How did this happen?
Bodybuilding, our beloved sport, is an American obsession. Had it enough appeal somewhere else, I would have left long ago. This isn't a tirade about what I think is right or wrong about our fair nation, but a context in which to interpret the decades of deception.
Bodybuilding was able to grow as an industry not due to its appeal as a spectator sport, but its appeal as a means for personal physical improvement. Of course, this was (still is) exploited to its maximum potential. The "secret" to success is whatever ridiculous idea can be sold at the highest profit margin. This is not to say that the industry is evil; it preys on the vanity and stupidity of the masses no more or less than any other. As often happens, however, profit began to define reality, and mainstream science was manipulated to support the whims of supplement manufacturers and magazine publishers.
Each and every month, there is at least one "pro bodybuilder" routine posted in every major bodybuilding publication. That they've been some variation of the same 3-4 sets of 8-12 reps for the last half century seems to go unnoticed. Of course, the bodybuilder uses X Product with X Protocol, which is why he looks the way he does. Only by combining a sugary tub of dust with an obviously ineffective routine can one achieve such excellence.
This is all old news to anyone even casually involved in the sport. We often cite ridiculous claims made by manufacturers, but never stop to think of the overarching structure which allows this nonsense to thrive. All of the accredited personal training organizations have bought into the lies, using selective "science" to back the preposterous claims of the bodybuilding world. Check your NASM book, or even your CSCS book. The key to hypertrophy is doing a few sets of 8-12. Science which counters this is very strongly suppressed, as it would be ruinous to the fitness world.
All of the studies which support the "hypertrophy rep range" idea were done on groups of untrained individuals. What they don't tell you is that while any sort of muscoskeletal stimulus will cause hypertrophy in an untrained person, this is no longer the case after 18-24 months of consistent training. They're safe in pushing the idea, because less than 1% of the people who spend money in bodybuilding will ever meet that threshold.
I've often said that the truth doesn't sell. I had no idea how right I was.
Each and every month, there is at least one "pro bodybuilder" routine posted in every major bodybuilding publication. That they've been some variation of the same 3-4 sets of 8-12 reps for the last half century seems to go unnoticed. Of course, the bodybuilder uses X Product with X Protocol, which is why he looks the way he does. Only by combining a sugary tub of dust with an obviously ineffective routine can one achieve such excellence.
This is all old news to anyone even casually involved in the sport. We often cite ridiculous claims made by manufacturers, but never stop to think of the overarching structure which allows this nonsense to thrive. All of the accredited personal training organizations have bought into the lies, using selective "science" to back the preposterous claims of the bodybuilding world. Check your NASM book, or even your CSCS book. The key to hypertrophy is doing a few sets of 8-12. Science which counters this is very strongly suppressed, as it would be ruinous to the fitness world.
All of the studies which support the "hypertrophy rep range" idea were done on groups of untrained individuals. What they don't tell you is that while any sort of muscoskeletal stimulus will cause hypertrophy in an untrained person, this is no longer the case after 18-24 months of consistent training. They're safe in pushing the idea, because less than 1% of the people who spend money in bodybuilding will ever meet that threshold.
I've often said that the truth doesn't sell. I had no idea how right I was.
The Science of Strength
Strength protocols are extremely popular recommendations to novice trainees these days. Replete with junk science, bad advice, and self-aggrandizing horse shit, works of Grade-A toilet paper such as "Starting Strength" have flooded the internet. It's particularly offensive because of its viral replication strategy, outlined below:
1. Novice idiot is convinced to read "starting strength", trains for a few months, experiences gains
2. Novice idiot considers himself an expert, pitches the gospel to unsuspecting and desperate minds
Warning: RAEL SYINTS BEGINS HERE
1. Novice idiot is convinced to read "starting strength", trains for a few months, experiences gains
2. Novice idiot considers himself an expert, pitches the gospel to unsuspecting and desperate minds
Warning: RAEL SYINTS BEGINS HERE
First, let us understand:
Strength is the amount of force a muscle can exert at a constant speed. If you can move 500lbs across the space of one meter in three seconds (bench press), you are strong.
Power is the amount of total force output measured in work/time. If you can move 200lbs across the space of three meters in one second (snatch), you are powerful.
Adaptations are specific to the stimulus provided. This is agreed upon many times over and is not a point of contention. Adaptations, however, are also versatile, which makes similar adaptations redundant. Though we would all be fine with redundancy of superpowers, our bodies (playa haters) find such things to be a pointless waste of resources. Your body will only adapt if it absolutely has to. If one adaptation is sufficient to cover multiple stresses, you do not "need" another. Hence, we have biofeedback mechanisms which prevent anything from altering homeostasis. When homeostasis is altered, it is ALWAYS by the most cost-efficient means.
Power is mostly a measure of neural efficiency. If you train "explosively", your body adapts by increasing the surface area of the axon terminal at the neuromuscular junction, thereby increasing acetylcholine output, which leads to a more rapid and complete depolarization of the muscle cell. The calcium pump fires according to the strength of this action potential, which determines how hard the muscle contracts. Existing motor neurons adapt to efficiently innervate more and more existing myocytes. Tendon strength increases (so that your trigger-happy calcium pump doesn't tear the muscle off the bone), Golgi Tendon Organ desensitizes, phosphocreatine stores may increase, and dormant (but already existing!) Type IIB muscle fibers may become active.
Strength is basically a measure of neural efficiency, but the increased time under tension causes significant muscle damage and inflammation, which necessitates further adaptations. Existing muscle cells repair the damage, and sometimes (especially during the first 18 months of training) we're fortunate enough to have them use building materials of ever-increasing quality. A strength training stimulus will also elicit a limited degree of hypertrophy in an untrained person, as a base amount of musculature is necessary for any athletic performance. Once said degree of muscularity is achieved (still very very far removed from bodybuilder status), existing muscles continue to strengthen themselves, assuming consistent stimulus. There will be a volume-dependent (though still very limited) increase in glycogen storage, glycolytic enzymes, and intracellular fluid.
Hypertrophy was (until I wrote this article) believed to occur via magic when training with repetitions above the strength threshold (~8), but below the "endurance" threshold (~16). The idea of "endurance" is founded on the laughable belief that high rep ranges primarily stimulate Type 1 (oxidative) muscle fibers. Get it? Because oxygen is being used before the lactate threshold is surpassed! How/Why this differs from every other physical activity ever is never explained.
Back to hypertrophy. In order to push the pseudo-scientific idea that something special occurs between reps 8 and 16 (or 6 and 20, if you prefer), the bodybuilding media has cherry-picked and improperly applied certain biological theories. Because these theories are laden with actual facts, and applicable in other contexts, it's very hard to see why what they're selling is bullshit. I'll do my best to explain:
What they say: Muscle fiber size runs from small to large Type I -> Type IIA -> Type IIB -> Type IIX
The larger (anaerobic) cells also have the most potential for growth, therefore the most size is to be gained from training heavy.
Why it's bullshit: Muscle fiber type distribution varies among muscle groups. The greatest size increases will come from hypertrophy of the existing fibers, not hypertrophy of the fibers you wish were there.
What they say: Heavy training causes the conversion of smaller fibers to larger fibers Type I -> Type II, etc. Therefore, we should convert as many fibers as possible to the most anaerobic type.
Why it's bullshit: Sedentary people have the greatest proportion of Type IIX fibers. Anaerobic cells cost less to maintain, and are seldom activated. Fiber type conversion only happens in extremely specialized athletes (ultramarathoners and olympic lifters), as someone probably mentioned in the greatest cardio article ever written.
What they say: Muscles are activated according to the size principle (smallest muscle fibers required to exert the necessary force). Since our concern is stimulating anaerobic fibers, we should use the heaviest possible weight (with good form).
Why it's bullshit: The size principle applies just as well in a fatigued state. You can work anaerobically with a heavy weight, but a light weight becomes equally anaerobic after a few reps.
Strength is the amount of force a muscle can exert at a constant speed. If you can move 500lbs across the space of one meter in three seconds (bench press), you are strong.
Power is the amount of total force output measured in work/time. If you can move 200lbs across the space of three meters in one second (snatch), you are powerful.
Adaptations are specific to the stimulus provided. This is agreed upon many times over and is not a point of contention. Adaptations, however, are also versatile, which makes similar adaptations redundant. Though we would all be fine with redundancy of superpowers, our bodies (playa haters) find such things to be a pointless waste of resources. Your body will only adapt if it absolutely has to. If one adaptation is sufficient to cover multiple stresses, you do not "need" another. Hence, we have biofeedback mechanisms which prevent anything from altering homeostasis. When homeostasis is altered, it is ALWAYS by the most cost-efficient means.
Power is mostly a measure of neural efficiency. If you train "explosively", your body adapts by increasing the surface area of the axon terminal at the neuromuscular junction, thereby increasing acetylcholine output, which leads to a more rapid and complete depolarization of the muscle cell. The calcium pump fires according to the strength of this action potential, which determines how hard the muscle contracts. Existing motor neurons adapt to efficiently innervate more and more existing myocytes. Tendon strength increases (so that your trigger-happy calcium pump doesn't tear the muscle off the bone), Golgi Tendon Organ desensitizes, phosphocreatine stores may increase, and dormant (but already existing!) Type IIB muscle fibers may become active.
Strength is basically a measure of neural efficiency, but the increased time under tension causes significant muscle damage and inflammation, which necessitates further adaptations. Existing muscle cells repair the damage, and sometimes (especially during the first 18 months of training) we're fortunate enough to have them use building materials of ever-increasing quality. A strength training stimulus will also elicit a limited degree of hypertrophy in an untrained person, as a base amount of musculature is necessary for any athletic performance. Once said degree of muscularity is achieved (still very very far removed from bodybuilder status), existing muscles continue to strengthen themselves, assuming consistent stimulus. There will be a volume-dependent (though still very limited) increase in glycogen storage, glycolytic enzymes, and intracellular fluid.
Hypertrophy was (until I wrote this article) believed to occur via magic when training with repetitions above the strength threshold (~8), but below the "endurance" threshold (~16). The idea of "endurance" is founded on the laughable belief that high rep ranges primarily stimulate Type 1 (oxidative) muscle fibers. Get it? Because oxygen is being used before the lactate threshold is surpassed! How/Why this differs from every other physical activity ever is never explained.
Back to hypertrophy. In order to push the pseudo-scientific idea that something special occurs between reps 8 and 16 (or 6 and 20, if you prefer), the bodybuilding media has cherry-picked and improperly applied certain biological theories. Because these theories are laden with actual facts, and applicable in other contexts, it's very hard to see why what they're selling is bullshit. I'll do my best to explain:
What they say: Muscle fiber size runs from small to large Type I -> Type IIA -> Type IIB -> Type IIX
The larger (anaerobic) cells also have the most potential for growth, therefore the most size is to be gained from training heavy.
Why it's bullshit: Muscle fiber type distribution varies among muscle groups. The greatest size increases will come from hypertrophy of the existing fibers, not hypertrophy of the fibers you wish were there.
What they say: Heavy training causes the conversion of smaller fibers to larger fibers Type I -> Type II, etc. Therefore, we should convert as many fibers as possible to the most anaerobic type.
Why it's bullshit: Sedentary people have the greatest proportion of Type IIX fibers. Anaerobic cells cost less to maintain, and are seldom activated. Fiber type conversion only happens in extremely specialized athletes (ultramarathoners and olympic lifters), as someone probably mentioned in the greatest cardio article ever written.
What they say: Muscles are activated according to the size principle (smallest muscle fibers required to exert the necessary force). Since our concern is stimulating anaerobic fibers, we should use the heaviest possible weight (with good form).
Why it's bullshit: The size principle applies just as well in a fatigued state. You can work anaerobically with a heavy weight, but a light weight becomes equally anaerobic after a few reps.
Now that we've covered what doesn't cause hypertrophy, we can get to the depressing truth about what does.
End Game
Hypertrophy is not a measure of strength, nor of power, nor of ability. Hypertrophy is only incidentally related to any other form of training. It's a very costly response to a stress that cannot be handled via less expensive means.
The primary factors influencing hypertrophy are: Hypoxia and Acidity
Hypertrophy is a measure of metabolic waste. Fast glycolysis creates H+ ions, which accumulate due to occlusion, and decrease the pH of the muscle. The H+ must be neutralized with Pyruvate (formed internally, from glycogen) to create Lactate, which is then shuttled to the liver to create glucose, which returns to the muscle to repeat the process. Vascularization occurs because the [toxic] blood is trapped in the working muscle, and needs to be cleared before the pH of your blood drops and you die of acidosis.
During a "pump", interstitial fluid increases, and myocyte size decreases (beacuse osmosis). During this bout of hypoxia, intramuscular IGF-1 stimulates cell proliferation. Regulatory Volume Increase (no, seriously, that's what it's called) occurs on site via charged ions moving through the proton gradient in spite of osmotic pressure. When normal oxygen levels are restored, the myocytes are expanded, and the proliferated cells become differentiated. These small cells are repeatedly exposed to high osmotic pressure, and their proton gradients adapt to become aggressively resistant, increasing cell volume with each bout.
The primary factors influencing hypertrophy are: Hypoxia and Acidity
Hypertrophy is a measure of metabolic waste. Fast glycolysis creates H+ ions, which accumulate due to occlusion, and decrease the pH of the muscle. The H+ must be neutralized with Pyruvate (formed internally, from glycogen) to create Lactate, which is then shuttled to the liver to create glucose, which returns to the muscle to repeat the process. Vascularization occurs because the [toxic] blood is trapped in the working muscle, and needs to be cleared before the pH of your blood drops and you die of acidosis.
During a "pump", interstitial fluid increases, and myocyte size decreases (beacuse osmosis). During this bout of hypoxia, intramuscular IGF-1 stimulates cell proliferation. Regulatory Volume Increase (no, seriously, that's what it's called) occurs on site via charged ions moving through the proton gradient in spite of osmotic pressure. When normal oxygen levels are restored, the myocytes are expanded, and the proliferated cells become differentiated. These small cells are repeatedly exposed to high osmotic pressure, and their proton gradients adapt to become aggressively resistant, increasing cell volume with each bout.
What does it all mean?
An effective hypertrophy protocol requires little complexity and much less weight than we'd all like to believe. Training with moderate volume and light weight, and taking all sets to failure with 15-30 second intervals is pretty much all that's needed.
I attempted to train for hypertrophy in accordance with the aforementioned theory this morning. I concluded that I'm happy just the way I am.
I attempted to train for hypertrophy in accordance with the aforementioned theory this morning. I concluded that I'm happy just the way I am.
