Muscle growth?

Ohh sorry about the vagueness but the NASA study WAS about hypertrophy, i hadnt read it for a while so i might have used the wrong word.

They spent millions in this research.

Your currently doing full bodyworkout right? Id say continue that.

With regards to your last question, keeping it at 3 times a week but alternate body parts defenitely wouldnt be encouraged. If you look at it carefully that would mean only training your upper or lower body once or twice a week.
 
from the article above

Big Versus Little- Muscles in Isolation
Let's say that we remove a biceps muscles from two different endurance trained rowers. One muscle is 50% bigger than the other (cross-sectional area). We hook up these muscles to an artificial machine and perform a test ( I know this is gross but it is just a hypothetical situation. We would never do this to well trained rowers!) Which muscle will be able to perform more work in a 6 minute all out test? Well, the bigger one will, of course. That is, assuming that both muscles are well adapted to repetitive work (lots of mitochondria) and both are receiving plenty of oxygen. So if all other things are equal, the big muscle outperforms the small muscle.

Big versus Little - Muscles as part of a Package
If we extend the above situation to say a big body builder and a skinny guy like me, does the bodybuilder win? Probably not ( I hope not at least). Why? Because now the rules have changed, or I should say the performance limitations have changed. In the isolated muscle above I said that the muscles were 1) equally endurance trained and 2) supplied with unlimited oxygen. When we put the muscles back inside a real body, neither of these conditions are true.

Mitochondrial Dilution
When a bodybuilder trains, the goal is to make each muscle fiber as big as possible. Muscle fibers have contractile protein, mitochondrial protein, and other components. Increasing the relative proportion of one component (like more contractile protein) means that you have relatively less of everything else in the same fiber (like mitochondria). From an endurance standpoint this is not a good adaptation. We even give it a name in sports physiology circles, mitochondrial dilution. The bodybuilder's muscles may actually become more easily fatigued as they get bigger, because their mitochondrial density is not increasing at the same rate. The bodybuilder accepts that because the name of the game is size, not endurance.
It is possible for the endurance athlete to gain some muscle size and maintain mitochondrial density, but it requires that the volume of endurance training be maintained. If you are a runner and you decide to get stronger in the weight room by really doing a lot of strength training 3 days a week for an hour, you will probably drop some of your running volume to fit it in. After 6 months you have gained 5-10 pounds of muscle, you look really good, and you are running 2 minutes slower for 10k! Why? Well besides having to carry around 5-10 more pounds of muscle that you can't use when you are running, you have probably lost endurance capacity in those bigger stronger quads. So, you have a lower lactate threshold due to the detraining of your leg muscles, plus you are less efficient due to the increased bodyweight (and decreased training volume). Oh well, at least you LOOK Fast
 
And where does that fit into the past discusion of strength...not endurance! :p

Now where touching on type of fibres and thats another story to waste our times ;)
 
didnt you start of talking about big versus little muscles:biggrinsanta:
i think we have gone way of topic,i cant remember what the op first posted:p
 
here is a link to the article that I think matt was talking about:



Everything is so confusing... every bodybuilder does single body muscle group training and this science study says full body training is ideal..

You'd think that in the year 2007 we'd know this **** by now.

Like i've said before, when it comes to health/fitness we are still in the stone age.
 
here is a link to the article that I think matt was talking about:



Everything is so confusing... every bodybuilder does single body muscle group training and this science study says full body training is ideal..

You'd think that in the year 2007 we'd know this **** by now.

Like i've said before, when it comes to health/fitness we are still in the stone age.

There is no "ideal" workout plan. Different routines work for different people. If a person has been doing a FBW for a long time, and changes it up and does a split he'll experiences bigger growth because hes hitting the body with something new. If someone has been doing high rep..low rep will shock their body into progress...

And science isn't always right...experience > science
 
Great post Phate...

It's good to remember that fitness is the sum of many parts, and two of those parts are specificity of training (what you are training for) and adaptative response (the sum of your genetic disposition and your body's reaction to stresses.
 
So if my main goal is to gain muscle mass I should ditch the full body workout three times a week?

Successful body builders train body parts. Science may say otherwise, but take it from those who are successful.
 
Successful body builders train body parts. Science may say otherwise, but take it from those who are successful.

I'm planning on starting a specific muscle group routine after Christmas..

Should I include compound exercises at all though? I mean... if you want to work your back for example and do rowing we all know that you will work out a lot more than your back...

Do they make sure that the other muscles that get hit during compounds weren't worked in the past 48 hours?
 
I'm planning on starting a specific muscle group routine after Christmas..

Should I include compound exercises at all though? I mean... if you want to work your back for example and do rowing we all know that you will work out a lot more than your back...

Do they make sure that the other muscles that get hit during compounds weren't worked in the past 48 hours?

That's true of course, rowing is as much a lower body activity as it is an upper body (back) activity and it requires a solid core. In fact next to swimming, rowing is considered an extremely efficient form of cardio because it requires heavy activation of many major muscle groups.
 
Should I include compound exercises at all though?

Yes. This is not a question of isolation v. compound movements. It is a question of setting up a training split.

if you want to work your back for example and do rowing we all know that you will work out a lot more than your back..

It does not matter. Rowing would go on a back day.

Do they make sure that the other muscles that get hit during compounds weren't worked in the past 48 hours?

Sometimes. Sometimes not. I think that is more personal preference than anything else.

Most Body Builders I know try to train every body part 2X per week. They will set up training in all sorts of different ways.

Legs
Chest/Shoulders
Back / Arms
Repeat

Legs / Shoulders
Chest / Triceps
Back / Biceps
Repeat

Legs / Arms
Chest / Shoulders
Back
Repeat

There are tons of ways to split a workout up. A lot of guys will train lagging body parts by themselves in order to focus on bringing that part up. Then put 2 body parts together the rest of the time.

It will take experimenting on your part to find what works best. There is no "split" template, just what each person finds works best.
 
Back
Top