needed more strength to do something I needed to do.

When would I ever have to display such strength as benching 350 in real life situations? It would be cool though to actually look bigger than I've been able to attain so far.


You will most likely never get bigger but you may get stronger. Focus on strength since as you age this is more relevant to a longer and healthier life. That being said, getting stronger may be the change you need before you get bigger.
Open User Options Menu

entsminger

Virginia, USA

summaHIT wrote:
entsminger wrote:
southbeach wrote:
entsminger wrote:
==Scott==
Ok Marcrph and Serious strength and some of you others in this thread,the more I read this discussion the more I get confused about what you personally recommend to build size and strength.I'm personally more interested in size gains than strength so can each of you please give me a sample your best thoughts on building muscle size? Reps, sets, failure or not to failure, fast or slow reps, rest between sets, etc etc.

Thanks

Size and strength go hand in hand...you couldn't get larger and not also get stronger if you wanted to.

However, i understand you to mean that you'd rather not focus on improving your SKILL at lifting, but rather on true strength that comes from only hypertrophy. My interest in this regard paralles yourss scott.

===Scott==
I think one can get a whole lot larger with out necessarily corresponding strength to go with the size.If Mentzer was near as big as he was strong he's have been a whole lot bigger. I know of several fellows who can bench 350 or 225 for 25 reps at 170 pounds body weight yet you can hardly tell they workout.

I'm all for gaining some strength with size but at may age of 59 size is my main goal, not strength.I'm plenty strong for what I'll ever have to do in real life. I can't recall a situation where I needed more strength to do something I needed to do.

When would I ever have to display such strength as benching 350 in real life situations? It would be cool though to actually look bigger than I've been able to attain so far.

You will most likely never get bigger but you may get stronger. Focus on strength since as you age this is more relevant to a longer and healthier life. That being said, getting stronger may be the change you need before you get bigger.


===Scott==
You know, you could be right. I've only trained for strength very little and usually when I do I get injured but what the hell, I guess it's worth another shot.
Open User Options Menu

sgb2112

Steve Holman's take..

Take Your Workouts Back!
MARCH 20, 2012 ? POSTED IN BLOG POSTS

Why do you work out? Or, better yet, who are you working out for? If you look around the gym, it seems as if a lot of trainees are there to ?lift? impressive poundages so other people look on in awe. (?Lift? is in quotes because it?s often throwing or heaving instead of lifting.)

Now, I am not talking about competitors. Most of them are lifting for themselves?with winning a meet or contest as their goal. That?s great and keeps motivation high. But if you?re not a competitive athlete, why are you training? Your answer should be: ?For myself.?

You should be lifting for your health, well-being and to look and feel great?yes, building bigger muscles is a big part of that. But if you?re being awakened in the middle of the night with aching shoulders and/or sharp back pain, you?re not training for yourself?or you?re doing something terribly wrong.

Keep reminding yourself that you?re not hitting the weights for others?you?re working out for you. If you?ve forgotten that, then it?s time to take your workouts back. How would you train if it were just you alone in the gym? You wouldn?t be going for those heavy singles, would you?

They say we get wiser as we get older?and sometimes it?s not till you hit middle age or later that you start training smarter. Ego falls by the wayside, and you suddenly realize that spine-mushing, joint-crushing poundages are not necessary for your goals?it?s all about being relatively strong, looking very muscular and, most importantly, feeling incredible. That does not require extreme weights?

I honestly now believe that the 4X method or something similar is absolutely the best way for most people to train most of the time. That?s taking a moderate poundage, one with which you could get 15 reps, but you only do 10; rest 35 seconds, then do it again. Go all out on set 4; if you get 10, add some weight to the exercise at your next workout or go for 4?11.

That accomplishes so much in so little time?from training both ?sides? of the muscle fibers (myofibrils and sarcoplasm) to getting some aerobic benefits to driving up anabolic hormones (growth hormone and testosterone) to fully pumping up blood flow to even stimulating the metabolism and increasing fat burn. And the best part is, your joints will heal and you?ll feel fantastic (in fact, lately I?ve been calling 4X the Fantastic 4 or F4 training).

And if you use 3-way Positions-of-Flexion mass training?working the midrange, stretch and contracted position?you get full-range work for every muscle and complete development. A good example is triceps: close-grip bench presses for midrange work, overhead extensions for stretch and pushdowns for a contracted-position sequence.
Ron Harris, renowned bodybuilding scribe and competitor, is now experimenting with 4X training. He recently wrote about it in IRON MAN and praised its muscle-building abilities (by the way, it?s not a max-strength building system-?powerlifters absolutely must train heavy). His concluding comment was that he only wishes he would?ve found it earlier?before his shoulder surgery.

Mr. America winner Doug Brignole recently began using a version of 4X?with drop sets on some of the sets in a 4X sequence and NOT going to failure on any sets. He said that when he turned 50, he thought he could no longer build muscle, but he?s ecstatic as he gets bigger and leaner with 4X?and he?s feeling great.

The Built-for-Life bottom line: Take your workouts back?train for your well being and build muscle and health in the process. Don?t wait for age and/or injury to smack some smarts into your brain. Start training for yourself and you?ll be amazed at your gains.
Open User Options Menu

overfiftylifter

In my personal correspondence with the researchers at McMaster, they believe as has been posted earlier, that lesser loads taken to momentary failure with a training volume associated with hypertrophy training(around 4 sets) will yield similar hypertrophy as higher load training.They have a larger study that is going through review at present which may make a even stronger argument. Kaatsu/blood flow restriction training which also uses low loads, also uses hypertrophy training but frequently doesn't utilize failure training. Many of the studies have used a 30-15-15-15 rep pattern with short rests.

Personally, it should be looked at as a training option(I use the Matrix patterns which uses a high number of turnarounds at different inertia points) for those who have orthopedic issues or want a change in training.
Open User Options Menu

Turpin

sgb2112 wrote:
Steve Holman's take..

Take Your Workouts Back!
MARCH 20, 2012 ? POSTED IN BLOG POSTS

Why do you work out? Or, better yet, who are you working out for? If you look around the gym, it seems as if a lot of trainees are there to ?lift? impressive poundages so other people look on in awe. (?Lift? is in quotes because it?s often throwing or heaving instead of lifting.)

Now, I am not talking about competitors. Most of them are lifting for themselves?with winning a meet or contest as their goal. That?s great and keeps motivation high. But if you?re not a competitive athlete, why are you training? Your answer should be: ?For myself.?

You should be lifting for your health, well-being and to look and feel great?yes, building bigger muscles is a big part of that. But if you?re being awakened in the middle of the night with aching shoulders and/or sharp back pain, you?re not training for yourself?or you?re doing something terribly wrong.

Keep reminding yourself that you?re not hitting the weights for others?you?re working out for you. If you?ve forgotten that, then it?s time to take your workouts back. How would you train if it were just you alone in the gym? You wouldn?t be going for those heavy singles, would you?

They say we get wiser as we get older?and sometimes it?s not till you hit middle age or later that you start training smarter. Ego falls by the wayside, and you suddenly realize that spine-mushing, joint-crushing poundages are not necessary for your goals?it?s all about being relatively strong, looking very muscular and, most importantly, feeling incredible. That does not require extreme weights?

I honestly now believe that the 4X method or something similar is absolutely the best way for most people to train most of the time. That?s taking a moderate poundage, one with which you could get 15 reps, but you only do 10; rest 35 seconds, then do it again. Go all out on set 4; if you get 10, add some weight to the exercise at your next workout or go for 4?11.

That accomplishes so much in so little time?from training both ?sides? of the muscle fibers (myofibrils and sarcoplasm) to getting some aerobic benefits to driving up anabolic hormones (growth hormone and testosterone) to fully pumping up blood flow to even stimulating the metabolism and increasing fat burn. And the best part is, your joints will heal and you?ll feel fantastic (in fact, lately I?ve been calling 4X the Fantastic 4 or F4 training).

And if you use 3-way Positions-of-Flexion mass training?working the midrange, stretch and contracted position?you get full-range work for every muscle and complete development. A good example is triceps: close-grip bench presses for midrange work, overhead extensions for stretch and pushdowns for a contracted-position sequence.
Ron Harris, renowned bodybuilding scribe and competitor, is now experimenting with 4X training. He recently wrote about it in IRON MAN and praised its muscle-building abilities (by the way, it?s not a max-strength building system-?powerlifters absolutely must train heavy). His concluding comment was that he only wishes he would?ve found it earlier?before his shoulder surgery.

Mr. America winner Doug Brignole recently began using a version of 4X?with drop sets on some of the sets in a 4X sequence and NOT going to failure on any sets. He said that when he turned 50, he thought he could no longer build muscle, but he?s ecstatic as he gets bigger and leaner with 4X?and he?s feeling great.

The Built-for-Life bottom line: Take your workouts back?train for your well being and build muscle and health in the process. Don?t wait for age and/or injury to smack some smarts into your brain. Start training for yourself and you?ll be amazed at your gains.



Although I do agree and like the basic premise of the above routine I dont think anyone with a high degree of FT fibres and/or higher neuromuscular efficiency will fair well on a system of multiple sets of 10 reps.

The basic premise of multiple NTF sets doesn't sound much different or radical than 3 x3 reps ( with ones 5 rep max ) with 15-20 breaths / 30-50 secs between sets , followed by a set at moderate weight for max reps.

The above is a protocol that I follow and is ( I believe ) more suited to MY makeup.

T.
Open User Options Menu

marcrph

Spain

southbeach wrote:
entsminger wrote:
==Scott==
Ok Marcrph and Serious strength and some of you others in this thread,the more I read this discussion the more I get confused about what you personally recommend to build size and strength.I'm personally more interested in size gains than strength so can each of you please give me a sample your best thoughts on building muscle size? Reps, sets, failure or not to failure, fast or slow reps, rest between sets, etc etc.

Thanks

Size and strength go hand in hand...you couldn't get larger and not also get stronger if you wanted to.

However, i understand you to mean that you'd rather not focus on improving your SKILL at lifting, but rather on true strength that comes from only hypertrophy. My interest in this regard paralles yourss scott.


This is blatantly false.
Open User Options Menu

marcrph

Spain

entsminger wrote:
==Scott==
Ok Marcrph and Serious strength and some of you others in this thread,the more I read this discussion the more I get confused about what you personally recommend to build size and strength.I'm personally more interested in size gains than strength so can each of you please give me a sample your best thoughts on building muscle size? Reps, sets, failure or not to failure, fast or slow reps, rest between sets, etc etc.

Thanks

Scott,

Sorry, I took so long to reply.

I recommend strength training.
I do not recommend bodybuilding.

From your own personal experience....
Experience gained only from your training.....use these guidelines for increased strength.

2 - 5 sets

3 - 5 reps per set

at least 85% maximal weight

2 exercises per session

3 - 5 minute rest between sets

2 - 3 times weekly

non-failure
Open User Options Menu

marcrph

Spain

Good news for fast reps


http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/...6?dopt=Abstract
Open User Options Menu

douglis

marcrph wrote:
Good news for fast reps


http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/...bstract


Yes...in isokinetic machines the fast eccentric mode is the best thing I've ever tried.
It feels like you're doing negative only weight training with a supramaximal load.But it's much safer though.

As far as I know...is the only way of training that achieved increased % of 2Bs in a study.

Open User Options Menu

marcrph

Spain

douglis wrote:
marcrph wrote:
Good news for fast reps


http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/...6?dopt=Abstract

Yes...in isokinetic machines the fast eccentric mode is the best thing I've ever tried.
It feels like you're doing negative only weight training with a supramaximal load.But it's much safer though.

As far as I know...is the only way of training that achieved increased % of 2Bs in a study.



That is why I don't assume......there are very few few studies that address this issue....but empirical evidence abounds.
Open User Options Menu

southbeach

entsminger wrote:
southbeach wrote:
entsminger wrote:
==Scott==
Ok Marcrph and Serious strength and some of you others in this thread,the more I read this discussion the more I get confused about what you personally recommend to build size and strength.I'm personally more interested in size gains than strength so can each of you please give me a sample your best thoughts on building muscle size? Reps, sets, failure or not to failure, fast or slow reps, rest between sets, etc etc.

Thanks

Size and strength go hand in hand...you couldn't get larger and not also get stronger if you wanted to.

However, i understand you to mean that you'd rather not focus on improving your SKILL at lifting, but rather on true strength that comes from only hypertrophy. My interest in this regard paralles yourss scott.

===Scott==
I think one can get a whole lot larger with out necessarily corresponding strength to go with the size.If Mentzer was near as big as he was strong he's have been a whole lot bigger. I know of several fellows who can bench 350 or 225 for 25 reps at 170 pounds body weight yet you can hardly tell they workout.

I'm all for gaining some strength with size but at may age of 59 size is my main goal, not strength.I'm plenty strong for what I'll ever have to do in real life. I can't recall a situation where I needed more strength to do something I needed to do.

When would I ever have to display such strength as benching 350 in real life situations? It would be cool though to actually look bigger than I've been able to attain so far.


Scott, I believe you must be confounding natural limb leverage with true strength (ie the strength of muscle fiber contraction).

Natural strong men have advantageous lever arms built into their limbs and torso. Thats the "secret" to their feats of strength despite the seeming paradoxof this musculature.

Science has shown that when it comes to "force generated per square inch of myofibril svery human is pretty much the same. It's the propitious attachment to the skeleton that imparts good leverage for the lift that's the key. Add to that "practice" at the lift, most people like to do lots of the kind of lifts that they find themselves instantly good at, and tend to avoid those lifts that they aren't, right from the getgo.

That about clears up most of the mystery i think.
Open User Options Menu

douglis

marcrph wrote:
That is why I don't assume......there are very few few studies that address this issue....but empirical evidence abounds.


Sure....nothing beats empirical evidence in terms of training to get stronger but that doesn't mean anyone can claim to be an expert in targeting specific muscle fibers.Even elite powerlifters have found to have only 1% of 2Bs.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/...pubmed/12741885

There're too many studies that address this issue for all kinds of training.Heavy weight training,plyometric training,sprinting...all lead to a conversion of 2Bs to 2As.The only exception,which certainly needs to be better examined,is fast isokinetic lengthening.
Open User Options Menu

All Pro

douglis wrote:
Is there any reason for the average person to try to target specifically the IIb's?
After a couple of months of strength training almost all the IIb's will have been converted to IIa's anyway...unless you're a genetically gifted power lifter or sprinter.
Not true.
2X Fast fatigable
2D fast fatigable
2C fast non fatigable
2A fast non fatigable
----------------------
Fast contraction speed, loads of at least 85% will prevent the whole sale conversion of FF fibers.
8-12 reps with a slow rep cadence will guarantee it.
1 set of 8-12 reps lifted slowly to failure will result in 2X converting to 2D, 2D converting to 2C and 2C converting to 2A until the program stalls.



Open User Options Menu

marcrph

Spain

more good news for fast twitch fiber conversion

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/...9?dopt=Abstract
Open User Options Menu

marcrph

Spain

I've covered PAP before, but for those dated with HIT antiquity:

http://www.p3.md/...n-potentiation/
Open User Options Menu

douglis

All Pro wrote:
Not true.
2X Fast fatigable
2D fast fatigable
2C fast non fatigable
2A fast non fatigable
----------------------
Fast contraction speed, loads of at least 85% will prevent the whole sale conversion of FF fibers.
8-12 reps with a slow rep cadence will guarantee it.
1 set of 8-12 reps lifted slowly to failure will result in 2X converting to 2D, 2D converting to 2C and 2C converting to 2A until the program stalls.



Hi All Pro....are you the same All Pro that we discussed in the past at BB?If so...it's really good to see you posting here.You're always a valuable source of informations.

For the fibers conversion case here's what I was able to find so far.
Any kind of resistance training forces the fibers to follow the same path.Always the 2Bs are converted to 2As.There're dozens of studies for heavy weight training(I posted 5-6 of them at the 2nd page of this thread) and many for plyometric training and sprinting.All lead to the same pattern of conversion.
The body adapts by converting the high energy spending 2Bs to lower energy spending 2As.Even elite powerlifters have only ~1% of 2Bs in their body compared to average coach potato who has ~12%.
The only training exception I was able to find that goes against this pattern is isokinetic fast eccentrics which certainly needs to be better examined.
If you have other informations it would be really good to post them here.
Open User Options Menu

douglis

marcrph wrote:
more good news for fast twitch fiber conversion

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/...bstract


Yes....it's possible to decrease the type 1 percentage but the 2Bs are always converting to 2As.

"Eleven men sprint trained two to three times per week for 6 wk.....However, the training protocol did result in a significant decrease in MHC IIb with a concomitant increase in MHC IIa for the training men."
http://jap.physiology.org/...5/2385.abstract
Open User Options Menu

All Pro

douglis wrote:
All Pro wrote:
Not true.
2X Fast fatigable
2D fast fatigable
2C fast non fatigable
2A fast non fatigable
----------------------
Fast contraction speed, loads of at least 85% will prevent the whole sale conversion of FF fibers.
8-12 reps with a slow rep cadence will guarantee it.
1 set of 8-12 reps lifted slowly to failure will result in 2X converting to 2D, 2D converting to 2C and 2C converting to 2A until the program stalls.



Hi All Pro....are you the same All Pro that we discussed in the past at BB?If so...it's really good to see you posting here.You're always a valuable source of informations.

For the fibers conversion case here's what I was able to find so far.
Any kind of resistance training forces the fibers to follow the same path.Always the 2Bs are converted to 2As.There're dozens of studies for heavy weight training(I posted 5-6 of them at the 2nd page of this thread) and many for plyometric training and sprinting.All lead to the same pattern of conversion.
The body adapts by converting the high energy spending 2Bs to lower energy spending 2As.Even elite powerlifters have only ~1% of 2Bs in their body compared to average coach potato who has ~12%.
The only training exception I was able to find that goes against this pattern is isokinetic fast eccentrics which certainly needs to be better examined.
If you have other informations it would be really good to post them here.


First of all please stop calling them 2Bs. Humans don't have any 2B fibers. The largest, fastest and strongest fiber group are the 2X fibers. The moment you start to train they shift down to 2Ds. That's not a problem. There's no lose of any sort, in fact you gain a bit of endurance. Now if you only train the higher rep ranges, 8+, for decades you're going to convert all of the fast twitch anaerobic fibers to a slower more endurance type. If you used the fastest possible contraction speed while still maintaining good form you can slow down or even stop the conversion. I wouldn't recommend training in the higher rep ranges like that. Instead of 1-6 chances of screwing up and getting injured you've got 8-20 chances of screwing up and getting injured.
Side notes; There are at least 18 different fiber types. I just refer to the fast ones in the four major groups. You can stop 2Ds from converting to an endurance type but not with 1 set of 8-12 lifted slowly. Doing that you guarantee the conversion. The problems with the studies are that they don't give a complete break down. It would take years, decades of improper training to convert a 2x to a 2a. 2cs readily convert in either direction. More important than the conversion is the motor neuron. If you attach a 2x motor neuron to a 2a fiber the 2a fiber will behave exactly like a 2x. You can control that conversion through the CNS via rep speed and by keeping the intensity level at 85% +.

There's only one of me. I haven't posted here in a long time. I just stop by from time to time and read the posts. I've been way to busy at BB.com
Open User Options Menu

All Pro

Muscle biopsy specimens were removed from the vastus lateralis muscles of three groups of human subjects: controls, weight lifters, and distance runners. The runners proved to be a unique group with respect to the variables measured (low body weight and percentage body fat, and high VO2 max). Additionally, a histochemical analysis of the biopsy specimens revealed that the runners had a significantly higher percentage of fiber types I and IIC than either the controls or the weight lifters. Using a cryostatic retrieval method, each of the fibers identified histochemically was then analyzed morphometrically using electron microscopy. The results of volume-percent mitochondria demonstrated a strong relationship between the ATPase activity and oxidative potential of the fiber types for all three groups such that the oxidative activity would be ranked I greater than IIA greater than IIB. Irrespective of fiber type, there were significant differences between the groups with regard to muscle-fiber mitochondrial (runners greater than lifters greater than controls) and lipid content (runners greater than controls greater than lifters). The lifters had a significantly greater content of mitochondria than the controls, which may suggest that inactivity rather than the lifting exercise contributes to a low volume-percent mitochondria and a high percentage of type IIB fibers.
http://jhc.sagepub.com/.../32/2/146.short
Open User Options Menu

marcrph

Spain

douglis wrote:
marcrph wrote:
more good news for fast twitch fiber conversion

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/...9?dopt=Abstract

Yes....it's possible to decrease the type 1 percentage but the 2Bs are always converting to 2As.

"Eleven men sprint trained two to three times per week for 6 wk.....However, the training protocol did result in a significant decrease in MHC IIb with a concomitant increase in MHC IIa for the training men."
http://jap.physiology.org/...5/2385.abstract


For sure, there is conversion...significant???perhaps...to REN EX zealots......trying to sell machines.

Superslow and 1 set of 8-12 reps to failure would speed up conversion.
Open User Options Menu

HeavyHitter32

marcrph wrote:
douglis wrote:
marcrph wrote:
more good news for fast twitch fiber conversion

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/...9?dopt=Abstract

Yes....it's possible to decrease the type 1 percentage but the 2Bs are always converting to 2As.

"Eleven men sprint trained two to three times per week for 6 wk.....However, the training protocol did result in a significant decrease in MHC IIb with a concomitant increase in MHC IIa for the training men."
http://jap.physiology.org/...5/2385.abstract


For sure, there is conversion...significant???perhaps...to REN EX zealots......trying to sell machines.

Superslow and 1 set of 8-12 reps to failure would speed up conversion.


Good points.
Open User Options Menu

douglis

All Pro wrote:
There's only one of me. I haven't posted here in a long time. I just stop by from time to time and read the posts.


Please stop here more often.You'll certainly elevate the level of the discussions.


It would take years, decades of improper training to convert a 2x to a 2a. 2cs readily convert in either direction. More important than the conversion is the motor neuron. If you attach a 2x motor neuron to a 2a fiber the 2a fiber will behave exactly like a 2x. You can control that conversion through the CNS via rep speed and by keeping the intensity level at 85% +.


So...how can we explain the findings of this study?Olympic weight lifters train exclusively with >85% and always as explosive as possible.
But,as it's found,the % of llb and llc was almost negligible and by far the most predominant fiber type was lla.

"These results suggest that successful weightlifting performance is not dependent on IIB fibers, and that weightlifters exhibit large percentages of type IIA muscle fibers and MHC IIa isoform content."

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/...pubmed/14666943
Open User Options Menu
First | Previous | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | Next | Last
H.I.T. Acceptable Use Policy