Let me first start by saying What Is Good World!? This is my first blog entry, so hi mom and family and thank you for reading this. I am your navigator on this journey to getting Jacked and Tan or “Slim and Lean” (for you ladies out there). ***I hate using the words slim and lean by the way because they are too general and everyone has their own interpretation. Also I think women need to generally put on muscle mass before they “slim down.” It’s too Jillian Michaels-esque. I’ll touch on this subject in a later post. Hate is not a strong enough word for this woman So, this topic is a pretty old one, but I still seem to be getting questions about it still. And, with new research out from McMaster’s University concerning the matter (I mean new as in August - so really not new at all), it seems to be continuously debated. If you know me, I’m a huge proponent of lifting heavy to achieve muscle growth, so when I saw this research I was very skeptical. Hypertrophy (hi-pur-tro-phee not hyper-trophy), or muscle growth, is a stage in exercise programming that bodybuilders are very familiar with, along with steroid cycling and asking there significant others to wipe their butt because there lats are so big they can’t reach butt (no joke). The only thing brown about this guy is his tan and when no one’s around to wipe his butt The ideal set/rep ranges according to “authorities” are 2-4 sets of 8-12 reps. This phase in programming is supposed to induce the most protein synthesis, or in English (do you speak it!?), build the most muscle. However, that research I was yapping about earlier completely contradicts this. For you geeks out there, here’s the link to check it out. Basically, the research used two different groups; the first group performed 90% of their one-rep max to muscle failure and the second performed 30% muscle failure. The keyword here is failure, so keep that in mind. Through different measurements, protein synthesis was significantly greater in the group that performed the high-rep low weight group. After reading this, my mind has been completely changed! I’m totally switching my thought process up and moving away from what I’ve seen work on so many of my clients! Just kidding, this research is super flawed and should be flagged. First off, the measurement tool for “leg strength” they used was a freakin’ knee extension machine. You know, the one people at the gym sit on their butts and extend at their knee making contorted, pre-orgasm faces? What a great way to train - sit down all day, and then go to the gym and sit down more! Don’t even get me started on people that do the machine circuits. American’s are told all the time that we as a culture sit WAY too much, so doing machines that put you in a seated position – well, that’s just ignorance at it’s finest. Back to my point, I believe scientists are behind the times in using a leg extension machine to measure strength or anything really. Knee extensions are bad for your knee (knee becomes a hinge joint, which is no bueno). The squat is and always has been the best way to measure lower body strength. The squat is a much more functional movement. Sadly, scientists who conduct much of the research in our field use bodybuilding approaches to conduct their research. Secondly, how many people that you know doing high-reps low weight go to failure? Yeah, I don’t know any either. It’s always the lady standing two inches from the mirror with 2 lb dumbbells doing curls that go the same exact tempo the whole time. Her face is always stays the same throughout the reps (no grimace or signs of uncomfort), and she always stares in the mirror after her set of 2 million reps at her biceps, wondering why no change is occurring after 2 months of training. Third, the title of the study is extremely misleading. The authors aren’t really measuring hig-rep vs low-rep training, they are measuring time under tension, which is a lot different. The time your muscles are under tension does result in larger muscular growth at lower percentages for times that are close to muscular failure (keyword = Failure) as is seen in speed skaters who have gigantic quad muscles. Jacked: check; Tan: no check Time under tension has been studied actually quite extensively, and the fact that McMaster’s University decided to study it again and give it a different name is misleading and moronic. Second to lastly, there is current debate as to whether protein synthesis is a good predictor of muscle growth. Check out this article by Brett Contreras which says that “your muscles won't grow unless the satellite cells surrounding your muscle fibers donate their nuclei to your muscles so they can produce more genetic material to signal the cells to grow.” Lastly, there is too much variability in testing to muscle failure. That’s like testing how many times someone can get stabbed in the face without quitting (i.e. Paul Pierce). Going to muscular failure is extremely uncomfortable as I’m sure many of you who have done so know what I’m talking about. While you are grinding out the last 25% of your reps, finishing becomes a mental and no longer a physical measure. In other words, it measures how “tough” you are. Everyone has different pain thresholds based off genetics, level of experience with failure work, and many other factors, which makes reps to failure too variable of a measure. What does this mean for you? Keep picking up heavy shit, and if you decide to do higher reps, than do it to failure (and not with pink dumbbells). Holler at ya boy, Dylan
