Monday 18 June 2012

[Supertraining] Digest Number 4583

Messages In This Digest (10 Messages)

Messages

1a.

Re: More About Rate of Hypertrophy

Posted by: "Giovanni Ciriani" Giovanni.Ciriani@Gmail.com   gciriani

Sun Jun 17, 2012 11:15 am (PDT)



To clarify the relationship between force and power in muscles, please take
a look at the right-hand-side chart in the following article section in
Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muscle_contraction#Force-length_and_force-velocity_relationships

(P.S. I'm the author of the chart)
Giovanni Ciriani - West Hartford, CT - USA

On Sat, Jun 16, 2012 at 10:12 AM, Ralph Giarnella <ragiarn@yahoo.com> wrote:

> **
>
>
> It all depends on how one defines strength. The term strength is an
> ambiguous term at best. Perhaps a better term instead of strength would be
> power. Power defined as force x distance/time. Power lifters and olympic
> lifters are trying to gain the maximum short term power. Max force x short
> distance/minimum time. Endurance athletes are trying to develop sustained
> long term power (less force x greater distance/longer time).
>
> Maximum power requires firing a maximum number fibers simultaneously
> (synchronous) Endurance power requires firing groups small of fibers
> asynchronously. As one group of fibers fatigues another group takes over
> while the first recovers.
>
> In my opinion, the type of work done by body builders is somewhere between
> that of power lifters and that of endurance athletes.
>
> Power athletes are interested in developing maximally type II fibers,
> endurance athletes are trying to develop maximally type I fibers and I
> suspect that body builds are trying to develop both groups.
>
>
> Ralph Giarnella MD
> Southington Ct. USA
>
> ________________________________
> From: "efreem3407@aol.com" <efreem3407@aol.com>
> To: Supertraining@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Thursday, June 14, 2012 12:49 PM
>
> Subject: Re: [Supertraining] Re: More About Rate of Hypertrophy
>
>
>
> Correct me if I am wrong but I think lean muscle gains correspond to
> strength increases. Any bodybuilder that gains lean muscle should have
> strength increases? Then again, this could be suspect, because I've seen
> bodybuilders using steroids that do only high rep and low weight workouts
> yet have massive amounts of muscle. I've seen bodybuilders do hundreds of
> reps on machines with say 100 lbs. yet still be huge and massive.
>
> I train as a powerlifter. I'm not training to gain a lot of bulk. I am
> mostly training for strength without massive amounts of body weight and
> bulk increases.
>
> Edwin Freeman, Jr.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: deadliftdiva <deadliftdiva@comcast.net>
> To: Supertraining <Supertraining@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Thu, Jun 14, 2012 9:31 am
> Subject: Re: [Supertraining] Re: More About Rate of Hypertrophy
>
> I'm going to jump in here with one point that I think has bearing on the
> whole
> question: When we measure lean mass, we are not precise. We cannot be.
> What we
> get is some guess based on measurements which varies and can be misleading
> - and
> I recall Mel's comment long ago that the only truly accurate measure was
> "autopsy". Few would desire to have their lean mass evaluated this way
> during a
> growth phase in training, so that's clearly out :) .
>
> With the known variance in measuring methods (and here I recall James
> Krieger's
> good article on measuring that he thoughtfully shared some time ago with
> this
> group), my thinking is that there is a considerable margin of guessing
> that
> makes it possible to overestimate how much lean mass has been gained by an
> individual over time. I myself over the years have experienced wildly
> ranging
> measurements by folks who were said to be expert in such things -
> considering
> that the measurement of one's bodyfat subcutaneously or measurements to
> estimate
> a guess at overall bodyfat including a visceral estimate would have
> bearing on a
> presumed gain in lean mass by way of deducting the presumed bodyfat on
> board...
>
> I also once handed Mel a copy of a book that suggested you could 'squat
> for 6
> weeks and gain 20 pounds of lean hard muscle' and the response was that it
> was
> entertaining but unlikely to be accurate... Thankfully sq never had that
> effect
> on me personally or I'd have required more new wardrobes than I have been
> through personally over the years here as a competing powerlifter!
>
> So if we consider that measuring the bodyfat an individual has on board is
> still
> somewhat less effective than we would like, how then can we be sure of
> lean
> gains that would be based on our best guess of the fat to lean ratio of a
> person? Would not a "lean muscle gain" not be entirely muscle also, but
> the
> bones themselves responding to the increased loads as well?
>
> Interesting topic, back to reading. :)
>
> The Phantom
> aka Linda Schaefer, CMT/RMT, competing powerlifter
> Denver, Colorado, USA
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "kendaiganoneill" <kayoneill@earthlink.net>
> To: Supertraining@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Wednesday, June 13, 2012 5:54:05 PM
> Subject: [Supertraining] Re: More About Rate of Hypertrophy
>
> Krista's reports of 25-44 lbs of muscle gain within a year for life long
> ectomorphs.
>
> I will dissent, however, on the notion that 20-30 lbs of muscle gain in as
> little as three months are hype. Back from the 1930s into the early 60s
> many a
> trainee reported 20 or more pounds increase in manly muscle over a three
> month
> period by means of specializing in 5 sets of 20 reps of breathing squats,
> some
> adding the Hise shrug. Thrice weekly, consuming nutrient dense whole foods
> and
> the sole protein supplement of that bygone era: milk.
>
> Breathing squats are especially demanding, certainly no fun save for
> Masochists.
> With each set, one breath between reps 1-5, then 2 deep breaths for reps
> 6-10,
> three deep breaths for reps 11-15, and - you guessed it - four deep
> breaths
> between reps 16-20. The immediately onto a picnic bench for sets of 20
> reps,
> very light weight dumbbell flyes to expand the rib cage for a big chest.
>
> These days I'll defer to the exciting new work coming out of McMaster
> University
> comparing 1 set of 8-10 1 RM to failure vs 3 sets of 8-10 to failure 80% 1
> RM vs
> 3 sets of 30 reps to failure with 30% 1 RM. Adding volume at 80% and 30%
> produced essentially equal hypertrophy, both significantly greater than 1
> set to
> failure (a failed idea).
>
> In my personal experience and that of training others, hitting significant
> annual hypertrophy is far more easily facilitated when rep schemes,
> cadence or
> tempo, stage sets, drop sets, using 30-80% 1 RM are all intelligently and
> strategically applied to one end: avoiding plateaus, instead sustainable
> anabolism.
>
> --- In Supertraining@yahoogroups.com , Krista Scott-Dixon
> <kristascottdixon@...>
> wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Apr 24, 2008 at 4:13 PM, Anthony Pitruzzello
> > <tonypit45@...> wrote:
> > > Hello Everyone,
> > >
> > > I recently posted a question about rate of hypertrophy – basically,
> what are
>
> > > the optimal realistic results a person can expect, vs. the endless
> claims in
>
> > > the muscle mags, e.g., "Gain 20-30 pounds of lean muscle mass in six
> > > weeks!!!" I compared the responses with some other data, and I thought
> I
> > > would share it with the group.
> > >
> >
> > I work with John Berardi at Precision Nutrition, which runs a
> > muscle-gaining Scrawny to Brawny program. It's a one-year program that
> > focuses on step-by-step habit acquisition and entrainment, like our
> > other fat-loss program Lean Eating. We run a contest that awards money
> > to top finishers -- people who dramatically transform their bodies.
> >
> > Looking at our recent 12-month cohorts, our top finalists put on
> > between 25-44 lbs in a year. These are ectomorphs who are "lifetime
> > scrawnies", so they gain mass relatively slowly -- some made notable
> > transformations even with relatively less muscle gain, because small
> > amounts of mass make a big difference on a shorter/skinnier frame.
> > This is with a highly structured eating and training program, a coach,
> > and daily check-ins (lessons and habits). All material is
> > science/research-based as you might expect from JB and PN.
> >
> > Interestingly, our 6-month program was not as dissimilar as you would
> > expect -- it doesn't seem to be a linear scale.
> >
> > Here are finalists from our early, 6-month program:
> > http://www.precisionnutrition.com/s2b-winners-2010
> >
> > Here are finalists from our 12-month program that begin in May 2011.
> > http://www.scrawnytobrawny.com/may-2011-finalists
> >
> > Krista
> > Toronto, ON
> >
> > --------------------
> > Krista Scott-Dixon, PhD
> > Lean Eating Program Director
> > PrecisionNutrition.com
> > krista@...
> >
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Modify/cancel your subscription at:
>
> http://groups.yahoo.com/mygroups
>
> Sign all letters with full name & city of residence if you
> wish them to be published!
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Back to top
Reply to sender | Reply to group | Reply via web post
Messages in this topic (25)
1b.

Re: More About Rate of Hypertrophy

Posted by: "Ralph Giarnella" ragiarn@yahoo.com   ragiarn

Sun Jun 17, 2012 11:17 am (PDT)



Charles Lockhart wrote:

*****************************
Sorry, probably going to get this wrong, but wouldn't the size most
likely be due to an abundance of mitochondrial mass? As opposed to
what would be considered muscle fiber? Mitochondria are part of the
cell, so they buff the cell up. Is the cell part of the chain that
makes the muscle fiber? I probably need to read more.

************************

The type of work done will determine whether there is an increase in muscle fiber or mitochondrial mass.  Each muscle cell has a limit to how big it gets.  There are three major components in consideration are the protoplasm, mitochondria and muscle fibers.  The mitochondria produce energy aerobically, the muscle fibers of course produce force and the protoplasm is the "soup" in which multiple elements, minerals, glycogen reside.   
  

Anaerobic work, such as that done in most powerlifting sports, does not require a lot of mitochondria since most of the work is done anaerobically and there is probably not as much need for large glycogen stores since the work is done in short spurts with recovery between sets.  The type II muscle cells are characterized by the paucity of mitochondria a superabundance of muscle fibers whereas the Type I muscle fibers are characterized by high mitochondrial density and glycogen storage and marked decrease in muscle fibers (compared to TypeII.)

The Type II muscle fibers can be broken down, into Type IIa and Type IIb,(there are other subsets but for simplicity I would leave them out of the discussion).   Type IIb contain a minimal amount of mitochondria, just enough to maintain some aerobic metabolism during rest. The Type IIa contain significantly more mitochondria and less muscle fibers than does TypeIIb. 

Endurance type training causes conversion of Type IIb to Type IIa.  It is probably for this reason that many traditional power lifting athletes try to avoid aerobic work for fear of converting too many of their Type IIb fibers to Type IIa.

Ralph Giarnella MD
Southington Ct. USA 

________________________________
From: Charles Lockhart <scout3801@gmail.com>
To: Supertraining@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Saturday, June 16, 2012 3:01 PM
Subject: Re: [Supertraining] Re: More About Rate of Hypertrophy


 
Edwin Freeman wrote:
> Then again, this could be suspect, because I've seen bodybuilders using steroids that do only high rep and low
> weight workouts yet have massive amounts of muscle. I've seen bodybuilders do hundreds of reps on machines
> with say 100 lbs. yet still be huge and massive.

Sorry, probably going to get this wrong, but wouldn't the size most
likely be due to an abundance of mitochondrial mass? As opposed to
what would be considered muscle fiber? Mitochondria are part of the
cell, so they buff the cell up. Is the cell part of the chain that
makes the muscle fiber? I probably need to read more.

Ralph Giarnella wrote:
> And lastly these measurements do not account for the most abundant element in the body namely water.
> The assumption is always that muscle accounts for any change in fat free mass without accounting for shifts
> in fluid mass.

Regarding weight gain from increased exercise levels, I recall reading
in a book titled "Nutrient Timing" that the increased demand on the
cardiovascular system resulted in an increase in water retention, the
body's goal being to increase blood volume to meet increased O2
demand. IIRC, this could be a significant volume, resulting in a
fairly large weight gain (large as in 4-8 pounds).

-Charles Lockhart
Hilo, HI

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Back to top
Reply to sender | Reply to group | Reply via web post
Messages in this topic (25)
1c.

Re: More About Rate of Hypertrophy

Posted by: "KennyCrox@aol.com" KennyCrox@aol.com

Sun Jun 17, 2012 11:18 am (PDT)




There are different type of strength. Power is a sub class of strength.

Also, there's relatively no power in powerlifting. The true power athletes are Olympic lifters, who have registered some of, if not, the highest power output forces on record.

Kenny Croxdale, CSCS
Rio Rancho, NM

-----Original Message-----
From: Ralph Giarnella <ragiarn@yahoo.com>
To: Supertraining <Supertraining@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Sun, Jun 17, 2012 5:39 am
Subject: Re: [Supertraining] Re: More About Rate of Hypertrophy

It all depends on how one defines strength. The term strength is an ambiguous term at best. Perhaps a better term instead of strength would be power. Power defined as force x distance/time. Power lifters and olympic lifters are trying to gain the maximum short term power. Max force x short distance/minimum time. Endurance athletes are trying to develop sustained long term power (less force x greater distance/longer time).

Maximum power requires firing a maximum number fibers simultaneously (synchronous) Endurance power requires firing groups small of fibers asynchronously. As one group of fibers fatigues another group takes over while the first recovers.

In my opinion, the type of work done by body builders is somewhere between that of power lifters and that of endurance athletes.

Power athletes are interested in developing maximally type II fibers, endurance athletes are trying to develop maximally type I fibers and I suspect that body builds are trying to develop both groups.

Ralph Giarnella MD
Southington Ct. USA

________________________________
From: "efreem3407@aol.com" <efreem3407@aol.com>
To: Supertraining@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thursday, June 14, 2012 12:49 PM
Subject: Re: [Supertraining] Re: More About Rate of Hypertrophy

Correct me if I am wrong but I think lean muscle gains correspond to strength increases. Any bodybuilder that gains lean muscle should have strength increases? Then again, this could be suspect, because I've seen bodybuilders using steroids that do only high rep and low weight workouts yet have massive amounts of muscle. I've seen bodybuilders do hundreds of reps on machines with say 100 lbs. yet still be huge and massive.

I train as a powerlifter. I'm not training to gain a lot of bulk. I am mostly training for strength without massive amounts of body weight and bulk increases.

Edwin Freeman, Jr.

-----Original Message-----
From: deadliftdiva <deadliftdiva@comcast.net>
To: Supertraining <Supertraining@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thu, Jun 14, 2012 9:31 am
Subject: Re: [Supertraining] Re: More About Rate of Hypertrophy

I'm going to jump in here with one point that I think has bearing on the whole
question: When we measure lean mass, we are not precise. We cannot be. What we
get is some guess based on measurements which varies and can be misleading - and
I recall Mel's comment long ago that the only truly accurate measure was
"autopsy". Few would desire to have their lean mass evaluated this way during a
growth phase in training, so that's clearly out :) .

With the known variance in measuring methods (and here I recall James Krieger's
good article on measuring that he thoughtfully shared some time ago with this
group), my thinking is that there is a considerable margin of guessing that
makes it possible to overestimate how much lean mass has been gained by an
individual over time. I myself over the years have experienced wildly ranging
measurements by folks who were said to be expert in such things - considering
that the measurement of one's bodyfat subcutaneously or measurements to estimate
a guess at overall bodyfat including a visceral estimate would have bearing on a
presumed gain in lean mass by way of deducting the presumed bodyfat on board...

I also once handed Mel a copy of a book that suggested you could 'squat for 6
weeks and gain 20 pounds of lean hard muscle' and the response was that it was
entertaining but unlikely to be accurate... Thankfully sq never had that effect
on me personally or I'd have required more new wardrobes than I have been
through personally over the years here as a competing powerlifter!

So if we consider that measuring the bodyfat an individual has on board is still
somewhat less effective than we would like, how then can we be sure of lean
gains that would be based on our best guess of the fat to lean ratio of a
person? Would not a "lean muscle gain" not be entirely muscle also, but the
bones themselves responding to the increased loads as well?

Interesting topic, back to reading. :)

The Phantom
aka Linda Schaefer, CMT/RMT, competing powerlifter
Denver, Colorado, USA

----- Original Message -----
From: "kendaiganoneill" <kayoneill@earthlink.net>
To: Supertraining@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Wednesday, June 13, 2012 5:54:05 PM
Subject: [Supertraining] Re: More About Rate of Hypertrophy

Krista's reports of 25-44 lbs of muscle gain within a year for life long
ectomorphs.

I will dissent, however, on the notion that 20-30 lbs of muscle gain in as
little as three months are hype. Back from the 1930s into the early 60s many a
trainee reported 20 or more pounds increase in manly muscle over a three month
period by means of specializing in 5 sets of 20 reps of breathing squats, some
adding the Hise shrug. Thrice weekly, consuming nutrient dense whole foods and
the sole protein supplement of that bygone era: milk.

Breathing squats are especially demanding, certainly no fun save for Masochists.
With each set, one breath between reps 1-5, then 2 deep breaths for reps 6-10,
three deep breaths for reps 11-15, and - you guessed it - four deep breaths
between reps 16-20. The immediately onto a picnic bench for sets of 20 reps,
very light weight dumbbell flyes to expand the rib cage for a big chest.

These days I'll defer to the exciting new work coming out of McMaster University
comparing 1 set of 8-10 1 RM to failure vs 3 sets of 8-10 to failure 80% 1 RM vs
3 sets of 30 reps to failure with 30% 1 RM. Adding volume at 80% and 30%
produced essentially equal hypertrophy, both significantly greater than 1 set to
failure (a failed idea).

In my personal experience and that of training others, hitting significant
annual hypertrophy is far more easily facilitated when rep schemes, cadence or
tempo, stage sets, drop sets, using 30-80% 1 RM are all intelligently and
strategically applied to one end: avoiding plateaus, instead sustainable
anabolism.

--- In Supertraining@yahoogroups.com , Krista Scott-Dixon <kristascottdixon@...>
wrote:
>
> On Thu, Apr 24, 2008 at 4:13 PM, Anthony Pitruzzello
> <tonypit45@...> wrote:
> > Hello Everyone,
> >
> > I recently posted a question about rate of hypertrophy – basically, what are

> > the optimal realistic results a person can expect, vs. the endless claims in

> > the muscle mags, e.g., "Gain 20-30 pounds of lean muscle mass in six
> > weeks!!!" I compared the responses with some other data, and I thought I
> > would share it with the group.
> >
>
> I work with John Berardi at Precision Nutrition, which runs a
> muscle-gaining Scrawny to Brawny program. It's a one-year program that
> focuses on step-by-step habit acquisition and entrainment, like our
> other fat-loss program Lean Eating. We run a contest that awards money
> to top finishers -- people who dramatically transform their bodies.
>
> Looking at our recent 12-month cohorts, our top finalists put on
> between 25-44 lbs in a year. These are ectomorphs who are "lifetime
> scrawnies", so they gain mass relatively slowly -- some made notable
> transformations even with relatively less muscle gain, because small
> amounts of mass make a big difference on a shorter/skinnier frame.
> This is with a highly structured eating and training program, a coach,
> and daily check-ins (lessons and habits). All material is
> science/research-based as you might expect from JB and PN.
>
> Interestingly, our 6-month program was not as dissimilar as you would
> expect -- it doesn't seem to be a linear scale.
>
> Here are finalists from our early, 6-month program:
> http://www.precisionnutrition.com/s2b-winners-2010
>
> Here are finalists from our 12-month program that begin in May 2011.
> http://www.scrawnytobrawny.com/may-2011-finalists
>
> Krista
> Toronto, ON
>
> --------------------
> Krista Scott-Dixon, PhD
> Lean Eating Program Director
> PrecisionNutrition.com
> krista@...
>

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

------------------------------------

Modify/cancel your subscription at:

http://groups.yahoo.com/mygroups

Sign all letters with full name & city of residence if you
wish them to be published!

Yahoo! Groups Links

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Back to top
Reply to sender | Reply to group | Reply via web post
Messages in this topic (25)
1d.

Re: More About Rate of Hypertrophy

Posted by: "Ralph Giarnella" ragiarn@yahoo.com   ragiarn

Sun Jun 17, 2012 2:29 pm (PDT)





Kenny Crox wrote:
There are different type of strength. Power is a sub class of strength.
 Also, there's relatively no power in powerlifting

********************

Perhaps you can clarify those two statements.  How do you measure strength?   
I would define it as the ability to apply force to move a mass over a distance in period  of time. 
Both Olympic lifters and Power lifters move a mass a certain distance in a given period of time.  In both cases the power  can be calculated.  You can then compare who produces more power.    

Ralph Giarnella MD
Southington Ct. USA 

________________________________
From: "KennyCrox@aol.com" <KennyCrox@aol.com>
To: Supertraining@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sunday, June 17, 2012 8:40 AM
Subject: Re: [Supertraining] Re: More About Rate of Hypertrophy


 

There are different type of strength. Power is a sub class of strength.

. The true power athletes are Olympic lifters, who have registered some of, if not, the highest power output forces on record.

Kenny Croxdale, CSCS
Rio Rancho, NM

-----Original Message-----
From: Ralph Giarnella <ragiarn@yahoo.com>
To: Supertraining <Supertraining@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Sun, Jun 17, 2012 5:39 am
Subject: Re: [Supertraining] Re: More About Rate of Hypertrophy

It all depends on how one defines strength. The term strength is an ambiguous term at best. Perhaps a better term instead of strength would be power. Power defined as force x distance/time. Power lifters and olympic lifters are trying to gain the maximum short term power. Max force x short distance/minimum time. Endurance athletes are trying to develop sustained long term power (less force x greater distance/longer time).

Maximum power requires firing a maximum number fibers simultaneously (synchronous) Endurance power requires firing groups small of fibers asynchronously. As one group of fibers fatigues another group takes over while the first recovers.

In my opinion, the type of work done by body builders is somewhere between that of power lifters and that of endurance athletes.

Power athletes are interested in developing maximally type II fibers, endurance athletes are trying to develop maximally type I fibers and I suspect that body builds are trying to develop both groups.

Ralph Giarnella MD
Southington Ct. USA

________________________________
From: "efreem3407@aol.com" <efreem3407@aol.com>
To: Supertraining@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thursday, June 14, 2012 12:49 PM
Subject: Re: [Supertraining] Re: More About Rate of Hypertrophy

Correct me if I am wrong but I think lean muscle gains correspond to strength increases. Any bodybuilder that gains lean muscle should have strength increases? Then again, this could be suspect, because I've seen bodybuilders using steroids that do only high rep and low weight workouts yet have massive amounts of muscle. I've seen bodybuilders do hundreds of reps on machines with say 100 lbs. yet still be huge and massive.

I train as a powerlifter. I'm not training to gain a lot of bulk. I am mostly training for strength without massive amounts of body weight and bulk increases.

Edwin Freeman, Jr.

-----Original Message-----
From: deadliftdiva <deadliftdiva@comcast.net>
To: Supertraining <Supertraining@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thu, Jun 14, 2012 9:31 am
Subject: Re: [Supertraining] Re: More About Rate of Hypertrophy

I'm going to jump in here with one point that I think has bearing on the whole
question: When we measure lean mass, we are not precise. We cannot be. What we
get is some guess based on measurements which varies and can be misleading - and
I recall Mel's comment long ago that the only truly accurate measure was
"autopsy". Few would desire to have their lean mass evaluated this way during a
growth phase in training, so that's clearly out :) .

With the known variance in measuring methods (and here I recall James Krieger's
good article on measuring that he thoughtfully shared some time ago with this
group), my thinking is that there is a considerable margin of guessing that
makes it possible to overestimate how much lean mass has been gained by an
individual over time. I myself over the years have experienced wildly ranging
measurements by folks who were said to be expert in such things - considering
that the measurement of one's bodyfat subcutaneously or measurements to estimate
a guess at overall bodyfat including a visceral estimate would have bearing on a
presumed gain in lean mass by way of deducting the presumed bodyfat on board...

I also once handed Mel a copy of a book that suggested you could 'squat for 6
weeks and gain 20 pounds of lean hard muscle' and the response was that it was
entertaining but unlikely to be accurate... Thankfully sq never had that effect
on me personally or I'd have required more new wardrobes than I have been
through personally over the years here as a competing powerlifter!

So if we consider that measuring the bodyfat an individual has on board is still
somewhat less effective than we would like, how then can we be sure of lean
gains that would be based on our best guess of the fat to lean ratio of a
person? Would not a "lean muscle gain" not be entirely muscle also, but the
bones themselves responding to the increased loads as well?

Interesting topic, back to reading. :)

The Phantom
aka Linda Schaefer, CMT/RMT, competing powerlifter
Denver, Colorado, USA

----- Original Message -----
From: "kendaiganoneill" <kayoneill@earthlink.net>
To: Supertraining@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Wednesday, June 13, 2012 5:54:05 PM
Subject: [Supertraining] Re: More About Rate of Hypertrophy

Krista's reports of 25-44 lbs of muscle gain within a year for life long
ectomorphs.

I will dissent, however, on the notion that 20-30 lbs of muscle gain in as
little as three months are hype. Back from the 1930s into the early 60s many a
trainee reported 20 or more pounds increase in manly muscle over a three month
period by means of specializing in 5 sets of 20 reps of breathing squats, some
adding the Hise shrug. Thrice weekly, consuming nutrient dense whole foods and
the sole protein supplement of that bygone era: milk.

Breathing squats are especially demanding, certainly no fun save for Masochists.
With each set, one breath between reps 1-5, then 2 deep breaths for reps 6-10,
three deep breaths for reps 11-15, and - you guessed it - four deep breaths
between reps 16-20. The immediately onto a picnic bench for sets of 20 reps,
very light weight dumbbell flyes to expand the rib cage for a big chest.

These days I'll defer to the exciting new work coming out of McMaster University
comparing 1 set of 8-10 1 RM to failure vs 3 sets of 8-10 to failure 80% 1 RM vs
3 sets of 30 reps to failure with 30% 1 RM. Adding volume at 80% and 30%
produced essentially equal hypertrophy, both significantly greater than 1 set to
failure (a failed idea).

In my personal experience and that of training others, hitting significant
annual hypertrophy is far more easily facilitated when rep schemes, cadence or
tempo, stage sets, drop sets, using 30-80% 1 RM are all intelligently and
strategically applied to one end: avoiding plateaus, instead sustainable
anabolism.

--- In Supertraining@yahoogroups.com , Krista Scott-Dixon <kristascottdixon@...>
wrote:
>
> On Thu, Apr 24, 2008 at 4:13 PM, Anthony Pitruzzello
> <tonypit45@...> wrote:
> > Hello Everyone,
> >
> > I recently posted a question about rate of hypertrophy – basically, what are

> > the optimal realistic results a person can expect, vs. the endless claims in

> > the muscle mags, e.g., "Gain 20-30 pounds of lean muscle mass in six
> > weeks!!!" I compared the responses with some other data, and I thought I
> > would share it with the group.
> >
>
> I work with John Berardi at Precision Nutrition, which runs a
> muscle-gaining Scrawny to Brawny program. It's a one-year program that
> focuses on step-by-step habit acquisition and entrainment, like our
> other fat-loss program Lean Eating. We run a contest that awards money
> to top finishers -- people who dramatically transform their bodies.
>
> Looking at our recent 12-month cohorts, our top finalists put on
> between 25-44 lbs in a year. These are ectomorphs who are "lifetime
> scrawnies", so they gain mass relatively slowly -- some made notable
> transformations even with relatively less muscle gain, because small
> amounts of mass make a big difference on a shorter/skinnier frame.
> This is with a highly structured eating and training program, a coach,
> and daily check-ins (lessons and habits). All material is
> science/research-based as you might expect from JB and PN.
>
> Interestingly, our 6-month program was not as dissimilar as you would
> expect -- it doesn't seem to be a linear scale.
>
> Here are finalists from our early, 6-month program:
> http://www.precisionnutrition.com/s2b-winners-2010
>
> Here are finalists from our 12-month program that begin in May 2011.
> http://www.scrawnytobrawny.com/may-2011-finalists
>
> Krista
> Toronto, ON
>
> --------------------
> Krista Scott-Dixon, PhD
> Lean Eating Program Director
> PrecisionNutrition.com
> krista@...
>

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

------------------------------------

Modify/cancel your subscription at:

http://groups.yahoo.com/mygroups

Sign all letters with full name & city of residence if you
wish them to be published!

Yahoo! Groups Links

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Back to top
Reply to sender | Reply to group | Reply via web post
Messages in this topic (25)
1e.

Re: More About Rate of Hypertrophy

Posted by: "Giovanni Ciriani" Giovanni.Ciriani@Gmail.com   gciriani

Sun Jun 17, 2012 2:29 pm (PDT)



Power is a sub class of strength? Kenny, please use the definition given by
Ralph, lest we turn this conversations into a meaningless jumble of
comments, for lack of proper nomenclature.
Giovanni Ciriani - West Hartford, CT - USA

On Sun, Jun 17, 2012 at 8:40 AM, <KennyCrox@aol.com> wrote:

> **
>
>
>
> There are different type of strength. Power is a sub class of strength.
>
> Also, there's relatively no power in powerlifting. The true power athletes
> are Olympic lifters, who have registered some of, if not, the highest power
> output forces on record.
>
> Kenny Croxdale, CSCS
> Rio Rancho, NM
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ralph Giarnella <ragiarn@yahoo.com>
> To: Supertraining <Supertraining@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Sun, Jun 17, 2012 5:39 am
> Subject: Re: [Supertraining] Re: More About Rate of Hypertrophy
>
> It all depends on how one defines strength. The term strength is an
> ambiguous term at best. Perhaps a better term instead of strength would be
> power. Power defined as force x distance/time. Power lifters and olympic
> lifters are trying to gain the maximum short term power. Max force x short
> distance/minimum time. Endurance athletes are trying to develop sustained
> long term power (less force x greater distance/longer time).
>
> Maximum power requires firing a maximum number fibers simultaneously
> (synchronous) Endurance power requires firing groups small of fibers
> asynchronously. As one group of fibers fatigues another group takes over
> while the first recovers.
>
> In my opinion, the type of work done by body builders is somewhere between
> that of power lifters and that of endurance athletes.
>
> Power athletes are interested in developing maximally type II fibers,
> endurance athletes are trying to develop maximally type I fibers and I
> suspect that body builds are trying to develop both groups.
>
> Ralph Giarnella MD
> Southington Ct. USA
>
> ________________________________
> From: "efreem3407@aol.com" <efreem3407@aol.com>
> To: Supertraining@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Thursday, June 14, 2012 12:49 PM
> Subject: Re: [Supertraining] Re: More About Rate of Hypertrophy
>
> Correct me if I am wrong but I think lean muscle gains correspond to
> strength increases. Any bodybuilder that gains lean muscle should have
> strength increases? Then again, this could be suspect, because I've seen
> bodybuilders using steroids that do only high rep and low weight workouts
> yet have massive amounts of muscle. I've seen bodybuilders do hundreds of
> reps on machines with say 100 lbs. yet still be huge and massive.
>
> I train as a powerlifter. I'm not training to gain a lot of bulk. I am
> mostly training for strength without massive amounts of body weight and
> bulk increases.
>
> Edwin Freeman, Jr.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: deadliftdiva <deadliftdiva@comcast.net>
> To: Supertraining <Supertraining@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Thu, Jun 14, 2012 9:31 am
> Subject: Re: [Supertraining] Re: More About Rate of Hypertrophy
>
> I'm going to jump in here with one point that I think has bearing on the
> whole
> question: When we measure lean mass, we are not precise. We cannot be.
> What we
> get is some guess based on measurements which varies and can be misleading
> - and
> I recall Mel's comment long ago that the only truly accurate measure was
> "autopsy". Few would desire to have their lean mass evaluated this way
> during a
> growth phase in training, so that's clearly out :) .
>
> With the known variance in measuring methods (and here I recall James
> Krieger's
> good article on measuring that he thoughtfully shared some time ago with
> this
> group), my thinking is that there is a considerable margin of guessing
> that
> makes it possible to overestimate how much lean mass has been gained by an
> individual over time. I myself over the years have experienced wildly
> ranging
> measurements by folks who were said to be expert in such things -
> considering
> that the measurement of one's bodyfat subcutaneously or measurements to
> estimate
> a guess at overall bodyfat including a visceral estimate would have
> bearing on a
> presumed gain in lean mass by way of deducting the presumed bodyfat on
> board...
>
> I also once handed Mel a copy of a book that suggested you could 'squat
> for 6
> weeks and gain 20 pounds of lean hard muscle' and the response was that it
> was
> entertaining but unlikely to be accurate... Thankfully sq never had that
> effect
> on me personally or I'd have required more new wardrobes than I have been
> through personally over the years here as a competing powerlifter!
>
> So if we consider that measuring the bodyfat an individual has on board is
> still
> somewhat less effective than we would like, how then can we be sure of
> lean
> gains that would be based on our best guess of the fat to lean ratio of a
> person? Would not a "lean muscle gain" not be entirely muscle also, but
> the
> bones themselves responding to the increased loads as well?
>
> Interesting topic, back to reading. :)
>
> The Phantom
> aka Linda Schaefer, CMT/RMT, competing powerlifter
> Denver, Colorado, USA
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "kendaiganoneill" <kayoneill@earthlink.net>
> To: Supertraining@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Wednesday, June 13, 2012 5:54:05 PM
> Subject: [Supertraining] Re: More About Rate of Hypertrophy
>
> Krista's reports of 25-44 lbs of muscle gain within a year for life long
> ectomorphs.
>
> I will dissent, however, on the notion that 20-30 lbs of muscle gain in as
> little as three months are hype. Back from the 1930s into the early 60s
> many a
> trainee reported 20 or more pounds increase in manly muscle over a three
> month
> period by means of specializing in 5 sets of 20 reps of breathing squats,
> some
> adding the Hise shrug. Thrice weekly, consuming nutrient dense whole foods
> and
> the sole protein supplement of that bygone era: milk.
>
> Breathing squats are especially demanding, certainly no fun save for
> Masochists.
> With each set, one breath between reps 1-5, then 2 deep breaths for reps
> 6-10,
> three deep breaths for reps 11-15, and - you guessed it - four deep
> breaths
> between reps 16-20. The immediately onto a picnic bench for sets of 20
> reps,
> very light weight dumbbell flyes to expand the rib cage for a big chest.
>
> These days I'll defer to the exciting new work coming out of McMaster
> University
> comparing 1 set of 8-10 1 RM to failure vs 3 sets of 8-10 to failure 80% 1
> RM vs
> 3 sets of 30 reps to failure with 30% 1 RM. Adding volume at 80% and 30%
> produced essentially equal hypertrophy, both significantly greater than 1
> set to
> failure (a failed idea).
>
> In my personal experience and that of training others, hitting significant
> annual hypertrophy is far more easily facilitated when rep schemes,
> cadence or
> tempo, stage sets, drop sets, using 30-80% 1 RM are all intelligently and
> strategically applied to one end: avoiding plateaus, instead sustainable
> anabolism.
>
> --- In Supertraining@yahoogroups.com , Krista Scott-Dixon
> <kristascottdixon@...>
> wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Apr 24, 2008 at 4:13 PM, Anthony Pitruzzello
> > <tonypit45@...> wrote:
> > > Hello Everyone,
> > >
> > > I recently posted a question about rate of hypertrophy – basically,
> what are
>
> > > the optimal realistic results a person can expect, vs. the endless
> claims in
>
> > > the muscle mags, e.g., "Gain 20-30 pounds of lean muscle mass in six
> > > weeks!!!" I compared the responses with some other data, and I thought
> I
> > > would share it with the group.
> > >
> >
> > I work with John Berardi at Precision Nutrition, which runs a
> > muscle-gaining Scrawny to Brawny program. It's a one-year program that
> > focuses on step-by-step habit acquisition and entrainment, like our
> > other fat-loss program Lean Eating. We run a contest that awards money
> > to top finishers -- people who dramatically transform their bodies.
> >
> > Looking at our recent 12-month cohorts, our top finalists put on
> > between 25-44 lbs in a year. These are ectomorphs who are "lifetime
> > scrawnies", so they gain mass relatively slowly -- some made notable
> > transformations even with relatively less muscle gain, because small
> > amounts of mass make a big difference on a shorter/skinnier frame.
> > This is with a highly structured eating and training program, a coach,
> > and daily check-ins (lessons and habits). All material is
> > science/research-based as you might expect from JB and PN.
> >
> > Interestingly, our 6-month program was not as dissimilar as you would
> > expect -- it doesn't seem to be a linear scale.
> >
> > Here are finalists from our early, 6-month program:
> > http://www.precisionnutrition.com/s2b-winners-2010
> >
> > Here are finalists from our 12-month program that begin in May 2011.
> > http://www.scrawnytobrawny.com/may-2011-finalists
> >
> > Krista
> > Toronto, ON
> >
> > --------------------
> > Krista Scott-Dixon, PhD
> > Lean Eating Program Director
> > PrecisionNutrition.com
> > krista@...
> >
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Modify/cancel your subscription at:
>
> http://groups.yahoo.com/mygroups
>
> Sign all letters with full name & city of residence if you
> wish them to be published!
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Back to top
Reply to sender | Reply to group | Reply via web post
Messages in this topic (25)
1f.

Re: More About Rate of Hypertrophy

Posted by: "KennyCrox@aol.com" KennyCrox@aol.com

Sun Jun 17, 2012 3:34 pm (PDT)




Yes, that what I said. Ralph has already derailed it.

Kenny Croxdale
Rio Rancho, NM

-----Original Message-----
From: Giovanni Ciriani <Giovanni.Ciriani@Gmail.com>
To: Supertraining <Supertraining@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Sun, Jun 17, 2012 3:29 pm
Subject: Re: [Supertraining] Re: More About Rate of Hypertrophy

Power is a sub class of strength? Kenny, please use the definition given by
Ralph, lest we turn this conversations into a meaningless jumble of
comments, for lack of proper nomenclature.
Giovanni Ciriani - West Hartford, CT - USA

On Sun, Jun 17, 2012 at 8:40 AM, <KennyCrox@aol.com> wrote:

> **
>
>
>
> There are different type of strength. Power is a sub class of strength.
>
> Also, there's relatively no power in powerlifting. The true power athletes
> are Olympic lifters, who have registered some of, if not, the highest power
> output forces on record.
>
> Kenny Croxdale, CSCS
> Rio Rancho, NM
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ralph Giarnella <ragiarn@yahoo.com>
> To: Supertraining <Supertraining@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Sun, Jun 17, 2012 5:39 am
> Subject: Re: [Supertraining] Re: More About Rate of Hypertrophy
>
> It all depends on how one defines strength. The term strength is an
> ambiguous term at best. Perhaps a better term instead of strength would be
> power. Power defined as force x distance/time. Power lifters and olympic
> lifters are trying to gain the maximum short term power. Max force x short
> distance/minimum time. Endurance athletes are trying to develop sustained
> long term power (less force x greater distance/longer time).
>
> Maximum power requires firing a maximum number fibers simultaneously
> (synchronous) Endurance power requires firing groups small of fibers
> asynchronously. As one group of fibers fatigues another group takes over
> while the first recovers.
>
> In my opinion, the type of work done by body builders is somewhere between
> that of power lifters and that of endurance athletes.
>
> Power athletes are interested in developing maximally type II fibers,
> endurance athletes are trying to develop maximally type I fibers and I
> suspect that body builds are trying to develop both groups.
>
> Ralph Giarnella MD
> Southington Ct. USA
>
> ________________________________
> From: "efreem3407@aol.com" <efreem3407@aol.com>
> To: Supertraining@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Thursday, June 14, 2012 12:49 PM
> Subject: Re: [Supertraining] Re: More About Rate of Hypertrophy
>
> Correct me if I am wrong but I think lean muscle gains correspond to
> strength increases. Any bodybuilder that gains lean muscle should have
> strength increases? Then again, this could be suspect, because I've seen
> bodybuilders using steroids that do only high rep and low weight workouts
> yet have massive amounts of muscle. I've seen bodybuilders do hundreds of
> reps on machines with say 100 lbs. yet still be huge and massive.
>
> I train as a powerlifter. I'm not training to gain a lot of bulk. I am
> mostly training for strength without massive amounts of body weight and
> bulk increases.
>
> Edwin Freeman, Jr.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: deadliftdiva <deadliftdiva@comcast.net>
> To: Supertraining <Supertraining@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Thu, Jun 14, 2012 9:31 am
> Subject: Re: [Supertraining] Re: More About Rate of Hypertrophy
>
> I'm going to jump in here with one point that I think has bearing on the
> whole
> question: When we measure lean mass, we are not precise. We cannot be.
> What we
> get is some guess based on measurements which varies and can be misleading
> - and
> I recall Mel's comment long ago that the only truly accurate measure was
> "autopsy". Few would desire to have their lean mass evaluated this way
> during a
> growth phase in training, so that's clearly out :) .
>
> With the known variance in measuring methods (and here I recall James
> Krieger's
> good article on measuring that he thoughtfully shared some time ago with
> this
> group), my thinking is that there is a considerable margin of guessing
> that
> makes it possible to overestimate how much lean mass has been gained by an
> individual over time. I myself over the years have experienced wildly
> ranging
> measurements by folks who were said to be expert in such things -
> considering
> that the measurement of one's bodyfat subcutaneously or measurements to
> estimate
> a guess at overall bodyfat including a visceral estimate would have
> bearing on a
> presumed gain in lean mass by way of deducting the presumed bodyfat on
> board...
>
> I also once handed Mel a copy of a book that suggested you could 'squat
> for 6
> weeks and gain 20 pounds of lean hard muscle' and the response was that it
> was
> entertaining but unlikely to be accurate... Thankfully sq never had that
> effect
> on me personally or I'd have required more new wardrobes than I have been
> through personally over the years here as a competing powerlifter!
>
> So if we consider that measuring the bodyfat an individual has on board is
> still
> somewhat less effective than we would like, how then can we be sure of
> lean
> gains that would be based on our best guess of the fat to lean ratio of a
> person? Would not a "lean muscle gain" not be entirely muscle also, but
> the
> bones themselves responding to the increased loads as well?
>
> Interesting topic, back to reading. :)
>
> The Phantom
> aka Linda Schaefer, CMT/RMT, competing powerlifter
> Denver, Colorado, USA
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "kendaiganoneill" <kayoneill@earthlink.net>
> To: Supertraining@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Wednesday, June 13, 2012 5:54:05 PM
> Subject: [Supertraining] Re: More About Rate of Hypertrophy
>
> Krista's reports of 25-44 lbs of muscle gain within a year for life long
> ectomorphs.
>
> I will dissent, however, on the notion that 20-30 lbs of muscle gain in as
> little as three months are hype. Back from the 1930s into the early 60s
> many a
> trainee reported 20 or more pounds increase in manly muscle over a three
> month
> period by means of specializing in 5 sets of 20 reps of breathing squats,
> some
> adding the Hise shrug. Thrice weekly, consuming nutrient dense whole foods
> and
> the sole protein supplement of that bygone era: milk.
>
> Breathing squats are especially demanding, certainly no fun save for
> Masochists.
> With each set, one breath between reps 1-5, then 2 deep breaths for reps
> 6-10,
> three deep breaths for reps 11-15, and - you guessed it - four deep
> breaths
> between reps 16-20. The immediately onto a picnic bench for sets of 20
> reps,
> very light weight dumbbell flyes to expand the rib cage for a big chest.
>
> These days I'll defer to the exciting new work coming out of McMaster
> University
> comparing 1 set of 8-10 1 RM to failure vs 3 sets of 8-10 to failure 80% 1
> RM vs
> 3 sets of 30 reps to failure with 30% 1 RM. Adding volume at 80% and 30%
> produced essentially equal hypertrophy, both significantly greater than 1
> set to
> failure (a failed idea).
>
> In my personal experience and that of training others, hitting significant
> annual hypertrophy is far more easily facilitated when rep schemes,
> cadence or
> tempo, stage sets, drop sets, using 30-80% 1 RM are all intelligently and
> strategically applied to one end: avoiding plateaus, instead sustainable
> anabolism.
>
> --- In Supertraining@yahoogroups.com , Krista Scott-Dixon
> <kristascottdixon@...>
> wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Apr 24, 2008 at 4:13 PM, Anthony Pitruzzello
> > <tonypit45@...> wrote:
> > > Hello Everyone,
> > >
> > > I recently posted a question about rate of hypertrophy – basically,
> what are
>
> > > the optimal realistic results a person can expect, vs. the endless
> claims in
>
> > > the muscle mags, e.g., "Gain 20-30 pounds of lean muscle mass in six
> > > weeks!!!" I compared the responses with some other data, and I thought
> I
> > > would share it with the group.
> > >
> >
> > I work with John Berardi at Precision Nutrition, which runs a
> > muscle-gaining Scrawny to Brawny program. It's a one-year program that
> > focuses on step-by-step habit acquisition and entrainment, like our
> > other fat-loss program Lean Eating. We run a contest that awards money
> > to top finishers -- people who dramatically transform their bodies.
> >
> > Looking at our recent 12-month cohorts, our top finalists put on
> > between 25-44 lbs in a year. These are ectomorphs who are "lifetime
> > scrawnies", so they gain mass relatively slowly -- some made notable
> > transformations even with relatively less muscle gain, because small
> > amounts of mass make a big difference on a shorter/skinnier frame.
> > This is with a highly structured eating and training program, a coach,
> > and daily check-ins (lessons and habits). All material is
> > science/research-based as you might expect from JB and PN.
> >
> > Interestingly, our 6-month program was not as dissimilar as you would
> > expect -- it doesn't seem to be a linear scale.
> >
> > Here are finalists from our early, 6-month program:
> > http://www.precisionnutrition.com/s2b-winners-2010
> >
> > Here are finalists from our 12-month program that begin in May 2011.
> > http://www.scrawnytobrawny.com/may-2011-finalists
> >
> > Krista
> > Toronto, ON
> >
> > --------------------
> > Krista Scott-Dixon, PhD
> > Lean Eating Program Director
> > PrecisionNutrition.com
> > krista@...
> >
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Modify/cancel your subscription at:
>
> http://groups.yahoo.com/mygroups
>
> Sign all letters with full name & city of residence if you
> wish them to be published!
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Back to top
Reply to sender | Reply to group | Reply via web post
Messages in this topic (25)
1g.

Re: More About Rate of Hypertrophy

Posted by: "Giovanni Ciriani" Giovanni.Ciriani@Gmail.com   gciriani

Sun Jun 17, 2012 3:35 pm (PDT)



I don't think it's a good idea to come up with a new definition of strength
just for Supertraining. Usually strength is measured in terms of force,
i.e. either Newtons (N), Kilogram weight (Kg) of Pound weight (Lb).
Giovanni Ciriani - West Hartford, CT - USA

On Sun, Jun 17, 2012 at 5:27 PM, Ralph Giarnella <ragiarn@yahoo.com> wrote:

> **
>
>
>
>
> Kenny Crox wrote:
> There are different type of strength. Power is a sub class of strength.
> Also, there's relatively no power in powerlifting
>
> ********************
>
> Perhaps you can clarify those two statements. How do you measure
> strength?
> I would define it as the ability to apply force to move a mass over a
> distance in period of time.
> Both Olympic lifters and Power lifters move a mass a certain distance in a
> given period of time. In both cases the power can be calculated. You can
> then compare who produces more power.
>
>
> Ralph Giarnella MD
> Southington Ct. USA
>
> ________________________________
> From: "KennyCrox@aol.com" <KennyCrox@aol.com>
> To: Supertraining@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Sunday, June 17, 2012 8:40 AM
>
> Subject: Re: [Supertraining] Re: More About Rate of Hypertrophy
>
>
>
>
> There are different type of strength. Power is a sub class of strength.
>
> . The true power athletes are Olympic lifters, who have registered some
> of, if not, the highest power output forces on record.
>
> Kenny Croxdale, CSCS
> Rio Rancho, NM
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ralph Giarnella <ragiarn@yahoo.com>
> To: Supertraining <Supertraining@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Sun, Jun 17, 2012 5:39 am
> Subject: Re: [Supertraining] Re: More About Rate of Hypertrophy
>
> It all depends on how one defines strength. The term strength is an
> ambiguous term at best. Perhaps a better term instead of strength would be
> power. Power defined as force x distance/time. Power lifters and olympic
> lifters are trying to gain the maximum short term power. Max force x short
> distance/minimum time. Endurance athletes are trying to develop sustained
> long term power (less force x greater distance/longer time).
>
> Maximum power requires firing a maximum number fibers simultaneously
> (synchronous) Endurance power requires firing groups small of fibers
> asynchronously. As one group of fibers fatigues another group takes over
> while the first recovers.
>
> In my opinion, the type of work done by body builders is somewhere between
> that of power lifters and that of endurance athletes.
>
> Power athletes are interested in developing maximally type II fibers,
> endurance athletes are trying to develop maximally type I fibers and I
> suspect that body builds are trying to develop both groups.
>
> Ralph Giarnella MD
> Southington Ct. USA
>
> ________________________________
> From: "efreem3407@aol.com" <efreem3407@aol.com>
> To: Supertraining@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Thursday, June 14, 2012 12:49 PM
> Subject: Re: [Supertraining] Re: More About Rate of Hypertrophy
>
> Correct me if I am wrong but I think lean muscle gains correspond to
> strength increases. Any bodybuilder that gains lean muscle should have
> strength increases? Then again, this could be suspect, because I've seen
> bodybuilders using steroids that do only high rep and low weight workouts
> yet have massive amounts of muscle. I've seen bodybuilders do hundreds of
> reps on machines with say 100 lbs. yet still be huge and massive.
>
> I train as a powerlifter. I'm not training to gain a lot of bulk. I am
> mostly training for strength without massive amounts of body weight and
> bulk increases.
>
> Edwin Freeman, Jr.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: deadliftdiva <deadliftdiva@comcast.net>
> To: Supertraining <Supertraining@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Thu, Jun 14, 2012 9:31 am
> Subject: Re: [Supertraining] Re: More About Rate of Hypertrophy
>
> I'm going to jump in here with one point that I think has bearing on the
> whole
> question: When we measure lean mass, we are not precise. We cannot be.
> What we
> get is some guess based on measurements which varies and can be misleading
> - and
> I recall Mel's comment long ago that the only truly accurate measure was
> "autopsy". Few would desire to have their lean mass evaluated this way
> during a
> growth phase in training, so that's clearly out :) .
>
> With the known variance in measuring methods (and here I recall James
> Krieger's
> good article on measuring that he thoughtfully shared some time ago with
> this
> group), my thinking is that there is a considerable margin of guessing
> that
> makes it possible to overestimate how much lean mass has been gained by an
> individual over time. I myself over the years have experienced wildly
> ranging
> measurements by folks who were said to be expert in such things -
> considering
> that the measurement of one's bodyfat subcutaneously or measurements to
> estimate
> a guess at overall bodyfat including a visceral estimate would have
> bearing on a
> presumed gain in lean mass by way of deducting the presumed bodyfat on
> board...
>
> I also once handed Mel a copy of a book that suggested you could 'squat
> for 6
> weeks and gain 20 pounds of lean hard muscle' and the response was that it
> was
> entertaining but unlikely to be accurate... Thankfully sq never had that
> effect
> on me personally or I'd have required more new wardrobes than I have been
> through personally over the years here as a competing powerlifter!
>
> So if we consider that measuring the bodyfat an individual has on board is
> still
> somewhat less effective than we would like, how then can we be sure of
> lean
> gains that would be based on our best guess of the fat to lean ratio of a
> person? Would not a "lean muscle gain" not be entirely muscle also, but
> the
> bones themselves responding to the increased loads as well?
>
> Interesting topic, back to reading. :)
>
> The Phantom
> aka Linda Schaefer, CMT/RMT, competing powerlifter
> Denver, Colorado, USA
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "kendaiganoneill" <kayoneill@earthlink.net>
> To: Supertraining@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Wednesday, June 13, 2012 5:54:05 PM
> Subject: [Supertraining] Re: More About Rate of Hypertrophy
>
> Krista's reports of 25-44 lbs of muscle gain within a year for life long
> ectomorphs.
>
> I will dissent, however, on the notion that 20-30 lbs of muscle gain in as
> little as three months are hype. Back from the 1930s into the early 60s
> many a
> trainee reported 20 or more pounds increase in manly muscle over a three
> month
> period by means of specializing in 5 sets of 20 reps of breathing squats,
> some
> adding the Hise shrug. Thrice weekly, consuming nutrient dense whole foods
> and
> the sole protein supplement of that bygone era: milk.
>
> Breathing squats are especially demanding, certainly no fun save for
> Masochists.
> With each set, one breath between reps 1-5, then 2 deep breaths for reps
> 6-10,
> three deep breaths for reps 11-15, and - you guessed it - four deep
> breaths
> between reps 16-20. The immediately onto a picnic bench for sets of 20
> reps,
> very light weight dumbbell flyes to expand the rib cage for a big chest.
>
> These days I'll defer to the exciting new work coming out of McMaster
> University
> comparing 1 set of 8-10 1 RM to failure vs 3 sets of 8-10 to failure 80% 1
> RM vs
> 3 sets of 30 reps to failure with 30% 1 RM. Adding volume at 80% and 30%
> produced essentially equal hypertrophy, both significantly greater than 1
> set to
> failure (a failed idea).
>
> In my personal experience and that of training others, hitting significant
> annual hypertrophy is far more easily facilitated when rep schemes,
> cadence or
> tempo, stage sets, drop sets, using 30-80% 1 RM are all intelligently and
> strategically applied to one end: avoiding plateaus, instead sustainable
> anabolism.
>
> --- In Supertraining@yahoogroups.com , Krista Scott-Dixon
> <kristascottdixon@...>
> wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Apr 24, 2008 at 4:13 PM, Anthony Pitruzzello
> > <tonypit45@...> wrote:
> > > Hello Everyone,
> > >
> > > I recently posted a question about rate of hypertrophy – basically,
> what are
>
> > > the optimal realistic results a person can expect, vs. the endless
> claims in
>
> > > the muscle mags, e.g., "Gain 20-30 pounds of lean muscle mass in six
> > > weeks!!!" I compared the responses with some other data, and I thought
> I
> > > would share it with the group.
> > >
> >
> > I work with John Berardi at Precision Nutrition, which runs a
> > muscle-gaining Scrawny to Brawny program. It's a one-year program that
> > focuses on step-by-step habit acquisition and entrainment, like our
> > other fat-loss program Lean Eating. We run a contest that awards money
> > to top finishers -- people who dramatically transform their bodies.
> >
> > Looking at our recent 12-month cohorts, our top finalists put on
> > between 25-44 lbs in a year. These are ectomorphs who are "lifetime
> > scrawnies", so they gain mass relatively slowly -- some made notable
> > transformations even with relatively less muscle gain, because small
> > amounts of mass make a big difference on a shorter/skinnier frame.
> > This is with a highly structured eating and training program, a coach,
> > and daily check-ins (lessons and habits). All material is
> > science/research-based as you might expect from JB and PN.
> >
> > Interestingly, our 6-month program was not as dissimilar as you would
> > expect -- it doesn't seem to be a linear scale.
> >
> > Here are finalists from our early, 6-month program:
> > http://www.precisionnutrition.com/s2b-winners-2010
> >
> > Here are finalists from our 12-month program that begin in May 2011.
> > http://www.scrawnytobrawny.com/may-2011-finalists
> >
> > Krista
> > Toronto, ON
> >
> > --------------------
> > Krista Scott-Dixon, PhD
> > Lean Eating Program Director
> > PrecisionNutrition.com
> > krista@...
> >
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Modify/cancel your subscription at:
>
> http://groups.yahoo.com/mygroups
>
> Sign all letters with full name & city of residence if you
> wish them to be published!
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Back to top
Reply to sender | Reply to group | Reply via web post
Messages in this topic (25)
1h.

More About Rate of Hypertrophy/Strength/Power/Work

Posted by: "John Casler" bioforce.inc@gte.net   bioforce_inc

Sun Jun 17, 2012 6:46 pm (PDT)





Kenny Crox wrote:
There are different type of strength. Power is a sub class of strength.
 Also, there's relatively no power in powerlifting

********************

Perhaps you can clarify those two statements.  How do you measure strength?
I would define it as the ability to apply force to move a mass over a
distance in period  of time. Both Olympic lifters and Power lifters move a
mass a certain distance in a given period of time.  In both cases the power
 can be calculated.  You can then compare who produces more power.    

Ralph Giarnella MD

**********************

John Casler writes:

I might suggest that you "measure true strength" via the specific muscle
tension involved to the observed muscular action, or the combined tension
force to a Kinetic Chain.

I might disagree that it has any direct relationship with Power (which
requires both a work and time coefficient) except that higher strength
applications will often produce higher power expressions with certain loads.

Also, while I find the mechanical expressions of power to the Olympic lifts
interesting observations, some of these measurements are due to a more
specific application of biomechanical efficiency to the actions performed.

Thus it makes it impossible (IMHO) to compare them other than simple
mechanical observations. Oft times we see an Olympic Lifter improve their
Power Expression due to an improved mechanical form rather than an actual
increase in physical strength (muscle tension).

What we might be able to compare is the power expression of say, Front
Squats (or back squats) performed as quickly as possible, with the largest
load possible. If I remember correctly, it often shows that the greatest
Power Expressions are seen with loads as low as 60% of normal 1RM.

Regards,

John Casler
TRI-VECTOR 3-D Training Systems
Century City, CA

-||||--------||||-

Back to top
Reply to sender | Reply to group | Reply via web post
Messages in this topic (25)
2a.

Re: Growth-Promoting Hormones Don't Stimulate Strength

Posted by: "Giovanni Ciriani" Giovanni.Ciriani@Gmail.com   gciriani

Sun Jun 17, 2012 11:15 am (PDT)



It's not a study. It's a story about two studies.
Giovanni Ciriani - West Hartford, CT - USA

On Sat, Jun 16, 2012 at 8:31 AM, Rob Olivar <robolivar2@yahoo.com> wrote:

> **
>
>
> Hello Every1,
>
> Im sure everyone has read this study, if not its a must read. Bodybuilding
> Myth Debunked: Growth-Promoting Hormones Don't Stimulate Strength
> http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/06/120614130946.htm
>
> Would love to get some opinions on this.
>
> Best,
> Rob Olivar
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Back to top
Reply to sender | Reply to group | Reply via web post
Messages in this topic (3)
2b.

Re: Growth-Promoting Hormones Don't Stimulate Strength

Posted by: "Giovanni Ciriani" Giovanni.Ciriani@Gmail.com   gciriani

Sun Jun 17, 2012 11:15 am (PDT)



Actually, I would say more. I downloaded and read one of the studies. The
title of the story is misleading, and in my opinion it has
been manipulated to increase readership.

Giovanni Ciriani - West Hartford, CT - USA

On Sun, Jun 17, 2012 at 9:32 AM, Giovanni Ciriani <
giovanni.ciriani@gmail.com> wrote:

> It's not a study. It's a story about two studies.
> Giovanni Ciriani - West Hartford, CT - USA
>
>
> On Sat, Jun 16, 2012 at 8:31 AM, Rob Olivar <robolivar2@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> **
>>
>>
>> Hello Every1,
>>
>> Im sure everyone has read this study, if not its a must
>> read. Bodybuilding Myth Debunked: Growth-Promoting Hormones Don't Stimulate
>> Strength
>> http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/06/120614130946.htm
>>
>> Would love to get some opinions on this.
>>
>> Best,
>> Rob Olivar
>>
>> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>>
>>
>>
>
>

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Back to top
Reply to sender | Reply to group | Reply via web post
Messages in this topic (3)
Recent Activity
Visit Your Group
Biz Resources

Y! Small Business

Articles, tools,

forms, and more.

Yahoo! Health

Heartburn or Worse

What symptoms

are most serious?

Meditation and

Lovingkindness

A Yahoo! Group

to share and learn.

Need to Reply?

Click one of the "Reply" links to respond to a specific message in the Daily Digest.

Create New Topic | Visit Your Group on the Web
Modify/cancel your subscription at:

http://groups.yahoo.com/mygroups

Sign all letters with full name & city of residence if you
wish them to be published!

on

No comments:

Post a Comment

Finish Reading ? Make Your Comment Now..!

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)