Other/Mixed Mechanical tension for hypertrophy

[Philippe Geoffrion]

Without reading all of the content and not trying to be argumentative, his assertion that metabolic stress does not contribute to hypertrophy fails to address BFR training and its consistent and notable results at low loads/not to failure.

I also am not wrapping my head around how training to failure esp with a moderate load increases tension on the muscle when:
- it is no longer exerting at a high % of its capacity and wasn’t to begin with
- is not being exposed to a heavy external load at length
- many of the units are plain exhausted and under reduced tension.

Admittedly with point 3 there will be remaining units that are possibly experiencing greater tension than the load would indicate, but then presumably progress will be quite slow as only a relatively small % will benefit.

Lastly, if tension were the main driver or indeed, the ONLY driver then isometrics would flat out dominate for strength and hypertrophy. Yet it only seems to induce notable hypertrophy when combined with glucose depletion either using longer holds or via some other mechanism, in my case HIIT. The time-dependent relationship hints at something(s) in addition to tension. A reactive response to fuel consumption by-products, signalling from the draw down itself, signalling from the conversion of lactate back to glycogen (Cori cycle by itself triggers anabolism) are all likely contributors.

I was thinking the same regarding tension and isometrics…

 

[Steve Freides]

We often hear that the three main drivers behind hypertrophy are metabolic stress, muscle damage, and mechanical tension.

Yes, there is little scientific dispute that (for the most part) your body adapts to applied stimulus. This has been well researched for well over 50 years.

What isn't as well understood is the mechanistic cause at the cellular level.

Forgive a somewhat contrarian post, but why does understanding this matter?

I find myself comparing some of our discussions here of how the body works at a cellular level with what would be similar things in my field, music. Having grown up a math geek as well as a musician, I have a much greater understanding of the science of sound production than most my peers. But there is a ton I don't know or don't understand, and for the most part I've limited my investigation to things with a practice application.

A good example for me is: how does one practice? I think most people who've attempted to play a musical instrument have had the experience of practicing something a lot and simply not getting better at it - and I'll venture to say that most exercisers have had that experience as well. Focus on the right things in practice and you'll improve, and this is the role I take as a teacher, telling my students not just "practice this" but giving guidance on how to practice so as to result in improvement. And so it seems with exercise and sports to me - even at the highest levels, one's mind must have the right knowledge and focus on the right things in order to improve.

I don't talk much about _why_ I'm telling a student to do something because, frankly, most aren't interested, they're just interested in getting better. But we seem to have a fascination with exercise and sports performance that extends beyond an interest in improvement, and I confess to mystified by that fascination. Please forgive me if the "we" in "we seem to have a fascination with ..." seems like painting with too broad a brush - I know it's not everyone, but I fail to see why I should try to understand everything Pavel or many of the other trusted individuals around here have figured out. I read Q&D, and I am frankly clueless about _why_ it works at a cellular level, but I have tried to understand its principles and practices, and they've improved, in my own estimation, both my health and my sports performance, and that's as far as my own interest extends. My doctor says I'm doing great, and I've tied a national record in my chosen sport - what more could I ask for?

JMO, YMMV.

-S-

 

[watchnerd]

Forgive a somewhat contrarian post, but why does understanding this matter?

Well, sometimes it's fun to learn things just for intellectual curiosity.

Also, as time goes on, it has the potential to make for more effective programming or even pharmaceutical treatments, especially for aging populations facing sarcopenia that have reduced muscle protein synthesis and anabolic responses compared to the younger populations.

"Barbell medicine" could potentially be much more effective in maintaining lifelong physical health if we gain a better understanding of the mechanisms of hypertrophy and why the anabolic responses degrade over time.

 

[Philippe Geoffrion]

I like @Steve Freides ’ ideas of focus as it relates in a musical context, as I’ve just taken a break from practicing.

Purposeful practice is practicing with an understanding of what you’re trying to achieve through your practice and focusing on that aspect.

On the other hand, there is the interest in understanding the processes involved in making this possible ie the science behind the art.

Relevant to this topic, I think bodybuilders, with a natural instinct to growing a muscle, understood this intuitively with the “mind muscle connection”, a concentrated effort to specifically induce fatigue in the desires muscle group. I believe science has backed it up, as well, yet these bodybuilders didn’t really need it to succeed. These days, there is a greater understanding of this elsewhere, beyond my desire to comprehend or investigate.

However, I don’t see a problem I either understanding this, or just trusting that if something’s working, why tamper?

Proof in the pudding and different yolks for different eggs.

Science is constantly in flux as it’s subject, we, the earth, the environment, are. New data disproves data from a month ago and so on and so forth. Somethings, however, never change.

 

[bluejeff]

@Steve Freides I mainly posted the information because I know a handful of forum members are interested in this stuff. It’s for sure beyond the average person’s scope of knowledge but for those of us who are interested in the details it can useful to know what actions have what effects. I mean that’s the whole reason there are people researching this stuff.

 

[North Coast Miller]

@Steve Freides I mainly posted the information because I know a handful of forum members are interested in this stuff. It’s for sure beyond the average person’s scope of knowledge but for those of us who are interested in the details it can useful to know what actions have what effects. I mean that’s the whole reason there are people researching this stuff.

Absolutely! If you want to make your own recipe you need to understand the ingredients.

 

[Antti]

I like Beardsley's stuff a lot. He also answers questions on Instagram. He also used to host free seminars, where he also answered questions. I understand he has started doing seminars with Paul Carter now and they're not free anymore.

In addition to explaining the science he also sometimes posts concrete examples on programming. It is quite interesting and based on the same logic he writes about. Reps are generally lower than typical on all exercises. I think he recommended going for sets of seven for hypertrophy in his latest example. The typical rep range would be 5-8. No advantage with longer sets, just a disadvantage with the metabolite accumulation and therefore increased fatigue. With strength training the reps are even fewer, I think two or three a set with appropriate load. The hypertrophy training is largely done on machines as they can be done with more stability, which enables us to produce more force. I'm not clear on his stance on exercise variety.

I've yet to see any longer examples of his programming, like whole blocks. Would be nice to see. But I expect it would just be all about adding a rep or 2,5kg next time.

 

[PaulGy]

I don't want to add an unnecessary complication so forgive me if I do that.

The answer is that more of both will be best (a similar approach as to what rep ladders try to achieve) but which do proponents of the theory emphasise as most important: intensity of mechanical tension or the total amount of tension in a session?

 

[bluejeff]

I don't want to add an unnecessary complication so forgive me if I do that.

The answer is that more of both will be best (a similar approach as to what rep ladders try to achieve) but which do proponents of the theory emphasise as most important: intensity of mechanical tension or the total amount of tension in a session?

From this article, he explains the concept of “stimulating reps,” or the amount of repetitions that supposedly stimulate hypertrophy:

“We can measure the volume of the mechanical stimulus to the single muscle fibers by recording only the number of reps performed at a high level of motor unit recruitment, and at a slow contraction velocity. We can call the reps that provide this mechanical stimulus to single muscle fibers “stimulating reps.””

From that definition I would expect the answer to be “the total amount of tension per session.” However, this is only counting the reps that match that definition. So I doubt the lower rungs of a ladder would count, unless you’re working at a higher %1RM.

 

[North Coast Miller]

“According to the force-velocity relationship, slower shortening velocities allow greater tension to be exerted."

Am not at all confident in this assertion. It allows more tension over a longer timeframe, but the amount of tension generated in a hard single pulse is much higher than anything that can be developed slowly. I demonstrate this using isometrics every session - the initial pull (or when using pulses) creates far more bend in the plywood deck than anything that can be held for even a few seconds.

Nonetheless as a working theory for general programming it sounds helpful.

Edit: perhaps the fact that real movement speed is a non issue with isometrics, rep speed is likewise non issue.

 

[bluejeff]

“According to the force-velocity relationship, slower shortening velocities allow greater tension to be exerted."

Am not at all confident in this assertion. It allows more tension over a longer timeframe, but the amount of tension generated in a hard single pulse is much higher than anything that can be developed slowly. .

This was also really hard for me to wrap my head around. The reason for me was that I was trying to approach it purely from a mechanical physics perspective.

It’s important to understand that in the model Beardsley is discussing, he is referring to the tension experienced by an individual muscle fiber, within which the actin and myosin filaments must create “cross bridges “ in order for contraction to occur. To add to that, the more cross bridges that occur, the more tension the fiber generates within itself. The muscle cannot make as many cross bridges the faster it contracts. So the mechanical tension he is referring to is the internal tension experienced by a muscle fiber, not the entire muscle. Also, the tension to which he refers is that created by the fiber itself; it’s not the external load.

The thing I haven’t seen a resolution for is how isometrics fit into this… At a certain length isometrics should be able to create the maximum number of cross bridges (which should actually be in the mid range of muscle length). So there must be a component of movement involved; i.e. the cross bridges connect, disconnect and reconnect.

 

[PaulGy]

From this article, he explains the concept of “stimulating reps,” or the amount of repetitions that supposedly stimulate hypertrophy:




From that definition I would expect the answer to be “the total amount of tension per session.” However, this is only counting the reps that match that definition. So I doubt the lower rungs of a ladder would count, unless you’re working at a higher %1RM.

Brilliant, thanks Jeff!

 

[ajs]

I don’t really understand the science of hypertrophy but I see and have experienced the incredible diversity in training approaches that build muscle in practice. It would be nice if there was a single theory that explained them all, everything from Schwarzenegger-style “blast the muscle“ programs, Mentzer’s HIT, Wendler’s 5 (or more) reps in reserve, Schoenfeld’s high or low (whatever) reps to failure, recent research on people building muscle with 50% of reps in reserve (eg 10 reps at the 20 rep max) etc etc. On top of that is the role of diet and whether at least in some individuals that’s more important than their training approach. I’m left wondering whether there is a way not to build muscle

Whatever I've been doing all these years is the way to not build muscle

 

[GreenSoup]

The thing I haven’t seen a resolution for is how isometrics fit into this… At a certain length isometrics should be able to create the maximum number of cross bridges (which should actually be in the mid range of muscle length). So there must be a component of movement involved; i.e. the cross bridges connect, disconnect and reconnect.

As I understand it, isometric contractions are like running. Contractions that are too difficult to sustain for long, like sprinting, will recruit primarily the fast twitch fibers. Long-held isometric contractions, like walking, fire muscle fibers asynchronously so that if there were any fatigue, it would be spread across a handful of the big fibers but mostly on the slow twitch fibers. Train either way to failure or close and that will fatigue whichever fibers you use. It will have the cross bridges connect and disconnect as some fibers fail while others are recruited to maintain the tension, and then the fatigued fibers will grow.

Again, that's the way I understand it. I hope someone more certain than I could talk about isometrics. I believe isos are helping me work around an injury and I presume that they are useful in growing or maintaining muscle.

 

[watchnerd]

I’m left wondering whether there is a way not to build muscle

I've had some friends who, from what I can tell, either just have absolute garbage genetics and / or such far below average athletic ability / or such a bad ability to put in effort that they little don't seems, even after years, to develop the proprioception to exercise in a way that effectively gets them stronger or builds muscle.

I used to have a friend at the YMCA who did treadmills and machines for 3 years straight and his gains totally plateaued after his first 6 months.

He never really got past the early newbie gains stage in anything.

Once he went from sedentary to semi-active, that was it.

He walked on the treadmill at the same speed for the same distance, used the leg extension machine for the same sets/reps/weights, etc, and when I'd ask him about being plateaued he'd say he wasn't worried about it.

 

[watchnerd]

I presume that they are useful in growing or maintaining muscle.

It depends a lot on the specific isometric.

You need to be pretty jacked and isometrically strong to do the iron cross.

 

[North Coast Miller]

Again, that's the way I understand it. I hope someone more certain than I could talk about isometrics. I believe isos are helping me work around an injury and I presume that they are useful in growing or maintaining muscle.

The literature demonstrates that iso at % of max effort much above 50 preferentially recruits more type II fibers, although for sure duration will have everything cycling on and off.

My experience suggests two things primarily, that sub max iso metrics are not very effective by themselves, and that results depend heavily on the quality of the holds being used to activate the target muscles - many improvised approaches fail to achieve this.

Gained 10lbs or so late last year, and about the same so far this year (regained after losing weight to a Covid infection). Have noticed in the past that isometrically-earned muscle really seemed resitant to detraining/disuse.

I do use them with HIIT as I suspect they need to be paired with some form of high stroke pressure, glucose depleting stimulus. I may or may not be correct re this.

 

[Nate]

I've had some friends who, from what I can tell, either just have absolute garbage genetics and / or such far below average athletic ability / or such a bad ability to put in effort that they little don't seems, even after years, to develop the proprioception to exercise in a way that effectively gets them stronger or builds muscle.

I used to have a friend at the YMCA who did treadmills and machines for 3 years straight and his gains totally plateaued after his first 6 months.

He never really got past the early newbie gains stage in anything.

Once he went from sedentary to semi-active, that was it.

He walked on the treadmill at the same speed for the same distance, used the leg extension machine for the same sets/reps/weights, etc, and when I'd ask him about being plateaued he'd say he wasn't worried about it.

A. SAID Principle
B. Caloric surplus w/ adequate protein
C. Progressive overload

His problem was C. I struggle with B. Gotta cover all factors for success.

 

[bluejeff]

I’m left wondering whether there is a way not to build muscle

Re-reading through the thread and trying to reply to things I saw but haven’t had time.

I just want to say that it seems less complicated than people make it out to be to put on muscle. There are people that just want to be healthy and don’t really care about making constant gains (such as the guy @watchnerd mentioned), and there are people who want to absolutely optimize everything they do. Most people, however, I think fall somewhere in the middle. So while I’m the one who started this whole thread, let me state that I don’t think it’s necessary to scrutinize every little detail to make progress. There’s definitely a lot of different routes to building muscle, but it’s a spectrum and more than one method might even build it fairly equally. Understanding what does what can help to make training more efficient.

 

[watchnerd]

A. SAID Principle
B. Caloric surplus w/ adequate protein
C. Progressive overload

His problem was C. I struggle with B. Gotta cover all factors for success.

He was actually un-interested in C as he was comfortable with his existing routines and didn't want to do "harder".