Other/Mixed Slow and Fast Twitch Hypertrophy Advice

[Morgan Woods]

Hey folks. I've been following SF for a while now, and I've finally made it to the forums.
Anyway, I want to bodybuild in a SF fashion and need some help because I'm not necessarily 100% on my understanding of Pavel's programming advice in his slow twitch articles (which I've read more times than I can count.)

The general idea that I have that I think will work is this:
Mon - FT hypertrophy full body
Tues- ST hypertrophy full body
Wed- Rest / or Light weight S&S
Thu- FT Hypertrophy full body
Fri- ST Hypertrophy full body
Sat - Rest / or light weight S&S
Sun- Rest

My reason for full body workouts instead of bodypart splits is that on Mon and Thurs, FT fibers will get worked and then even though ST training is to failure the day after, since load is 10-30% of 1RM, the risk of injury or of impeding recovery is incredibly minimal.
If anything, I see the endocrine system as taking the highest demand out of anything, which would need to be regulated with a close attention to sleep cycles and nutrition.

Correct me if I'm wrong and any insight, advice, guidance, etc. is greatly appreciated.

 

[North Coast Miller]

Hey folks. I've been following SF for a while now, and I've finally made it to the forums.
Anyway, I want to bodybuild in a SF fashion and need some help because I'm not necessarily 100% on my understanding of Pavel's programming advice in his slow twitch articles (which I've read more times than I can count.)

The general idea that I have that I think will work is this:
Mon - FT hypertrophy full body
Tues- ST hypertrophy full body
Wed- Rest / or Light weight S&S
Thu- FT Hypertrophy full body
Fri- ST Hypertrophy full body
Sat - Rest / or light weight S&S
Sun- Rest

My reason for full body workouts instead of bodypart splits is that on Mon and Thurs, FT fibers will get worked and then even though ST training is to failure the day after, since load is 10-30% of 1RM, the risk of injury or of impeding recovery is incredibly minimal.
If anything, I see the endocrine system as taking the highest demand out of anything, which would need to be regulated with a close attention to sleep cycles and nutrition.

Correct me if I'm wrong and any insight, advice, guidance, etc. is greatly appreciated.

I'm not up on any of the ST protocols, but even so I'd consider breaking the ST/FT into upper/lower per day.
That way whatever the systemic issues or fatigue-related considerations they get spread out a bit.
Your current plan looks fine.

 

[Philippe Geoffrion]

@Morgan Woods

Here is an article on the subject written a while back by Chad Waterbury, who was just recently featured on SF podcast. He and Pavel have known each other for over a decade and his methods hold a lot of water.

Diversity for Hypertrophy | T Nation

 

[North Coast Miller]

A final thought on this, again coming from not having familiarity with Pavel's ST protocols but from a general hypertrophy strategy.

You cannot train FT without training ST. While the ST have much greater endurance, they are first to be activated in any muscular exertion. You can single them out to some extent with lighter loads to improve endurance but for hypertrophy a heavier load works better for both fiber types anyway. Not going to get into specifics of that as you already have training strategy in mind.

The high frequency of the schedule is a good thing, but having it full body every session maybe not as you need to balance volume with recovery and frequency. I'd consider breaking at least to a push/hinge, pull/squat every other day for 6 days/week. Within that you could use your intended rep/set scheme on alternating days and just have it wrap at the end of the week:
Week one
1- push - FT/hinge ST
2- pull - ST/ squat FT
3- push -ST/hinge FT
4- pull - FT/ squat ST
5- push - FT/hinge ST
6- pull - ST/ squat FT
Week two
1- push -ST/hinge FT
2- pull - FT/ squat ST
etc

 

[Anna C]

You cannot train FT without training ST. While the ST have much greater endurance, they are first to be activated in any muscular exertion.

From my mediocre knowledge on the subject I do believe this is true, however, is it meaningful? What I mean is, ST needs to be trained with MUCH greater volume than FT. For example, let's take a set of 5 squats at my 5RM. It takes every bit of muscle fiber I can activate to get them done. I believe that I'm using both ST and FT muscle fibers to do the job. But the set only takes about 45 seconds. Did the ST fiber in my legs get any meaningful training in that time? Or are they only meaningfully challenged when I go for a 2-3 hour bike ride or hike, and they're activated practically the whole time? (Or, the specific ST protocol where the blood flow is restricted, creating a unique stimulus?)

@Morgan Woods, to your original question, I wish I had some smart input for you, but I don't. Interesting query, though. I do wonder if it's productive to try to train both in the same training block. The ST articles seemed to indicate that there's somewhat of a trade-off.

 

[North Coast Miller]

From my mediocre knowledge on the subject I do believe this is true, however, is it meaningful? What I mean is, ST needs to be trained with MUCH greater volume than FT. For example, let's take a set of 5 squats at my 5RM. It takes every bit of muscle fiber I can activate to get them done. I believe that I'm using both ST and FT muscle fibers to do the job. But the set only takes about 45 seconds. Did the ST fiber in my legs get any meaningful training in that time? Or are they only meaningfully challenged when I go for a 2-3 hour bike ride or hike, and they're activated practically the whole time? (Or, the specific ST protocol where the blood flow is restricted, creating a unique stimulus?)

I'd say if you're looking for endurance you definitely need a lot more reps at lower load, no question.

For Hypertrophy though, this has never really panned out in regards to ST, or distance runners would have huge legs. Muscle biopsies of powerlifters and BBers show a pretty even mix of fiber types similar to untrained individuals, so training loads at higher %RM definitely activate all fiber types - at least as far as size goes.

Yes if you take low load to high rep failure it does trigger some hypertrophy but it takes a lot more time to do so, and still lags behind sets at 70% or higher. And still no guarantee that the hypertrophic response isn't spread across all fiber types (this method fares poorly if sets aren't taken to failure).

Occlusion training is touted as increasing activation of fast twitch over slow, but I haven't found any official studies to support this. Though it does generate hypertrophic response with reduced loads it probably still does so across fiber types.

 

[mprevost]

The prevailing view is to train mainly for fast twitch hypertrophy (heavy, 8-12 reps, some sets to failure), but add in a couple of sets of high reps to failure for the slow twitch fibers as well. That way you get both (FT and ST hypertrophy). Bodybuilders have been doing this for decades, using a couple of "finishing" sets at lighter weight, done to failure. Anna is correct, that you don't get much slow twitch fiber hypertrophy with heavy sets, but the heavy sets are best for overall hypertrophy, because they target the fast twitch fibers, which have more hypertrophy potential. So you do heavy sets for the fast twitch fibers, and a couple of light sets (to failure) for the slow twitch fibers. Hope this makes sense.

 

[Bret S.]

Bodybuilders have been doing this for decades, using a couple of "finishing" sets at lighter weight, done to failure. Anna is correct, that you don't get much slow twitch fiber hypertrophy with heavy sets, but the heavy sets are best for overall hypertrophy, because they target the fast twitch fibers, which have more hypertrophy potential. So you do heavy sets for the fast twitch fibers, and a couple of light sets (to failure) for the slow twitch fibers.

I'm curious to know if these finishing sets eliciting a greater pump has more to do with hypertrophy across the spectrum of fiber types than a specific targeting of ST fibers. OTOH is it more a pre-exhaustion of FT fibers followed by a 'pumpy' set to failure? TUT would be decreased due to FT fiber fatigue.

 

[mprevost]

I'm curious to know if these finishing sets eliciting a greater pump has more to do with hypertrophy across the spectrum of fiber types than a specific targeting of ST fibers. OTOH is it more a pre-exhaustion of FT fibers followed by a 'pumpy' set to failure? TUT would be decreased due to FT fiber fatigue.

The research data says that high reps don't result in much fast twitch fiber hypertrophy but they do cause more hypertrophy of slow twitch fibers than heavy, low rep sets. But that research uses exclusively high reps or low reps and not a combo, so your proposition may be correct in this case. It makes sense.

 

[North Coast Miller]

I'm curious to know if these finishing sets eliciting a greater pump has more to do with hypertrophy across the spectrum of fiber types than a specific targeting of ST fibers. OTOH is it more a pre-exhaustion of FT fibers followed by a 'pumpy' set to failure? TUT would be decreased due to FT fiber fatigue.

I have not seen any studies that show a verifiable targeting effect on specific fiber types. Some effect maybe, but nothing statistically significant.
The only real changes in comp tend to be observed in competitive athletes-selected by success rather than adaptation, and by age.

If any of the known protocols actually could cause a notable shift, you'd see people with some notable training induced changes. Separating them out is much easier theorized than accomplished.

Training Based On Muscle Fiber Type: Are You Missing Out? • Stronger by Science

 

[mprevost]

I have not seen any studies that show a verifiable targeting effect on specific fiber types. Some effect maybe, but nothing statistically significant.
The only real changes in comp tend to be observed in competitive athletes-selected by success rather than adaptation, and by age.

If any of the known protocols actually could cause a notable shift, you'd see people with some notable training induced changes. Separating them out is much easier theorized than accomplished.

Training Based On Muscle Fiber Type: Are You Missing Out? • Stronger by Science

There are studies demonstrating that high rep training to failure produces more hypertrophy in slow twitch fibers than low rep training to failure. The opposite is true of fast twitch fibers. So there is a fiber type specific response. Also, there is evidence that fiber type can be changed with training. Particularly, type IIx can become type IIa. Detraining produces the opposite shift. In the rat model, much more dramatic shifts can occur (soleus going from 90% slow twitch to 90% fast twitch and the plantaris doing the opposite), but it is hard to demonstrate this with humans because that type of research cannot be done with humans.

 

[North Coast Miller]

There are studies demonstrating that high rep training to failure produces more hypertrophy in slow twitch fibers than low rep training to failure. The opposite is true of fast twitch fibers. So there is a fiber type specific response. Also, there is evidence that fiber type can be changed with training. Particularly, type IIx can become type IIa. Detraining produces the opposite shift. In the rat model, much more dramatic shifts can occur (soleus going from 90% slow twitch to 90% fast twitch and the plantaris doing the opposite), but it is hard to demonstrate this with humans because that type of research cannot be done with humans.

I would agree there are studies showing a shift, and virtually all resistance training causes a shift from IIx to IIa.

But...the shift is much smaller than one might imagine, in many cases statistically insignificant, at least according to the studies looked at in the link to the Stronger by Science article. Further, the breakdown of fiber type didn't seem to correlate to endurance performance at moderate loading:
The correlation between muscle fiber proportions and reps to failure at both 70% and 85% of 1rm was less than 0.2, meaning that less than 4% of the variability could be explained by differences in muscle fiber type.

This isn't to say you won't get adaptive response to specific loading schemes, but does seem unlikely it is due to fiber specific responses.

The only definitive statement I've found is if you detrain either from injury or age, you lose size in the fast twitch more rapidly than slow twitch. That's not the same as preferential hypertrophy of one fiber type over the other, esp in a trained athlete.

That is far from the last word though, I'd certainly take a look at the protocol/results from studies that successfully achieved this sort of preferential hypertrophy.

 

[ali]

Some interesting findings here:

(PDF) Muscle health and performance in monozygotic twins with 30 years of discordant exercise habits

I've heard Andy Galpin, one of the authors, talk about this research and here is Andy talking about it:

"Blood panels were far superior in the endurance athlete. Blood pressure, cholesterol. Like this is all standard stuff. Right? VO2 max was far higher in the endurance athlete like all predicted. But what was a bit more surprising was the markers of leg strength and the markers of leg mass, and power, and leg quality either were not different at all or favored the untrained person. The fiber type profile was completely different. So, the endurance athlete was 90% or more slow twitch and the nontrained guy was more like 50/50. And so, I think this is a really nice example of the best way I can answer your question by saying, “Look, there’s no doubt endurance training is generally good for your health.” VO2 max is one of the most significant predictors of mortality. All those other markers like cholesterol levels— Like this is a very good thing for your health. There’s no question. So, before I go any further, I wanna make sure it’s abundantly clear I am acknowledged of that fact. This is good for you.
.......
But I think what it also highlight is I think that anytime you take a single mode of exercise or nutrition and that’s all you do, I think you’re compromising your potential health. And I would say the same thing about somebody who only is a weightlifter or a power lifter their entire life. I would think that your VO2 max is gonna poor at the end of the spectrum. So, to me, what these data really highlighted was “Well, that stuff is really good for you.” We need to at least have a reasonable compromise between anaerobic, and speed, and agility, and VO2 max, heart rate interval training. Like all these things need to be a component of somebody who is really trying to maximize wellness or longevity. If you’re trying to maximize competition in sport, now that’s a little bit different question. So, that I think answered the question about fiber type in part. So, will your training affect your fiber type? No doubt. Can you change that? Absolutely. But let’s be real here. If you do something for 35 years, it’s gonna take more than 5 or 6 weeks to change that fiber type all the way back. I mean, that’s a real problem. So, I don’t know what that means, but I generally also say the data we do have from endurance athletes suggest that having fast twitch fibers is actually beneficial. I’ve not seen any papers that showed adding power or strength training for endurance athlete actually makes it worse. In fact, most of the paper suggests it improves endurance performance. So, I would say, you know, for any of the endurance folks, the endurance stuff is good. But even for health or performance perspective, it’s important that you add some power training, some strength training in, if not for your own race performance, but also for the fiber type maintenance as well as the preservation of strength and muscle mass. These are really important things.

from: Andy Galpin transcript | Nourish Balance Thrive

.

 

[North Coast Miller]

@ ali,
this study is a great read, thanks!

The thing it doesn't address is fiber specific hypertrophy. It appears where the endurance trained individual had the largest shift in fiber comp, he also had "lower quadriceps muscle size and strength, poorer muscle quality".

So while it is certainly possible to get a shift in predominance, I haven't seen any studies that demonstrate it while actually increasing muscle mass. It seems to require a general shrinking of total mass for the most part.

This one did demonstrate overall shift of notable % values for the entire body, but not in a way a strength athlete would find desirable.

 

[ali]

Andy Galpin has done a lot of interesting research on muscle fibre certainly. (Note: proper spelling: fibre, haha!)
6 types of fibres now, apparently, a whole variety of mixed hybrid combinations turning up some interesting questions.
The thing with that twin study is that the untrained twin had more fast twitch than his endurance trained twin and, not mentioned in the article but Andy has talked about elsewhere, the slow twitch guy was prone to injury.
So some fast, some slow strength, some aerobic, some anaerobic and let physiology do what it does? Another thumbs up for swings and get ups. Running out of thumbs.....

 

[ali]

You'll find this interesting too:

Renaissance Periodization | Do Muscle Fiber Types Change with Training? An End To The Unfounded “Debate”.

again from Andy Galpin, the muscle fibre guy

"What should you do to ensure your training optimizes your FT%? We don’t really know. Any other answer is a straight lie. Our best guess: if you want to make more FT fibers, train fast and heavy. Better endurance? Practice getting tired. Maximize growth? Do a combination of high volume/low intensity with low volume/high intensity lifting. At least, this is the best we know as of now.

So while we’ve got countless more questions than answers at this point, we can comfortably say that not only do human skeletal muscle fiber types change, but it happens often, quickly, and in response to just about everything you do."

....

In that article, there is a link to Body of Knowledge podcast, presented by Andy Galpin too. One of the episodes features a muscle fibre chat which is well worth an ear or two.