is a full range of motion necessary for muscle growth??

[charlie brown]

everyone has a different approach to weightlifting. i have heard some people say one can hold very heavy weights in a fully contracted position to failure and it causes much growth. but then some other people contend that a full range of motion is req. as well as many sets. wtf. someone explain

 

[donjuanjovi]

Intensity is inversely proportionate to duration. Which means the more intense the exercise the less time it requires. When your body is stressed you brain is signalled to adapt to that stressful environment. By practiseing static contraction you're putting intense strain on your muscles thus telling your brain that they need to grow in order to support that level of stress in the future. When you're lifting weights through a full range of movement it is usually the last repitition that tells your brain it's time for a change. Which is why working at higher rep sets such a 12 or 15 + will not give you as significant gains as static training because your body can already handle the weight for 12 reps so your body doesn't see a dier need for a change. So a key thing to remember is MORE STRESS = MORE GAINS

 

[charlie brown]

thnx

 

[Road Demon]

donjuanjovi:

Sorry not entirely clear in your response. It's much more complex than that.

Quick answer:

Primarily, the he muscle cell itself undergoes remodeling at the local level, due to specific signal transduction events based on the specific load imposed on the muscle. In a simplistic view, genes are turned on and off and new protein is made. The adaptations are also driven neurohormonal mechanisms (ie insulin, growth hormone release, testersterone mediated mechanism).

You are correct with the inverse relationship between intensity and volume.

I would suggest using full range of motion (ROM) exercise as more effective in terms of functional strength gains. IE what you can use outside of the gym.

To Increase size, you increase contractile protein mass. Most effective is:

moderate number of reps 8-15, several sets 4-8 sets

Muscle growth occur after the weight training lesson, so the actual recovery time is where the muscle rebuild itself

I would suggest doing the large range of motion exercises, that involve many muscle groups: squat, deadlift, incline bench, lat rows. Then proceed to the " finishing exercises" that target one group of mucsle in a limited range of motion ex. biceps curls.

This is an excellent reference that is used for the NSCA-CSCS certification:

Essentials of Strength Training and Conditioning (2000)
by Thomas R. Baechle and Roger W. Earle

 

[charlie brown]

what are your guys' views on max contraction training?


i agree that the large compound exercises are great for over all growth. i've made great gains w/ the squat and deadlift as well as pull ups.

but im still a little unclear about the full rom. doesn't a muscle need to be in its fully contracted posit. to activate all its fibers??
if thats the case, wouldnt a hold in that posit be much better than moving your target muscle in and out of it?

 

[Road Demon]

Motor Unit Recruitment is very dependent on force production and proceeds from ‘smallest‘ motor units to ‘largest’ motor units. This is also called the size principle.

Motor units are recruited in the order of their size, from smallest (Type I) to largest (Type IIb/x) depending on the FORCE they must produce. For example, when you do light load resistance training a person is recruiting predominantly Type I (slow twitch) motor units. When the load is increased, the Type IIa (fast twitch oxidative and glycolytic fibers) will be recruited. It is important to note (as shown above) Type I motor units are still firing. The last motor unit to be recruited is the Type IIb/x, which is called upon for the most maximal or demanding force needs of the muscle. Type IIb/x has great force production but is also quite easily fatigued. At this point all of the fiber types are firing, yet the Type IIb/x is taking on the greatest force production role of the exercise.

 

[charlie brown]

so a muscle doesnt need to be in its fully contracted posit to activate all its fibers? road demon i had to read that a few times haha. your scientist lingo is draining.
also, if type IIb/x are the big boy fibers and theyre activated w/ heavy loads, wouldn't holding heavy weight in a con. posit be better for growth than full rom exercises in which the weight is not as much?

 

[Road Demon]

Hey don't be intimidated by the language!

If you think in terms of metabolism here they are '3 major types' = slow oxidative, fast oxidative glycolytic, and fast glycolytic

You can also classify the muscle fiber by what type of motorneuron (nerve) controls the muscle fiber: type 1, type 2a, type 2b/x. Generally the bigger motorneuron controls the bigger fibers. As the load increases the bigger motorneurons start to become activated in addition to smaller ones that have already been working.

The classification based on metabolism and motorneuron overlap, same way of thinking about the same muscle fiber. So...

think small (type 1) = slow oxidative, aerobic metabolism, long time to fatigue, but low force. think marathon runner.

med (Type IIa) = fast oxidative glycolytic, intermediate size and force production, used at aerobic threshold. think 10,000 meter runner.

large (Type IIb/x) = fast glycolytic, large size, large force production, fast to fatique. think sprinter muscle.

You go it right as the load increases, you start from using slow oxidative to fast oxidative to fast glycolitic. So in a heavy lift, you are recruiting all of your muscle fibers at once. A lighter lift, less than all.

Powerlifters use really heavy loads and do low reps 1-5. they recuit just about all their muscle fibers, but they don't have huge muscles. They are just more efficient in terms of neural factors such as

Antagonist inhibition example. you can bicep curl more weight as the " braking force" by the triceps is relieved. When the tricep is more relaxed, your bicep muscle has less resistance ( braking force) to move the heavier load, so you can lift more efficeintly.

You can also get more motorneuron coodination, translated you can get all you muscle fibers to contract in a synchronous manner or "fire all you muscle fibers at once".

Interesting, if you took a cross section of a bodybuilder muscle, despite it large mass, it looks more like a endurance athlete muscle, just packed with alot of connective tissue.

hope that helps...

 

[Road Demon]

You need to pick one...can't really have both.

Do you want to get big (bodybuilder)?

Do you want to get strong (powerlifter)?

 

[Road Demon]

back to your original question.

In general an eccentric contraction (lengthing) is more effect stimulus for growth, as it causes more muscle damage. It causes tearing of the actin/myosin cross bridges when the muscle is absorbing energy as the weight is lowering toward the ground fighting against the acceleration due to gravity. think biceps curl.

holding a heavy weight in a max contraction position is more like an isometric contraction, like you are pushing really hard against a brick wall. You don't get much change in muscle length, hence less tearing of the actin/myosin cross bridges.

The full range of motion will have greater eccentric component, so the muscle will be 'lengthened' more' , so it will get 'more damage' which is a greater stimulus for the remodeling of the whole muscle.

make sense?

It really it all goes back to your goals: look good and ripped (bodybuilder) or be strong (power lifter)?

 

[mrRuckus]

Is a Rep Just a Rep?


Now what's necessary for hypertrophy vs. just pure strength. Well, obviously there is some type of intensity (% of 1 Rep Max or weight on the bar) involved in both. People say that 8-12 reps is for hypertrophy but 1-3 reps is for strength, why? I mean, intensity (%1RM) otherwise known as weight on the bar is linearly related to potential for microtrauma right? Why do you need to do more reps and why isn't a heavy weight better. Well, a heavy weight is better. The problem is that you can't do a whole lot of work with it and get a reasonable amount of microtrauma for hypertrophy - hence, it mainly stresses the neural components more than the muscular.

So in fact, a rep is a rep, it's finding that happy medium between intensity (%1RM) and the number of reps performed. Hey wait - why do we do sets if we can just do 25 reps with some weight and be done. Well, because the weight you can do for 25 reps has to be low intensity to get 25 back to back (hence, less microtrauma per rep and pretty soon on the spectrum you get none and are pure endurance). So we cluster reps into sets to keep the intensity high and still get a given number of reps done. This is why you can break the rule with 3 rep sets being for strength only if you lower the intensity (%1rm) to where you can do enough work in multiple sets (maybe that's 18-30 total reps - no real fine line or spectrum sweet spot but you get the idea). You'd probably get more total workload too (reps X sets X weight used) as the time density is lower with additional clustering/rest. There are few absolutes. Microtrauma is also why static holds or short range partials with very heavy weight tend to not work so well over time, you need to move a weight over a range of motion and leverages to get the microtrauma. And I'll just add that in very few circumstances will progression in a partial movement substantially carry over to full range movement in a well trained lifter. Full range carryover to a partial is very dependable though, thus they are always the staple benchmark lifts.

there ya go

 

[mrRuckus]

You need to pick one...can't really have both.

Do you want to get big (bodybuilder)?

Do you want to get strong (powerlifter)?

that's crazy talk.

i hate to be mr. quotes but...

c)There was a study some years back which included 3 groups--elite sumo wrestlers who did no weight training whatsoever, advanced bodybuilders and advanced powerlifters--about 20 in each group. Now there is a lot of variables here but they took the lean muscle mass of each group and divided it by their height in inches. Surprisingly the sumo wrestlers came out well ahead of the powerlifters (2nd) and the bodybuilders (very close 3rd). This is a group who did no weight training at all but engorged themselves with food trying to bring their bodyweight up to dramatic levels. How is a group that is doing no weight training having more muscle mass per inch of height than powerlifters and bodybuilders? For anyone that doubts food is the greatest anabolic in your arsenal, you better get up to speed and on the same page as what my trainees have found out. Gee now what would happen if you actually ate to get dramatically larger like a sumo, but actually weight trained like a powerbuilder (which is what we train like), and also did enough cardio/carb cuttoffs etc to keep bodyfat at bay while doing all this? Are you guys coming around to how I think yet....in how to become the biggest bodybuilder at the quickest rate but keeping leaness on that journey?

 

[charlie brown]

wouldnt sets be counter active to getting bigger because they affect muscular endurace?

 

[Road Demon]

I thought it was straightfoward that greater range of motion causes both a greater eccentric/concentric contraction component to the exercise compared to partials.

In general an eccentric contraction (lengthing) is more effective stimulus for growth, as it causes more muscle damage. It causes tearing of the actin/myosin cross bridges when the muscle is absorbing energy as the weight is lowering toward the ground fighting against the acceleration due to gravity. think biceps curl.

the microtrauma is the tearing of the actin/myosin crossbridges.

A few comments related to the link: http://intensemuscle.com/showthread.php?t=9658

It from a forum?

Has nothing to do with food...Nonsense. Its the load placed on the muscle that determines the remodeling of the muscle itself. It the muscle tissue responds to the functional demand on the muscle.

Sumo wrestlers are power atheletes, ie athletes whose actual resistance are the great forces produced by there equally massive opponent in "3-dimensions", instead of traditional plate resistance in "2-dimensions".

Increased muscle mass per height, does not make sense to me. What about looking at relative lean muscle mass compared to overall mass, instead.


I would like to know the authors of the study. I'm curious on the design of the study. The variable make all the difference. I would love to search for it on Pubmed.

charlie brown:

It's all about the working the the % of 1RM is what determines the level of muscular endurance required. The closer you get to your 1RM the less the reps and sets you can do.

If you look at the cross section of bodybuilder that his muscle fiber resembles more of a endurance trained athelete, except with more connective tissue.