Theories on muscle fibre recruitment

Soldato
Joined
30 Sep 2006
Posts
5,278
Location
Midlands, UK
So,
something i read got me wondering about this.

Theory 1 (example)
Train [bodypart] twice per week, intensely and go to failure for max fibre recruitment. Rest enough to recover and grow, then train again.

Theory 2 (example)
Train [bodypart] every other day, but training moderately intensely so as to promote hypertrohpy but NOT to be in a catabolic state for the next training session.

What's your thoughts on this guys?
If nutrition is in check would you consider one theory to be more sound that the other?
Do you see benefits for cycling both in your routines?
Do you think it purely depends on the individual?

Really interested in your opinions here.
 
Muscle fibre recruitment is slightly different from what you're describing, here.

Each theory has a lot of assumptions in them (training to failure, catabolism, intensityetc.) that aren't strictly correct...

- Most training results in certain catabolic conditions, anyway;
- training to failure will put enormous stress on the tissue, resulting in in significant catabolism due to the kind of damage done.
- training at maximum intensity (100% RM is pretty pointless for hypertrophy, as the stress is on the nervous system rather than the muscle).

So essentially what I'm saying is the first theory is rubbish, and the second is closer to common sense/understood paradigm.

You can then throw changes in rest periods, venous occlusion, so on and so forth into the equation, but ultimately, if you're after hypertrophy:

- Reduce requirement for central drive (i.e. more volume is better);
- Shorter rest times (increased oxidative stress, whilst allowing the fueling mechanisms for your muscles to replenish);
- Ignore anything you ever read in Men's Health.

Increasing volume by increasing strength (i.e. weight per rep) is a very, very good way to go. As such, most bodybuilders are actually pretty damn strong.
 
My two penneth -

Training to failure doesn't necessarily mean maximum fibre recruitment - you could fail at say low reps before you've activated the optimum number of fibres, and you could also fail whilst your form is ****, you're cheating by swinging and a whole host of other sub optimal conditions which mean you fail when you have a lower amount of fibres contracting.

Don't ask me to cite the references because its a long time ago, but at that time I read a lot of papers which were about controlling the rep, slow speed, eliminating momentum being some of the key factors in encouraging more fibre recruitment.

Then there are some exercises where training to failure is not easy and/ or safe without set up and proper spotting - squats being a good example, I personally don't want to give out whilst barely out the hole!

I slightly differ to what mrthingyx says but accept it may be about definitions rather than a completely different philosophy - I'm an advocate of intensity for hypertrophy, but by that I mean maximal effort over a relatively brief time so agree on shorter rest times, but the volume of work should be smaller in terms of number of sets so that the intensity doesn't destroy you - ie I suggest you can't maximise intensity through load each and every rep of 5 sets for example; but you could over 1-2 sets. Also I wouldn't define intensity at 1RM, but at a rep range that works for the individual - typically if you look at the graphs in Rippetoe's starting strength, the hypertrophic rep range is generalised as 8-12 reps, but personally its 6-8 for me, others it might be 12-15 that activates them to grow.

Agree entirely with the route to size is through increases in strength. But back to rep range, very few people will grow in size by doing sets of 2-3 reps or singles etc by themselves. Usually they are cycling the rep ranges and using low rep sets as a foundation for maximising load at higher rep ranges.

The other point about recovery is a fascinating one, and where everyone agrees that you only grow after recovery/ rest and not in the gym, opinion about training before or after 'full recovery' is very divided. Some argue you should effectively train your muscles out of getting sore where others stick to longer rest periods as intensity rises.

I don't think there's an absolute answer to this one - I think it depends on your body. I'm an ex gymnast with a small frame and strong explosive muscle strength - for me I used to train with weights half the frequency of other people, so resting longer, but my strength and power gains were better (I also had more time to practice the technical aspects of the disciplines - accepting this may also contribute to hypertrophy too). Competitors and other athletes I knew lifted weights twice as often but to my mind at lower intensity so they could get back in the gym more often. Horses for courses.

Apart from cycling rep ranges the only other thing I used to do was have alternate sessions where one was very focused on control and hard contractions at the end of each rep, with slow tempo; and the other was heavier weight and faster explosive rep form/ tempo. A German gymnast introduced this idea to me and personally I found it could be effective, especially when approaching a plateau in performance.

Precise method for me is not an academic or strictly empirical one, its about defining goals, measuring inputs and outcomes and listening to your body and being open minded so that you can learn from your results. The best way to learn (for me) is to do first and study second rather than the other way around.
 
Training to failure is more likely to mean frying your CNS which has a bigger impact on your training, health, recovery and is not conducive to sensible training.

This should not be confused with time under tension which is a useful and proven aspect of building muscle.

When it comes to both the central and peripheral nervous systems training to failure is not recommended for muscle growth or even strength training (to an extent - i.e. pushing 1RMs once a cycle is fine, doing it every session - no.)

As your muscle fibers tire and start to fail or imminently fail your CNS recruits all available motor units it can and tries to fire them as much as it can. However, as your maximum contraction continues the frequency of which your CNS fires at it maximum potential decreases and the level at which it fires decreases in general.

I won't bore you with the sodium/potassium transport pathway for ATP, or the synthesis and breakdown of acetylcholine (ACh), but it is an interesting read which should help you understand how each neuron must release acetylcholine (ACh) (a neurotransmitter), every time it is triggered of fires a motor unit. The short end of it is, as these substrates are exhausted (potassium/sdoium cycle etc...) failure starts to approach we still use max effort to lift the weight, so it isn't a liner relationship. Overtrained or recently trained muscles require a much higher current than a rested muscle for strong contractions to be achieved - if you don't get a strong contraction, your body isn't able to fire ACh correctly, or enough.

Since as you approach failure, or you have been training hard, a larger signal is required to actually complete a contraction of the same size as a recovered and rested muscle. So by training to just before failure will still create the microtrauma in your muscle fibres without draining the CNS (well actually the PNS (peripheral nervous system)).

As we know your CNS works by sending lots of tiny electrical impulses across your body via nerves to the the muscle or motor unit you're wanting to move. Believe it or not the transmission of these signals can't actually be sustained for long period with speed and power for the optimum frequency - hence why we can't sprint for more than a relatively short distance. Going back to the sodium/potassium cycle and other substrates, as their concentrations decrease, your body gets to the point where these contractions become weaker, more laborious and as we have all experienced a lot slower (that grinding last rep!!!!). Pus hard enough, and you end up in a state of inhibition. This basically prevents any further stimulus - i.e. your body will just not physically be able to move in that manner, that is pure exhaustion.

A lot of research is still being done about this, but your mood and mental state can have a profound effect on your CNS - which is why a lot of people concentrate, psyche themselves out a get themselves "in the zone" before doing some big lifts.. obviously you can still over train doing this so you have to be aware of not doing 1RMs all the time - or pushing yourself that hard every session. If you do decide to train to failure each time you train you are going to set your nerve cells into what is basically a constant state of inhibition - this will lead you to effectively "fry" your CNS far too much - and I use the word "fry" quite purposefully as this will be by way of an increased output of electrical impulses - excessive electricity = burn out!. So this basically leads to over training, as I mentioned right at the top of my post this will lead to you wanting to take some time off, you might get fluy, and your mental states becomes pretty low/negative as such you end up lacking motivation, appetite, and your hormonal balance will be completely a kilter etc.... However more importantly it can potentially mean that you're not also getting any muscular failure, which is exactly the opposite of what you're after, if you fry your CNS it means you're not working your muscles efficiently or enough and owing to your time off and lack of motivation, you will take 2 steps back and one forward. You end up gaining NOTHING every time you train this way. Adding your muscular AND neuro failure, you end up training badly, with poor form since you're not able to activate everything properly, which means you may injure yourself and have to take EVEN MORE time off... something to think about, you end up not putting on muscle, get skinnier and weaker and have to take time off... ;)

So... muscular failure, it doesn't matter if it is concentric, eccentric or isometric or anything -tric is just not needed if you want to build muscle and get stronger.

What you DO need however, is:

1) Good form
2) continuous training (even if you're not making immediate progress it is better than pushing yourself 100% all the time)
3) build up of fatigue (this is fine, as long as it is not over training(
4) good diet
5) Good rest/sleep/recovery.

Your muscles do need enough training stimulus for micro tears (or microtrauma) in your muscle fibres to happen (this causes your body's regenerative cycle to kick in, builds more muscle to repair the damaged ones). This will aslo trigger intracellular calcium levels to rise as a result this will bring an onsite of both growth and detoxifying processes (e.g. reduction of lactic acid for one) but wiuthout caning your CNS.

Your CNS is a vital part of your training but caning it all the time will be detrimental in the long term.
 
All good posts guys thanks.

One thing i've learned over the 20+ years in the gym is that i've still yet to find any real solid theories where there are ZERO counter-theories for it.
So i tend not to take "this theory won't work because..." with a pinch of salt.

That's not saying that i disagree with anything you guys have said. I tend to subscribe to the positive theories so to speak, but don't dismiss another [negative] theory on someone elses say so.

Example; Athlean-X, Jeff Cavalier, strength coach, physical therapist etc.
Amazing 'athletic' physique, very strong. (must be doing something right)
I'm not a total fanboi, nor do i subscribe to his program. I simply dip in and out of watching his videos; a lot of it makes sense to me and i've incorporated what i think makes sense. Some other stuff, not so much. He subscribes to going to failure pretty much every workout. But he also supports TUT.

I'm at the age where i need to minimise injuries (i've had a life full of em from crashing and bashing my way through my younger years :rolleyes:). So if i feel well oiled and strong i'll go for a workout where i can concentrate and lift heavy, often to failure.
My main focus for the past year though has been TUT; i find it very beneficial. Makes me sore as hell, but minimises chance of injury (for me anyway).

So, back to my OP, i believe there's room for both types i think, as jernau_gergeh said he alternated similar type of training. I've found that doing this allows me to train for longer periods (months) without having to have a lay-off.
 
Back
Top Bottom