MuscleTalk Logo
Testosterone Replacement TherapyBanner

stimulate, dont annihalate

New Member
  • Total Posts : 2
  • Reward points: 10
  • Joined: 2009/07/16 21:06:09
  • Status: offline
2009/07/16 21:38:54 (permalink)

stimulate, dont annihalate

Wasup I'm fairly new to lifting and figured this place would be awesome to gain info from like most forums. I have been a motocross racer my whole life so the only training I know is for that and its mostly endurance and legs, I never really got into heavy weights.  Now I'm 21 and dont have that much time to race every weekend due to work.  So about 4 months ago I started working out almost every day, and running/sprinting just trying to completeley mad dog it.  It's funny because the more time that goes by lifting, the more drive I have to do it. Anyways before I bore you all and you stop reading I had a concearn.  I was reading the beginners guide on this forum, it said stimulate dont annihalate.  I always thought the same thing, but one of my good friends said to do heavy weights low reps to get big, and thats what i thought you were supposed to do.  Then I saw my old friend at a party that I havent seen in like 2 years, hes abseloutley gigantic now. Its a little fuzzy cause i was drunk, but his advice was "you want to do 4-6 reps and rip your muscles in half" (complete with traps that seemed to tower over his head and veins popping out it was actually quite a funny scene) so my concearn is, basically if i go up high enough weight to where I am struggling by the 6th rep and simply cant do a 7th, then wouldent that be complete annihalation of the muscle?  I recently switched to heavy weights about 2 weeks ago.  I started doing like 12-20 reps 4 sets, now im doing like 6-10 reps 4 sets (all various excercises)  So im just a little lost on what I should focus on, ripping my muscles in half like my rediculously huge buddy said, or perfect form, like i thought it was supposed to be.  I would do both but in order for me to keep perfect form in an excersize, doesnt really seem to be tearing my muscles or even giving them that exhausting of a workout.  I have alot more questions to come. So lost please help thanks.

2 Replies Related Threads

    • Total Posts : 1849
    • Reward points: 5175
    • Joined: 2006/07/26 11:34:12
    • Status: offline
    Re:stimulate, dont annihalate 2009/07/17 08:57:42 (permalink)
    the guy you talked to could have been on steroids/or not but this is an outline for naturals
    The influence of frequency, intensity, volume and mode on muscle hypertrophy

    from lyle macdonalds forum
    Sports Med. 2007;37(3):225-64. The influence of frequency, intensity, volume and mode of strength training on whole muscle cross-sectional area in humans.
    I thought I'd summarize this comprehensive paper both for my own benefit and for those who want the highlights. I've restricted my summary to the parts of the paper that talk about your typical "dynamic external resistance" training. The gist of the paper is that while we do know what works for hypertrophy (pretty much everything, to an extent), we really don't know what's optimal, especially in trained individuals and in the long run. Dan also posted some excerpts on his forum:
    Results No relationship could be found between frequency of training and the increase per day in muscle cross sectional area. When the intensity was plotted against the rate of increase, a weak tendency was found for the rate to increase with increasing intensity. The highest rates of increase tended to occur around 75% of 1RM. When volume was plotted against the rate of increase, greater gains in muscle mass were seen initially with increasing volume while there were diminishing returns as the volume increased further. The highest rates of increase tended to occur with 30-60 repetitions per session.
    Discussion Frequency: For hypertrophy, studies suggest that training two or three times per week is superior to training one time per week, even when volume is equal. However, there doesn't appear to be a benefit of three sessions per week over two. "Although some interesting trends can be discerned from the data... there is clearly a need for further research on training frequency in both highly-trained and less-trained subjects."
    Intensity: "The studies reviewed in this article show that there is a remarkably wide range of intensities that may produce hypertrophy. Still, there seems to be some relationship between the load (or torque) and the rate of increase in CSA." This is not linear, but seemed to peak around 75%. "Thus, the results of this review support the typical recommendations with intensity levels of 70–85% of maximum when training for muscle hypertrophy, but also show that marked hypertrophy is possible at both higher and lower loads."
    Volume: "Overall, moderate volumes (≈30–60 repetitions per session for DER training) appear to yield the largest responses." An exception to this is with very high loads (90% 1RM or 120% to 230% 1RM with eccentrics) where high rates of growth have been shown with volumes as low as 12-14 repetitions per session. To date, relatively few studies have directly compared the effects of different volumes of work on the hypertrophic response as measured by scanning methodology." The paucity of data clearly warrants further research.
    Mode of Training and Type of Muscle Action: You often hear statements like "eccentric training produces the greatest muscle hypertrophy". "This review demonstrates that given sufficient frequency, intensity and duration of work, all three types of muscle actions can induce significant hypertrophy at impressive rates and that at present, there is insufficient evidence for the superiority of any mode and/or type of muscle action over other modes and types of training in this regard." In fact, the data suggest that pure eccentric training is inferior to both concentric and eccentric+concentric training, though this is still a subject of debate rather than a scientific certainty.
    Rest Periods and the Role of Fatigue: "Upon closer examination, it appears that when maximal or near-maximal efforts are used, it is advantageous to use long periods of rest. This is logical in light of the well known detrimental effects of fatigue on force production and electrical activity in the working muscle. If high levels of force and maximum recruitment of motor units are important factors in stimulating muscle hypertrophy, it makes sense to use generous rest periods between sets and repetitions of near-maximal to maximal efforts... On the other hand, when using submaximal resistance, the size principle dictates that motor unit recruitment and firing rates are probably far from maximal until the muscle is near fatigue or unless the repetitions are performed with the intention to execute the movement very quickly."
    Interactions Between Frequency, Intensity, Volume and Mode: "Based on the available evidence, we suggest that the time-tension integral is a more important parameter than the mechanical work output (force × distance)... Overall, we feel that the trends observed in this review are consistent with the model for training-overtraining continuum proposed by Fry,[186] where the optimal training volume and also the volume threshold for overtraining decreases with increasing intensity... Regarding training for hypertrophy in already highly-trained individuals, there is at present insufficient data to suggest any trends in the dose-response curves for the training variables."
    Eccentrics: "Taken together, the results of these studies support the common recommendation of using somewhat lower frequencies and volumes for high-force eccentric exercise than for conventional resistance training..."
    Order of endurance/strength training: "It has been suggested that strength training should be performed first, in order not to compromise the quality of the strength-training session.[194] However, this order may not necessarily be the best choice for inducing increases in muscle mass. Deakin[195] investigated the impact of the order of exercise in combined strength and endurance training and reported that gene expression associated with muscle hypertrophy responded more strongly when cycling was performed before strength training, instead of vice versa. Interestingly, in the study of Sale et al.,[111] performing cycling first seemed to induce the greatest increase in muscle area. Still, because the lack of studies investigating the effects of the order of exercise in concurrent training on hypertrophy, no firm conclusions can be drawn on this issue."
    Time Course of Muscle Hypertrophy: "Until recently, the prevailing opinion has been that neural adaptations play the dominant role during the first 6–7 weeks of training, during which hypertrophy is usually minor." However, several investigations [13,27,54,87,105,118,128] have demonstrated significant hypertrophy at the whole muscle level after short periods of training (3–5 weeks). "Thus, there now plenty of evidence that significant hypertrophy can take place early on given proper frequency, intensity and volume of training," even prior to changes in muscle CSA. "As argued by Phillips,[198] the idea that early gains in strength are due exclusively to neural adaptations seems doubtful... In some strength-training studies, the increase in muscle volume is delayed, while in others, the rate of growth is rapid. We speculate that less-damaging training modes may allow the hypertrophy response to start earlier. Regimens that include eccentric muscle actions, especially those involving maximal effort, appear to require a careful initiation and progression of training to avoid muscle damage and muscle protein breakdown [excessive apoptosis and proteolysis]."
    The Stimulus for Muscle Hypertrophy in Strength Training: "Two studies by Martineau and Gardiner[216,217] have provided insight into how different levels of force and different durations of tension may affect hypertrophic signaling in skeletal muscle... they remarked that both peak tension and time-tension integral must be included in the modeling of the mechanical stimulus response of skeletal muscle... Based on the data reviewed in this paper, we speculate that hypertrophic signalling in human skeletal muscle is very sensitive to the magnitude of tension developed in the muscle. Hence, for very short durations of work, the increase in muscle size will be greater for maximal-eccentric exercise than for maximal-concentric exercise of similar durations... The response is presumably also dependent on the total duration of work and increases initially with greater durations. Thus, both short durations of maximal eccentric exercise and somewhat longer durations of concentric, isometric and conventional dynamic resistance exercise can result in impressive increases in muscle volume. However, especially with maximal eccentric exercise, damage also seems to come into play as the duration of work increases even further and the acute and/or cumulative damage may eventually overpower the hypertrophic process."
    Training Implications and Recommendations: For your typical "dynamic external resistance", recommendations are given for "Moderate load slow-speed training", "Conventional hypertrophy training", and "Eccentric (ecc) overload training". These three modes are denoted as suitable for beginners, novice-well trained, and advanced-elite, respectively. For the "Conventional hypertrophy training" for the novice to the well trained, they recommend an 8-10RM load (75-80% 1RM), with 8-10 reps to failure or near failure, 1-3 sets per exercise, progression from 1–2 to 3–6 sets total per muscle group, moderate velocity (1-2 seconds for each CON and ECC), 60-180 seconds rest between sets, and 2-3 sessions per muscle group per week.
    Conclusions: "This review demonstrates that several modes of training and all three types of muscle actions can induce hypertrophy at impressive rates and that, at present, there is insufficient evidence for the superiority of any mode and/or type of muscle action over other modes and types of training. That said, it appears that exercise with a maximal-eccentric component can induce increases in muscle mass with shorter durations of work than other modes. Some evidence suggests that the training frequency has a large impact on the rate of gain in muscle volume for shorter periods of training. Because longer studies using relatively high frequencies are lacking, it cannot be excluded that stagnation or even overtraining would occur in the long term. Regarding intensity, moderately heavy loads seem to elicit the greatest gains for most categories of training, although examples of very high rates were noted at both very low and very high intensities when the sets were performed with maximum effort or taken to muscular failure. Thus, achieving recruitment of the greatest number of muscle fibres possible and exposing them to the exercise stimulus may be as important as the training load per se. For the total volume or duration of activity, the results suggest a dose-response curve characterised by an increase in the rate of growth in the initial part of the curve, which is followed by the region of peak rate of increase, which in turn is followed by a plateau or even a decline. It is recognised that the conclusions drawn in this paper mainly concern relatively short-term training in previously untrained subjects and that in highly trained subjects or for training studies extending for several months, the dose-response trends and the hypertrophic effects of different modes and types of strength training may be very different. The same may well be true for other populations, such as elderly and injured individuals."
    post edited by buzzer - 2009/07/17 09:03:52
    • Total Posts : 1849
    • Reward points: 5175
    • Joined: 2006/07/26 11:34:12
    • Status: offline
    Re:stimulate, dont annihalate 2009/07/17 09:20:03 (permalink)
    and also
    A review on the above research, by DR. winnett. I believe it simplifies things a bit. source link (also published by lyle in his forum): Page Not Found

    Science Department

    How Does the Training Load and Frequency of Training Impact Muscular Development?
    Wernborn M, Augustsson J, Thomee R.
    The influence of frequency, intensity, volume, and mode of training on whole muscle cross-sectional area in humans.
    Sports Medicine.2007; 37: 225-264.
    Wernborn and colleagues undertook an ambitious task. Their aim was to investigate through existing studies on resistance training how the training load and frequency of training affected muscular development as measured by increases in muscle cross-section areas (CSA).
    Most prior reviews of resistance training have focused on strength and strength related outcomes. There are various recommendations and protocols based on the belief that training for strength and training for hypertrophy require different approaches. Resistance training ‘camps’ promote their own special ‘hypertrophy routines’. Currently, there is little empirical support for this widely held and promoted belief and set of hypertrophy routines

    . Wenborn et al. conducted a detailed search of studies conducted from 1970 through 2006 that included scanning technologies to assess CSA. There were only enough studies in the literature that adequately measured CSA for the quadriceps (44 studies) and for the biceps (elbow flexors; 16 studies). For each study, Werborn et al. were able to derive a CSA measure for the entire duration for the study as well as a rate measure.

    A major caveat is that most of the studies involved participants with no previous experience in resistance training. The rate of CSA change is greater for people who were previously inexperienced than for people training for two to three years. For people training for many years, the rate of change is very small or negligible. Despite this caveat about the generalizability of the findings to experienced trainees, a number of the findings and statements made in the narrative are of interest. However, there also are some points of contradiction in their narrative and conclusions.

    For both the quadriceps and biceps, training those muscle groups two times per week produced a greater rate of CSA than training once per week. However, training those muscle groups three times per week did not produce a greater rate of CSA than training those muscle groups twice per week.

    Training those muscle groups with less than 60% of a 1 RM (60% of the resistance that can be used for one maximum repetition) generally produced a lower rate of CSA than training at about 70% to 85% of 1 RM. Volume of exercise was based on total number of repetitions performed per muscle group in a session. This can be a confusing and meaningless way to measure volume because the number of repetitions performed with a given resistance is dependent upon the duration of the repetitions as well as a number of other factors such as how strictly repetitions were performed.

    But, if the volume of work affects increases in CSA, what aspect of the volume of work is important? Wernborn et al. noted (p. 249) that: “Based on the available evidence, we suggest that the time-tension integral is a more important parameter than the mechanical work output (force x distance).”

    In other words, rather than the number of repetitions, the actual time under tension appears to be the more important stimulus for increasing CSA. If that is true, then performing repetitions with very short durations, or performing ‘explosive’ repetitions, may not be very effective motor recruitment strategies. Rapid movement and literally throwing a weight involves using a good deal of momentum and diminishes the time under tension.

    Besides some issues with definitions and measurement, there are some other points of inconsistency in this empirically based review. Wernborn et al. noted a number of times that force, the amount of resistance, is a critical factor for increasing CSA. Yet, as noted above, their own data indicated that there was a wide range of force (percent of 1RM) that was effective for increasing CSA. The authors also indicated a number of times that the size principle of motor unit recruitment (see April, 2007) points to the use of high force to maximize motor unit recruitment. Then, in a number of other instances, Werborn et al. noted the importance of using near-maximal effort in training (p. 248) when using more moderate resistance and provided evidence of this point from one elegantly designed study.

    In fact, earlier in the paper, Werborn indicated: “Achieving recruitment of the greatest possible number of motor units in the target muscle(s) and making those motor units fire at high rates and for sufficient lengths of time are obvious prerequisites for inducing significant hypertrophy."

    Still, it appears that maximal loads are not necessary to ensure these conditions are met providing that the training is performed with close to maximum effort in at least one of the sets.” (p.244). The key variable for maximizing motor unit recruitment seems to be the degree of effort and not force or volume.

    Despite, their extensive empirical review, Werborn et al. concluded with training recommendations that are familiar and actually contradict some of their own earlier points.

    For conventional training, they recommend training muscle groups two-three times per week (their own data indicated no differences in outcomes between two to three days per muscle group), using a resistance that is 75% to 80% of 1 RM (their own data indicated a wider range force and that effort is the key factor not load), and performing three to six sets per muscle groups (the prior quote suggested that it may be the near maximal effort in one set that is the most important stimulus for increasing CSA).

    Bottom-line: At 40 pages, 11 figures (graphics with data), two large tables, and with 227 references, this is likely the most extensive review ever published of training variables affecting muscular hypertrophy. The data and long review seem to obscure very simple findings and training recommendations.

    Consider even the issue of sets per muscle group. As has been often noted (see April, 2007), many exercises affect multiple muscle groups. Suppose performing three sets per muscle group using one set per exercise was optimal. An upper body routine can include one set of a chest press, a seated overhead press at 80 degrees, and dips or a similar movement. Given how exercises affect different muscle groups, then chest, deltoids, and triceps would have been trained with three sets.

    You can see how this is true for other exercises and muscle groups. The findings then simply indicate that you should perform a routine with exercises that train muscle groups twice per week and you should have a high degree of effort at the end of all or most of your sets. Not much else seems to matter. Notice also that this simple approach would maximize both strength and muscular hypertrophy.
    Jump to:
    ©2019 All content is copyright of and its use elsewhere is prohibited.
    (posting guidelines | privacy | advertise | earnings disclaimer | contact us | supported by)
    © 2019 APG vNext Commercial Version 5.5