This is a copy paste from WCB and its by eaglewrestler27
I found this and wanted to incorperate it into my routine. Please critique the article and give your thoughts:
I was sitting in a graduate level exercise physiology class one day and we were being lectured on the physiology of muscle fibers. After 4 weeks studying metabolism this was simply a breath of fresh air for me, because this is an area of exercise physiology and strength research that really interest me and in which I've done a lot of reading/research. We started out studying the outer portion of the muscle structure and gradually worked our way "inward." We learned really neat things about fascia, the epimysium, perimysium, fascicle, the axon of the motor neuron, and other big words that everyone mumbled when pronounced in class. However, one day we finally got to the good stuff! We began talking about the sarcolemma, the sarcoplasmic reticulum, sarcoplasm, the myofibrils, and the sarcomere. My professor had just gotten through explaining the significance of the sarcoplasm …when… well, what on earth is a sarcoplasm you may ask. Good question. Well, it's basically a bunch of "goo." The goo is made up of minerals, fats, dissolved proteins, a relatively large amount of glycogen (compared to the cytoplasm of the muscle cell), and some organelles. It is also home to myoglobin. Myoglobin carries oxygen to the mitochindria in a muscle cell. Therefore you can see that it is an important part of the muscle.
Anyway, as I was saying, after explaining all that my professor started talking about myofibrils and sarcomeres. Every muscle fiber contains anywhere from a few hundred to many thousand myofibrils. Within each myofibril you have sarcomeres. Sarcomeres are the smallest functional unit of a muscle fiber. Remember that, it's very important. Within the sarcomere is where the muscle actually contracts. Now, the myofibrils are lined up longitudinally (i.e., kinda like logs on a log truck) within the sarcoplasmic reticulum. Their number and diameter are important factors influencing the size of the fiber as a whole.
When I learned this, the terms functional and non-functional hypertrophy (also called sarcomere and sarcoplasmic hypertrophy) suddenly made sense to me. I understood the concept before, but now I understood some of the mechanisms behind it. I had a mental image of what it actually was and why. My brain was flooded with questions so I obviously looked to my fearless leader and asked him if my hypotheses about the different types of hypertrophy were physiologically accurate. When the words functional and nonfunctional hypertrophy left my mouth it hit him like a garter belt hitting a bachelor at a wedding reception. He didn't know what to think! Looking like a monkey doing a math problem he scratched his head a few times and said that he was unfamiliar with that terminology. I assumed ok, well maybe those are more appropriately laymen terms. So I rephrased it and asked about hypertophy of the sarcomere and sarcoplasmic hypertophy. No dice, he was still trying to carry the one.
Now what importance does all of those big words, and fuzzy word pictures have to do with getting bigger and stronger. Well, EVRYTHING! The next time your in the bookstore, grocery store, etc. pick up a muscle magazine and check out some of the pictures of the bodybuilders and models in the ads. All appear to be in great shape; muscular, 3%-6% body fat, the bodies that most people would kill for. Now ask yourself this: When was the last time any of them won a strong man, powerlifitng, or weightlifting contest? Now, I'm not trying to belittle bodybuilding as a sport and yes some bodybuilders compete and do well in powerlifting events. However my point is, if they are in as great a shape as they look and were as strong as they looked, these feats of strength would be relatively easy for them and a good way for them to "stay in shape" during the off-season. However, except for on the amateur level, you rarely see bodybuilders doing well in any of these events. Even powerlifting, although most accomplished bodybuilders use the "Big Three" in their weekly routines. Why is this? Why do bodybuilders not the relative strength (i.e., strength relative to bodyweight) of weightlifters and powerlifters? Or strongmen? Several elite bodybuilders weigh the same as some elite strongmen. Particularly in their off season when they usually put on a lot of body fat. Well, the reason is bodybuilders train in a manor that produces a greater proportion of non-functional hypertrophy. Hypertrophy of the sarcoplasm. The methods they use in training contribute to greater storage of glycogen, minerals, etc. as mentioned above. For the higher volume of training they use, this is beneficial. The adaptation caused by the high volume causes hypertrophy of the sarcoplasm because it is the greater glycogen and mineral storage that allows them to continue to train at that level of volume. In other words, they need more "goo." While to a degree that is beneficial to the athlete, traditional bodybuilder training does not contribute significantly to sarcomere hypertrophy. And what is a sarcomere? The smallest functional unit of a muscle. The sarcomere is the part of the muscle that actually does all of the contracting and therefore movement. Increase the size of the sarcomere and you will have stronger, more forceful contractions AND bigger muscles. Sarcomere hypertrophy is typically found in the legs and traps of elite weightlifters. In other words, they are as strong as they look. They achieve such hypertrophy by slaving away at the various pulls, and of course, every weightlifters' best friend…squats. But it's not so much the exercise, but the manor in which the exercise is performed that makes the difference. All are performed for multiple sets at very low reps; rarely over 6 and in elite lifters often never more than 3. Also, in the variations of the snatch and clean the lifts are performed explosively. This creates a lot of tension on the muscle and therefore recruits many of the fast twitch muscle fibers that are not recruited in high rep slow speed training. Also, such training reduces time under tension, which hinders sarcoplasmic hypertrophy and the hypertrophy of slow twitch fibers. The slow twitch fibers are moderately active in such quick/explosive movements, but they are the endurance fibers. Therefore, they have not been under tension long enough to cause adaptation to take place.
Now, that is the traditional view of functional and nonfunctional hypertrophy discussed in several excellent books on training. Two of which are: Science and Practice of Strength Training by Dr. Vladimir Zatsiorsky and Supertraining by Dr. Mel Siff. However, I would like to propose another form of functional/nonfunctional hypertrophy.
About 8 years ago, I read an article in Scholastic Coach magazine. The article was written by Thomas V. Pipes, and entitled "Strength Training and Fiber Types." This was the first article that I ever read that had a somewhat scientific approach to strength training. I had read a few books and of course a few bodybuilding magazines but this article was different. In it, Pipes takes muscle biopsies of an athlete before and after pre-determined training microcycles. His findings were eye opening to me at the time. Remember, at this point I'm more or less a newbie still. In a nut shell, he found that following a routine in which 8 reps (at the 8 RM as only one set was used) were used, the fast twitch muscle fibers of the trained muscle (in this case the quadricep via the leg press) hypertrophied. Well duh! Any body could have told him that right? Perhaps, however, he also found that the slow twitch muscle fibers atrophied (i.e., got smaller); and he also found that the number of reps the athlete could perform at 80% of his 1 RM decreased, yet his 1 RM increased! The athlete was then placed on a routine using 12 reps (at his 12 RM). Can anybody guess what happened? Well, muscle biopsy showed that hypertrophy did in fact take place, but that it was in the slow twitch muscle fibers this time. Not only that but the fast twitch fibers atrophied and the number of reps possible at 80% 1 RM went up, while his 1 RM decreased!
Now, first let me say that Pipes is a full-fledged 'HIT' advocate. Therefore this study was limited in that only one or two sets to concentric momentary muscle failure was used. Also, it used only one athlete. However, in my opinion the information is still very valid as empirical evidence and a few other similar studies back it up somewhat. However, I would like to see more thorough research using Pipes line of thinking. There are papers out there that imply these findings or that you can extrapolate, but his research is still in my opinion unique. Now what does all that mean? Well, first off don't get too caught up on the numbers 8 and 12. I will get into this in a minute, but please don't think that there is a magic number in which you can turn on fast twitch fibers and turn off slow twitch fibers and vice-versa. My point in discussing these findings is this. You can achieve hypertrophy in the wrong muscle fibers!
Too much hypertrophy in slow twitch fibers is contraindicated for the strength and power athlete. There are several reasons why hypertrophy of the slow twitch fibers may be detrimental to the strength and power athlete:
Fast Twitch fibers contract up to 10 times faster than slow twitch fibers (Siff, 2000). Because of this if there is too much hypertrophy in the slow twitch fibers they may cause too much friction for the fast twitch fibers to contract with maximal speed or force.
The type of training that induces slow twitch hypertrophy is more or less opposite that which causes hypertrophy of the fast twitch fibers.
Reply With Quote
Originally Posted by bluethunder
