Re: Strength and Cross Sectional Area

[Guest guest]

Dan Partelly wrote:

I would argue that in conditions of high speed (high speed -strength, explosive

strength), even neural components of absolute strength are prevented from

expressing totally in output.

I believe that different force time curves will differently allow expression of

max-strength in a specific movement. But is it mandated to decouple CSA and

neural factors in this case ? IMO, role of both varies with muscle action speed.

-----

Dan,

That's a good point. In my experience, here's a useful way to look at at: The

" central " (neural) parts of the system are analogous to a software program

sending commands to the " peripheral " (muscular) parts, or hardware. In this

sense, both parts of the system express themselves across the performance

spectrum.

Tasks that require high RFD and power outputs -- in other words, running/jumping

and many other things athletes do -- literally put them under time pressure.

Task performance offers a window on the limitations of either subsystem. If the

athlete hasrelatively low FT fiber composition, but haslearned sound motor

programs, I think the hardware would tend to be the performance-limiting factor.

As you state, the neural components of strength would not be able to fully

express. In the opposite case -- unsound programs w/ high FT fiber composition

-- the software might be the limiting factor.

Up to a point, the computer analogy is a helpful model for understanding

neuromuscular performance. But it only takes us so far, however. The system

we're talking about is constantly remodeling itself based on task demands.

Task-specific signals are constantly transmitted back and forth between our

hardware and software; and a constellation of upgrades (in my case, downgrades)

is taking place. Certain components seem to be more plastic than others, but we

may be the ultimate example of a " complex adaptive system " .

This is the central thesis I developed in the " Essentials of Strength Training &

Conditioning " chapter I referenced: Speed is a skillful expression of strength.

For this reason, we should use an educationally based approach to optimize our

athletes' performance and minimize their injury risks. (Disclosure: I received a

flat honorarium for authoring that manuscript, and don't get any royalties when

people buy the book). There's a link to that text, as well as others, on the

contacts/links page of our web site.

Sorry for rambling a bit.

Best regards,

Plisk

Excelsior Sports •Shelton CT

www.excelsiorsports.com

Prepare To Be A Champion!

[Guest guest]

Dan Partelly wrote:

I would argue that in conditions of high speed (high speed -strength, explosive

strength), even neural components of absolute strength are prevented from

expressing totally in output.

I believe that different force time curves will differently allow expression of

max-strength in a specific movement. But is it mandated to decouple CSA and

neural factors in this case ? IMO, role of both varies with muscle action speed.

-----

Dan,

That's a good point. In my experience, here's a useful way to look at at: The

" central " (neural) parts of the system are analogous to a software program

sending commands to the " peripheral " (muscular) parts, or hardware. In this

sense, both parts of the system express themselves across the performance

spectrum.

Tasks that require high RFD and power outputs -- in other words, running/jumping

and many other things athletes do -- literally put them under time pressure.

Task performance offers a window on the limitations of either subsystem. If the

athlete hasrelatively low FT fiber composition, but haslearned sound motor

programs, I think the hardware would tend to be the performance-limiting factor.

As you state, the neural components of strength would not be able to fully

express. In the opposite case -- unsound programs w/ high FT fiber composition

-- the software might be the limiting factor.

Up to a point, the computer analogy is a helpful model for understanding

neuromuscular performance. But it only takes us so far, however. The system

we're talking about is constantly remodeling itself based on task demands.

Task-specific signals are constantly transmitted back and forth between our

hardware and software; and a constellation of upgrades (in my case, downgrades)

is taking place. Certain components seem to be more plastic than others, but we

may be the ultimate example of a " complex adaptive system " .

This is the central thesis I developed in the " Essentials of Strength Training &

Conditioning " chapter I referenced: Speed is a skillful expression of strength.

For this reason, we should use an educationally based approach to optimize our

athletes' performance and minimize their injury risks. (Disclosure: I received a

flat honorarium for authoring that manuscript, and don't get any royalties when

people buy the book). There's a link to that text, as well as others, on the

contacts/links page of our web site.

Sorry for rambling a bit.

Best regards,

Plisk

Excelsior Sports •Shelton CT

www.excelsiorsports.com

Prepare To Be A Champion!

[Guest guest]

Dan Partelly wrote:

I would argue that in conditions of high speed (high speed -strength, explosive

strength), even neural components of absolute strength are prevented from

expressing totally in output.

I believe that different force time curves will differently allow expression of

max-strength in a specific movement. But is it mandated to decouple CSA and

neural factors in this case ? IMO, role of both varies with muscle action speed.

-----

Dan,

That's a good point. In my experience, here's a useful way to look at at: The

" central " (neural) parts of the system are analogous to a software program

sending commands to the " peripheral " (muscular) parts, or hardware. In this

sense, both parts of the system express themselves across the performance

spectrum.

Tasks that require high RFD and power outputs -- in other words, running/jumping

and many other things athletes do -- literally put them under time pressure.

Task performance offers a window on the limitations of either subsystem. If the

athlete hasrelatively low FT fiber composition, but haslearned sound motor

programs, I think the hardware would tend to be the performance-limiting factor.

As you state, the neural components of strength would not be able to fully

express. In the opposite case -- unsound programs w/ high FT fiber composition

-- the software might be the limiting factor.

Up to a point, the computer analogy is a helpful model for understanding

neuromuscular performance. But it only takes us so far, however. The system

we're talking about is constantly remodeling itself based on task demands.

Task-specific signals are constantly transmitted back and forth between our

hardware and software; and a constellation of upgrades (in my case, downgrades)

is taking place. Certain components seem to be more plastic than others, but we

may be the ultimate example of a " complex adaptive system " .

This is the central thesis I developed in the " Essentials of Strength Training &

Conditioning " chapter I referenced: Speed is a skillful expression of strength.

For this reason, we should use an educationally based approach to optimize our

athletes' performance and minimize their injury risks. (Disclosure: I received a

flat honorarium for authoring that manuscript, and don't get any royalties when

people buy the book). There's a link to that text, as well as others, on the

contacts/links page of our web site.

Sorry for rambling a bit.

Best regards,

Plisk

Excelsior Sports •Shelton CT

www.excelsiorsports.com

Prepare To Be A Champion!

[Guest guest]

Dan Partelly wrote:

In the regard of sarcoplasmic vs myofibrylar hypertrophy. I dont

believe that a certain training protocol based on repetition range

would induce preferential up-regulation of protein synthesis in either

contractile and sarcoplasmic fraction. I seen many papers regarding

hypertrophy, and no one seems to support this preferential hypertrophy

type based on rep protocol.

Casler writes:

Hi Dan,

Interesting thoughts. I was under the impression that all accepted the idea

that both sarcomere and sarcoplamsic hypertrophies were linked, but that

training models that tended toward " lower tensions, and higher fatigues "

produced a slightly greater stimulus to " non-contractile " elements, and the

lower stressors (lower actual tensions) to the fibers reduced their

hypertrophy.

It would seem that models like 3x3 and even 5x5 might cause a different

ratio than 15-20 x 5?

Your thoughts?

Dan Partelly wrote:

Weightlifters are being many time indicated as a example of

myofibrilar hypertrophy, because they are so " small " compared to bb.

Yes, they are " small " , but you all did notice the very strong

development of their quads, present in most WLs, no ? If all their

muscles would be so hypertrophy like their quads, those guys would be

quite huge overall.

Casler writes:

Might that no be predicted since most every training move involves a front

squat?

It seems that Quads, Glutes, Hams, and Erectors get significant hypertrophy.

However that might not truly demonstrate or illustrate the ratio of

sarcomere to sarcoplasmic contribution.

Dan Partelly wrote:

But the end result is of course determined of many other factors, for

example a certain rep protocol may determine in what type of muscle

fibers hypertrophy will occur, myosin heavy chain shifts, and so on...

As for a definitive answer to what degree muscle can change

phenotype, I still read every paper on this subject which gets in my

hand. Im not prepared yet to have an extensive discussion on it.

Casler writes:

I too am rather curious as to what the science shows us, but would look at

the Tension/Fatigue model to see that we have " tension " stimuli, and

" fatigue/metabolic " stimuli, and it would seem that favorable stresses to

either would favor specific adaptation to the stressors (simple SAID)

But if you come across anything definitive, please post.

Regards,

Casler

TRI-VECTOR 3-D Force Systems

Century City, CA

[Guest guest]

Dan Partelly wrote:

In the regard of sarcoplasmic vs myofibrylar hypertrophy. I dont

believe that a certain training protocol based on repetition range

would induce preferential up-regulation of protein synthesis in either

contractile and sarcoplasmic fraction. I seen many papers regarding

hypertrophy, and no one seems to support this preferential hypertrophy

type based on rep protocol.

Casler writes:

Hi Dan,

Interesting thoughts. I was under the impression that all accepted the idea

that both sarcomere and sarcoplamsic hypertrophies were linked, but that

training models that tended toward " lower tensions, and higher fatigues "

produced a slightly greater stimulus to " non-contractile " elements, and the

lower stressors (lower actual tensions) to the fibers reduced their

hypertrophy.

It would seem that models like 3x3 and even 5x5 might cause a different

ratio than 15-20 x 5?

Your thoughts?

Dan Partelly wrote:

Weightlifters are being many time indicated as a example of

myofibrilar hypertrophy, because they are so " small " compared to bb.

Yes, they are " small " , but you all did notice the very strong

development of their quads, present in most WLs, no ? If all their

muscles would be so hypertrophy like their quads, those guys would be

quite huge overall.

Casler writes:

Might that no be predicted since most every training move involves a front

squat?

It seems that Quads, Glutes, Hams, and Erectors get significant hypertrophy.

However that might not truly demonstrate or illustrate the ratio of

sarcomere to sarcoplasmic contribution.

Dan Partelly wrote:

But the end result is of course determined of many other factors, for

example a certain rep protocol may determine in what type of muscle

fibers hypertrophy will occur, myosin heavy chain shifts, and so on...

As for a definitive answer to what degree muscle can change

phenotype, I still read every paper on this subject which gets in my

hand. Im not prepared yet to have an extensive discussion on it.

Casler writes:

I too am rather curious as to what the science shows us, but would look at

the Tension/Fatigue model to see that we have " tension " stimuli, and

" fatigue/metabolic " stimuli, and it would seem that favorable stresses to

either would favor specific adaptation to the stressors (simple SAID)

But if you come across anything definitive, please post.

Regards,

Casler

TRI-VECTOR 3-D Force Systems

Century City, CA

[Guest guest]

Dan Partelly wrote:

In the regard of sarcoplasmic vs myofibrylar hypertrophy. I dont

believe that a certain training protocol based on repetition range

would induce preferential up-regulation of protein synthesis in either

contractile and sarcoplasmic fraction. I seen many papers regarding

hypertrophy, and no one seems to support this preferential hypertrophy

type based on rep protocol.

Casler writes:

Hi Dan,

Interesting thoughts. I was under the impression that all accepted the idea

that both sarcomere and sarcoplamsic hypertrophies were linked, but that

training models that tended toward " lower tensions, and higher fatigues "

produced a slightly greater stimulus to " non-contractile " elements, and the

lower stressors (lower actual tensions) to the fibers reduced their

hypertrophy.

It would seem that models like 3x3 and even 5x5 might cause a different

ratio than 15-20 x 5?

Your thoughts?

Dan Partelly wrote:

Weightlifters are being many time indicated as a example of

myofibrilar hypertrophy, because they are so " small " compared to bb.

Yes, they are " small " , but you all did notice the very strong

development of their quads, present in most WLs, no ? If all their

muscles would be so hypertrophy like their quads, those guys would be

quite huge overall.

Casler writes:

Might that no be predicted since most every training move involves a front

squat?

It seems that Quads, Glutes, Hams, and Erectors get significant hypertrophy.

However that might not truly demonstrate or illustrate the ratio of

sarcomere to sarcoplasmic contribution.

Dan Partelly wrote:

But the end result is of course determined of many other factors, for

example a certain rep protocol may determine in what type of muscle

fibers hypertrophy will occur, myosin heavy chain shifts, and so on...

As for a definitive answer to what degree muscle can change

phenotype, I still read every paper on this subject which gets in my

hand. Im not prepared yet to have an extensive discussion on it.

Casler writes:

I too am rather curious as to what the science shows us, but would look at

the Tension/Fatigue model to see that we have " tension " stimuli, and

" fatigue/metabolic " stimuli, and it would seem that favorable stresses to

either would favor specific adaptation to the stressors (simple SAID)

But if you come across anything definitive, please post.

Regards,

Casler

TRI-VECTOR 3-D Force Systems

Century City, CA

[Guest guest]

Hi ,

Yes, the 3x3 and 15x5 will produce wildly different results. In the

first place, 3x3 will not cause significant hypertrophy , if properly

executed, while the second method will (again, executed properly , and

I mean here lad , density .... you get the point. )

Now , in my opinion a good way to think at this is to use a hyper

simplified model and imagine 2 concentric cylinders, the outer one is

the muscle fiber itself, while the inner one is the myofibril.

The volume of a cylinder is pi*r^2*h . You can see this is not linear,

but quadratic. The result is that at a significant level of

hypertrophy, the volume of outer cylinder grows faster than the volume

of much smaller inner cylinder, the myofibril (and their CSA for that

matter, obeys the same ).

This has implications. For example, the density of myofibrils per

volume unit may decrease, and thus a different CSA structure is revealed.

Also this leads to an decrease for example the *density* of

mitochondria, and this results in very bad consequences if the athlete

is involved in sports where oxidative capacity of the muscle is

required.

This is why IMO in sports, one should always seek optimal, not maximal

hypertrophy. Particularly, I agree with prof. Bompa saying that in

athletics muscle mass is rarely needed.

This doesn't mean I'm afraid of the so called hypertrophy

methodologies. They certainly have a place in the preparedness of an

athlete.

This message reflects only my opinion. It is not intended to be a

definitive statement or universal truth on the matter.

Dan Partelly

Oradea, Romania

>

> But the end result is of course determined of many other factors, for

> example a certain rep protocol may determine in what type of muscle

> fibers hypertrophy will occur, myosin heavy chain shifts, and so on...

>

> As for a definitive answer to what degree muscle can change

> phenotype, I still read every paper on this subject which gets in my

> hand. Im not prepared yet to have an extensive discussion on it.

>

> Casler writes:

>

> I too am rather curious as to what the science shows us, but would

look at

> the Tension/Fatigue model to see that we have " tension " stimuli, and

> " fatigue/metabolic " stimuli, and it would seem that favorable

stresses to

> either would favor specific adaptation to the stressors (simple SAID)

>

> But if you come across anything definitive, please post.

>

> Regards,

>

> Casler

> TRI-VECTOR 3-D Force Systems

> Century City, CA

>