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
Latest on Muscle Fiber Type
1 | 2 | 3 | Next | Last
Author
Rating
Options

Average Al

I know that science oriented threads get a mixed reception here. Never-the-less, I saw one that seems worthy of mention, should your interests lie in that direction.

It can be found at the Men's Health web site, under the title "How Scientists Use Your Muscles to Predict Your Mortality". It is written by Lou Schuler, based on the work of Andy Galpin, who appears to be one of the current leading experts on muscle fiber characteristics.

The subject of the article is broader than the title might imply. He talks a lot about the latest thinking on muscle fiber type, which is now viewed as much more complex (6 fiber classification, instead of the old I, IIA, and IIX or IIB).

It seems we all have a high percentage of what are called Hybrid Fibers, things which have mixed characteristics. So there are I/IIa fibers, and IIa/IIx fibers and even I/IIa/IIx fibers. What is interesting is that these hybrid fibers seem to be able to shift type according to how you train. So a hybrid I/IIx will shift to type I if you do a lot of endurance work. And IIa/IIx will shift toward IIx if you do a lot of fast explosive lifting.

Galpin has a web site which includes a detailed article about the history and evolution of thinking about fiber classification, along with what he thinks we do and don't know about this area.

Highly recommended.
Open User Options Menu

entsminger

Virginia, USA

What is interesting is that these hybrid fibers seem to be able to shift type according to how you train.

==Scott==
Hmmm? maybe there is something to those X-Men shape shifters?
Open User Options Menu

Nwlifter

His info. is great, I've listened to a couple podcasts where he was interviewed. He has even said fiber types do change, and can change pretty rapidly, within weeks. Things aren't as 'fixed' as we once thought.
Open User Options Menu

oldbutsteady

What a shock! The science wasn't correct on muscle composition, its ability to adapt itself to exercise, or the old cop out, genetics has the final word.

Now hopefully certain people will stop posting nonsense from their decades old Biology 101 course books and CPT manuals about muscles.

OBS
Open User Options Menu

ATP 4 Vitality

@ AA

Thanks!

I loved his words:

- But strength is not the only fitness parameter linked to longevity. Cardiorespiratory fitness is also associated with longer life. So is more total physical activity. The research is unambiguous enough, but the message can get garbled by experts who, despite their generally good intentions, are stuck in fitness silos. They are so invested in strength or endurance training that they are blinded to the value of everything else. -


Looks like HIT & cardiovascular conditioning is what this person prescribes
Open User Options Menu

AndyMitch

The strength testing is flawed to start with if you look at the leg extension
Open User Options Menu

AndyMitch

So we can! All train the same way and look like Arnold and lift like Ed Coan!!
Woot.
Open User Options Menu

Average Al

oldbutsteady wrote:
What a shock! The science wasn't correct on muscle composition, its ability to adapt itself to exercise, or the old cop out, genetics has the final word.

Now hopefully certain people will stop posting nonsense from their decades old Biology 101 course books and CPT manuals about muscles.

OBS


I don't think his findings in any way rules out the impact of genetics. Training can cause shifts in hybrid fibers. But how many hybrid fibers you have, and of what type might still be determined by genetics.

In another article, he explains that pure IIx fibers are extremely rare in normal humans, to the point of being almost nonexistent. (Previous researchers, using less discriminating tools, had classified hybrid IIb/IIx as being pure IIx). Yet, he cites a muscle biopsy taken on one world class sprinter who tested as having 24% IIx fibers in his quads. In that same article, he states that until someone pays to have muscle biopsies done on a large sample of world class athletes, we just won't know how important fiber type distribution might be. Likewise, we don't really know how different kinds of training can be used to 'optimize' any of this. He says that funding for this kind of research is hard to come by. So what we find in the limited studies that are done is more like tantalizing glimpses behind the curtain.

Science never finds Truth in the sense of something permanent and immutable. Rather, it just tries to offer the best available explanation, given the measurement tools on hand and the most objective information what is available for examination. People who understand how science works are (or should be) comfortable with this.
Open User Options Menu

Average Al

ATP 4 Vitality wrote:
@ AA

Thanks!

I loved his words:

- But strength is not the only fitness parameter linked to longevity. Cardiorespiratory fitness is also associated with longer life. So is more total physical activity. The research is unambiguous enough, but the message can get garbled by experts who, despite their generally good intentions, are stuck in fitness silos. They are so invested in strength or endurance training that they are blinded to the value of everything else. -


Looks like HIT & cardiovascular conditioning is what this person prescribes


I think that was Lou Schuler's opinion, not necessarily Andy Galpin's. However, it is an opinion that I share and put into practice.

The comment about people sorting themselves into fitness silos is very true.
Open User Options Menu

Average Al

AndyMitch wrote:
So we can! All train the same way and look like Arnold and lift like Ed Coan!!
Woot.


I don't think that is the right conclusion to draw from this, for reasons I've already mentioned further back in the thread.
Open User Options Menu

entsminger

Virginia, USA

AndyMitch wrote:
So we can! All train the same way and look like Arnold and lift like Ed Coan!!
Woot.


==Scott==
So you want to look like Arnold?

Open User Options Menu

ATP 4 Vitality

Average Al wrote:
ATP 4 Vitality wrote:

The comment about people sorting themselves into fitness silos is very true.


Galpins prescription: Do a few things involving heavy weight. Do a few things that get your heart rate up. Do a few things that require sustained effort. -It is not sexy, but all the research shows that those three things are the most important, - he says.


I wonder why there is so much bitter push back against cardiovascular conditioning among HIT practitioners. It seems rather silly and emotionally argumentative at this point in history. Corporate Warrior Business is one of the worst offender with a solid bias against cardiovascular conditioning.

Open User Options Menu

oldbutsteady

ATP,

I agree with your post 100%

OBS
Open User Options Menu

Chris H

oldbutsteady wrote:
ATP,

I agree with your post 100%

OBS


fuck me, peace has broken out.

Only joking,

Sincerely Gents, nice to see.
Open User Options Menu

oldbutsteady

Chris H,

You are now on the list (wink and nod)

:)

OBS
Open User Options Menu

ATP 4 Vitality

I must be doing something wrong. Give me time!

The custodian will soon scold me for this lack of contrarianism. Too bad he can not clean up politics.
Open User Options Menu

Average Al

ATP 4 Vitality wrote:
Average Al wrote:
ATP 4 Vitality wrote:

The comment about people sorting themselves into fitness silos is very true.


Galpins prescription: Do a few things involving heavy weight. Do a few things that get your heart rate up. Do a few things that require sustained effort. -It is not sexy, but all the research shows that those three things are the most important, - he says.


I wonder why there is so much bitter push back against cardiovascular conditioning among HIT practitioners. It seems rather silly and emotionally argumentative at this point in history. Corporate Warrior Business is one of the worst offender with a solid bias against cardiovascular conditioning.



Yah... rereading it, that was Galpin's position.

As to why the pushback?

Part is probably economic: many of these folks have invested in businesses which promise that this minimal dose of exercise (20 or 30 minutes once or twice a week) is all you need to do. Once you have bought into that and built your livelihood around it, change becomes harder.

Part of it is just human nature: people are tribal, and seem to like to have a sense of identity from being part of a group. You can see this in politics today. Preserving tribal identity (liberal vs conservative, Republican vs Democrat) overides rational thinking about specific questions of policy. It is really hard to be objective and unbiased on anything that you value.

When it comes to exercise, some guys love to be known as the marathoner, some guys love being known as the powerlifter, others are HIT people (do absolutely as little as possible, dude!). At some point this become more important than what you are doing (or not doing) to your body.

Open User Options Menu

AndyMitch

Average Al wrote:
AndyMitch wrote:
So we can! All train the same way and look like Arnold and lift like Ed Coan!!
Woot.

I don't think that is the right conclusion to draw from this, for reasons I've already mentioned further back in the thread.


Just kidding I?m sort of reply to the (blame genetics cop out) group.

The reality still stands; you can?t make goats piss out of gasoline.

But I still feel Arthur was correct one doesn?t need to spend time running if it is incorporated into weight lifting .



Open User Options Menu

Average Al

AndyMitch wrote:

But I still feel Arthur was correct one doesn?t need to spend time running if it is incorporated into weight lifting .




I think it depends on what looking for out of your training.

Relative to being sedentary and doing nothing, a sufficiently intense strength training program will likely give some improvement in cardiovascular conditioning. That may be enough to meet your needs, and perhaps is the minimal dose needed to be healthy. I say "perhaps" because it is not that easy to define what the minimal dose of anything is for health.

I would hazard a guess that someone doing a full body nautilus circuit twice a week for 30 minutes, using relatively high effort is getting more meaningful cardiovascular conditioning than someone who strolls for 20 minutes at a leisurely pace every day. You are talking about 60 minutes of vigorous activity vs 140 minutes of mild to moderate activity, with relatively low oxygen demand. Probably even better to do both, but... hard to define precisely what each is doing for you.

For myself, I am not confident that strength training alone is enough, especially because I despise doing strength training with a rush factor. I prefer to be well rested between exercises and focus on fatiguing the muscles as completely as possible. So I choose to do some cardio for insurance, and because I seem to feel better, sleep better, etc., when I do that.


Open User Options Menu

ATP 4 Vitality

Average Al wrote:
ATP 4 Vitality wrote:
Average Al wrote:
ATP 4 Vitality wrote:

The comment about people sorting themselves into fitness silos is very true.


Galpins prescription: Do a few things involving heavy weight. Do a few things that get your heart rate up. Do a few things that require sustained effort. -It is not sexy, but all the research shows that those three things are the most important, - he says.


I wonder why there is so much bitter push back against cardiovascular conditioning among HIT practitioners. It seems rather silly and emotionally argumentative at this point in history. Corporate Warrior Business is one of the worst offender with a solid bias against cardiovascular conditioning.



Yah... rereading it, that was Galpin's position.

As to why the pushback?

Part is probably economic: many of these folks have invested in businesses which promise that this minimal dose of exercise (20 or 30 minutes once or twice a week) is all you need to do. Once you have bought into that and built your livelihood around it, change becomes harder.

Part of it is just human nature: people are tribal, and seem to like to have a sense of identity from being part of a group. You can see this in politics today. Preserving tribal identity (liberal vs conservative, Republican vs Democrat) overides rational thinking about specific questions of policy. It is really hard to be objective and unbiased on anything that you value.

When it comes to exercise, some guys love to be known as the marathoner, some guys love being known as the powerlifter, others are HIT people (do absolutely as little as possible, dude!). At some point this become more important than what you are doing (or not doing) to your body.


Good post
Open User Options Menu

Bill Sekerak

California, USA

Average Al wrote:
I know that science oriented threads get a mixed reception here. Never-the-less, I saw one that seems worthy of mention, should your interests lie in that direction.

It can be found at the Men's Health web site, under the title "How Scientists Use Your Muscles to Predict Your Mortality". It is written by Lou Schuler, based on the work of Andy Galpin, who appears to be one of the current leading experts on muscle fiber characteristics.

The subject of the article is broader than the title might imply. He talks a lot about the latest thinking on muscle fiber type, which is now viewed as much more complex (6 fiber classification, instead of the old I, IIA, and IIX or IIB).

It seems we all have a high percentage of what are called Hybrid Fibers, things which have mixed characteristics. So there are I/IIa fibers, and IIa/IIx fibers and even I/IIa/IIx fibers. What is interesting is that these hybrid fibers seem to be able to shift type according to how you train. So a hybrid I/IIx will shift to type I if you do a lot of endurance work. And IIa/IIx will shift toward IIx if you do a lot of fast explosive lifting.

Galpin has a web site which includes a detailed article about the history and evolution of thinking about fiber classification, along with what he thinks we do and don't know about this area.

Highly recommended.


Yeah, I wasn't aware of the new " subdivisions " but I've known about changing muscle fiber type or at least changes in function for a long time.
I discussed this with Arthur in 1995.
I came to the conclusion,from reading a ton of MedX research papers published and unpublished, that it was possible to train predominantly fast twitch muscle type as you would train predominantly slow twitch fiber and " turn " it into fiber type with slow twitch characterizations but not visa versa.
If the study you reference indicates that predominantly slow twitch fiber type could be changed into predominantly fast twitch fiber that would be news but I would be very skeptical.
Open User Options Menu

Bill Sekerak

California, USA

Average Al wrote:
AndyMitch wrote:

But I still feel Arthur was correct one doesn?t need to spend time running if it is incorporated into weight lifting .




I think it depends on what looking for out of your training.

Relative to being sedentary and doing nothing, a sufficiently intense strength training program will likely give some improvement in cardiovascular conditioning. That may be enough to meet your needs, and perhaps is the minimal dose needed to be healthy. I say "perhaps" because it is not that easy to define what the minimal dose of anything is for health.

I would hazard a guess that someone doing a full body nautilus circuit twice a week for 30 minutes, using relatively high effort is getting more meaningful cardiovascular conditioning than someone who strolls for 20 minutes at a leisurely pace every day. You are talking about 60 minutes of vigorous activity vs 140 minutes of mild to moderate activity, with relatively low oxygen demand. Probably even better to do both, but... hard to define precisely what each is doing for you.

For myself, I am not confident that strength training alone is enough, especially because I despise doing strength training with a rush factor. I prefer to be well rested between exercises and focus on fatiguing the muscles as completely as possible. So I choose to do some cardio for insurance, and because I seem to feel better, sleep better, etc., when I do that.




" If you like exercise you're probably doing it wrong. "- Arthur Jones


Open User Options Menu

Bill Sekerak

California, USA

Average Al wrote:
oldbutsteady wrote:
What a shock! The science wasn't correct on muscle composition, its ability to adapt itself to exercise, or the old cop out, genetics has the final word.

Now hopefully certain people will stop posting nonsense from their decades old Biology 101 course books and CPT manuals about muscles.

OBS

I don't think his findings in any way rules out the impact of genetics. Training can cause shifts in hybrid fibers. But how many hybrid fibers you have, and of what type might still be determined by genetics.

In another article, he explains that pure IIx fibers are extremely rare in normal humans, to the point of being almost nonexistent. (Previous researchers, using less discriminating tools, had classified hybrid IIb/IIx as being pure IIx). Yet, he cites a muscle biopsy taken on one world class sprinter who tested as having 24% IIx fibers in his quads. In that same article, he states that until someone pays to have muscle biopsies done on a large sample of world class athletes, we just won't know how important fiber type distribution might be. Likewise, we don't really know how different kinds of training can be used to 'optimize' any of this. He says that funding for this kind of research is hard to come by. So what we find in the limited studies that are done is more like tantalizing glimpses behind the curtain.

Science never finds Truth in the sense of something permanent and immutable. Rather, it just tries to offer the best available explanation, given the measurement tools on hand and the most objective information what is available for examination. People who understand how science works are (or should be) comfortable with this.


I won't belabor the point but there are scientific absolutes that will never change.
As Aristotle stated A = A. Uranium decays at a known rate under certain circumstances and at another under different circumstances.
The square root of 144 is 12. Etc.etc
I know that many Universities have professors who teach you can never know anything as everything is always in flux. However that's total BS. They don't even recognize that the above statement is presented as an absolute thus it negates itself.
Open User Options Menu

Bill Sekerak

California, USA

Average Al wrote:
oldbutsteady wrote:
What a shock! The science wasn't correct on muscle composition, its ability to adapt itself to exercise, or the old cop out, genetics has the final word.

Now hopefully certain people will stop posting nonsense from their decades old Biology 101 course books and CPT manuals about muscles.

OBS

I don't think his findings in any way rules out the impact of genetics. Training can cause shifts in hybrid fibers. But how many hybrid fibers you have, and of what type might still be determined by genetics.

In another article, he explains that pure IIx fibers are extremely rare in normal humans, to the point of being almost nonexistent. (Previous researchers, using less discriminating tools, had classified hybrid IIb/IIx as being pure IIx). Yet, he cites a muscle biopsy taken on one world class sprinter who tested as having 24% IIx fibers in his quads. In that same article, he states that until someone pays to have muscle biopsies done on a large sample of world class athletes, we just won't know how important fiber type distribution might be. Likewise, we don't really know how different kinds of training can be used to 'optimize' any of this. He says that funding for this kind of research is hard to come by. So what we find in the limited studies that are done is more like tantalizing glimpses behind the curtain.

Science never finds Truth in the sense of something permanent and immutable. Rather, it just tries to offer the best available explanation, given the measurement tools on hand and the most objective information what is available for examination. People who understand how science works are (or should be) comfortable with this.


You're correct it cannot negate the impact of genetics on what mix of fiber type your genes were programmed to produce.
Open User Options Menu

Bill Sekerak

California, USA

Average Al wrote:
I know that science oriented threads get a mixed reception here. Never-the-less, I saw one that seems worthy of mention, should your interests lie in that direction.

It can be found at the Men's Health web site, under the title "How Scientists Use Your Muscles to Predict Your Mortality". It is written by Lou Schuler, based on the work of Andy Galpin, who appears to be one of the current leading experts on muscle fiber characteristics.

The subject of the article is broader than the title might imply. He talks a lot about the latest thinking on muscle fiber type, which is now viewed as much more complex (6 fiber classification, instead of the old I, IIA, and IIX or IIB).

It seems we all have a high percentage of what are called Hybrid Fibers, things which have mixed characteristics. So there are I/IIa fibers, and IIa/IIx fibers and even I/IIa/IIx fibers. What is interesting is that these hybrid fibers seem to be able to shift type according to how you train. So a hybrid I/IIx will shift to type I if you do a lot of endurance work. And IIa/IIx will shift toward IIx if you do a lot of fast explosive lifting.

Galpin has a web site which includes a detailed article about the history and evolution of thinking about fiber classification, along with what he thinks we do and don't know about this area.

Highly recommended.


" Fast explosive lifting " ? I think if you do a " lot of fast explosive lifting " you will produce injury.
The intensity along with the number of repetitions kept low, 6-8 or perhaps even 4-6 with a very limited number of exercises and more time between exercises sessions, twice a week or less. ( best way to determine this is experimenting on yourself) would be the best way to train predominantly fast twitch fiber type.
Conversely with predominantly slow twitch fiber type a much higher number of repetitions ( 15-20 or minimum) a greater number of exercises than for predominantly fast twitch and much less time between exercise sessions ( 3X a week minimum or less) .
Repetition speed should be the same for both.
At least 4 seconds concentric and 4 seconds eccentric for those exercises with smaller ROM.
For instance wrist curls might be as low as 1/1 or 2/2 with the pullover being perhaps 7/7 or even 8/8. 4X4 being a rule of thumb.
The muscle should always be " under load " it should never be " unloaded " ( as it is with explosive lifting which at some point in rom the resistance is literally thrown , Olympic lifts ,clean and jerk the snatch ,due to kinetic force.
I think at some point in time resistance exercise will consist of a number of isometric " contractions " performed at a specified points along the ROM to be determined by the length of the ROM.
For instance with the curl it may require 4 or 5 " contractions " and the pullover maybe 9 or more.
Obviously this would only work for isolation exercises and not with open chain / compound exercises.
In order for this to work a system of feedback to the user has to be in place so they can see what amount of force they were able to produce at their previous session so they can attempt to exceed it.
Something like a bar colored red for the previous session and green for the current session.
This creates motivation , a permanent record.
It removes " cheating " and is as safe as resistance exercise can be.
It removes the necessity for weights of any kind and the footprint of the device would be very small with much less material like steel needed.
If anyone reads all of this thank you.
Open User Options Menu
1 | 2 | 3 | Next | Last
H.I.T. Acceptable Use Policy