Cold water immersion (a.k.a., “ice baths”) has become a popular method amongst exercise enthusiasts and athletes to enhance recovery after an intense training bout. The strategy involves exposing either the trained limb or the whole body to very cold liquid temperatures. According to p...
Brad Schoenfeld, Ph.D, C.S.C.S., is an internationally renowned fitness expert and widely regarded as one of the leading authorities on body composition training (muscle development and fat loss). He is a lifetime drug-free bodybuilder, and has won numerous natural bodybuilding titles.
Entries (RSS)
A bit late to the party, but I want to say I think that this is probably the best T-Nation article that has been published in 2011.
Congratulations on such a great job.
Comment by Nick Efthimiou — June 1, 2011 @ 7:33 am
Many thanks Nick. Bret and I worked very hard to provide a research-based perspective on the topic. Glad it came across 🙂
Brad
Comment by Brad — June 1, 2011 @ 8:31 am
Nice on, Brad. T-nation badly needs articles like these than opinion-based ones.
I still think that there is a big genetic component here though. It is a really interesting topic.
Comment by Anoop — June 4, 2011 @ 10:16 am
Thanks Anoop. I completely agree that genetics play a huge role. This is not even debatable. But studies generally show the genetic component accounts for about 60 to 90% of results–that still leaves a significant portion accountable for training and nutrition. I’m sure you’d agree that some programs are better for producing hypertrophic gains than others, right? So with this in mind, what then are the factors that play a role? Much is still not known and we can only speculate based on current research. Glad that the article stimulates discussion. Hopefully we will learn more about the specifics as additional research comes to light. It is a very interesting topic!
Brad
Comment by Brad — June 4, 2011 @ 1:11 pm
I think elite level bodybuilders are too drugged and are too far up in the genetics pool to reveal much. I would try to look at natural powerlifters and natural bodybuilders and I doubt there would be a big difference in FFM.
I just think the biggest difference between powerlifters and bodybuilders is the exercises bodybuilders do for body parts which powerlifters ignore or gets ignored because of the technique. For example, biceps, traps, calves, upper chest and such.
Is there a difference because of the volume? I just think almost all powerlifting routines are high volumes. Most routines have accessory exercises which they go for high reps. And almost all routines hit certain lifts twice a week. West side is a good example. And this probably why you won’t see a big difference in FFM in natural bodybuilders and powerlifters.
And coordination can only take you so far. Once your nervous system adaptations are plateaued, you have to increase muscle to increase strength. And hence the very reason they have weight categories or why they take steroids in powerlifting.
Are high reps better than low? The only study SO FAR which showed an increase in protein synthesis is the phillips study. So I ‘kind’ of lean towards it recently. In the campos study, there was no difference between high and low for fiber size though.
My point is that all we have some correlative evidence and it is a bit grey than most people think. The rest of it will be continued in Las Vegas (:-
Comment by Anoop — June 6, 2011 @ 9:02 pm
Hi Brad,
I found your article ‘Why Bodybuilders are More Jacked than Powerlifters’ fascinating and extremely informative.
While my understanding of Power and Strength training relative to Hypertrophy training remains unchanged, the article has created a bit of confusion with respect to hypertrophy vs. muscle endurance training.
The article states that high reps to failure are shown to be better than low reps for myofibrillar growth and protein synthesis. Accepting this logic, why wouldn’t equally as effective hypertrophic gains be obtained by training say at 50% or less than one’s 1RM until failure? Obviously failure might occur at 50 or more reps, but wouldn’t the time under tension (TUT) compensate for the lighter load and contribute to increased hypertrophy?
We’ve been taught the 6-12 rep range for hypertrophy and the 15-20 rep endurance rule, but if (TUT) is a major factor in the difference between the powerlifter and bodybuilder muscularity, why wouldn’t the same (TUT) rule apply to endurance rep training?
Tracy Anderson and Gwyneth Paltrow would be an extreme example of this, but theoretically couldn’t one could still do enough reps at these lighter weights to create longer (TUT) and create hypertrophic gains?
Obviously I don’t subscribe to the Tracy Anderson training theory, but if (TUT) is such an important factor to muscularity, then minus the performance enhancing drugs, what creates the difference between a Donnie Thompson (strength training model) vs. Ronnie Coleman (hypertrophy training model) compared to a Ronnie Coleman (hypertrophy training model) vs. Gwyneth Paltrow (endurance training model)?
Comment by Charles — June 8, 2011 @ 9:39 pm
Hey Charles:
Thanks for the feedback. The study you are referring to looked at post-exercise protein synthesis following two different protocols: a high rep (~30 reps) or a low rep (~3 reps) routine. While the higher rep protocol produced somewhat greater protein synthesis, it is questionable whether these results will result in greater hypertrophy. For various reasons, acute protein synthesis does not necessarily correlate with growth over time. Moreover, several studies have shown that high reps (in the range of 20 per set) are suboptimal for promoting growth compared to moderate and lower rep protocols. If you want anecdotal evidence, the Tracey Anderson model doesn’t seem to do much for her clients 🙂
As far as TUT, it is likely that there is an optimal range, and that a threshold exists beyond which no additional benefits are found. This would be consistent with the principle of specificity, which is a central tenet of training. The body adapts in a specific fashion to imposed demands. Since hypertrophy is less important for muscular endurance, it seems logical that adaptations will not be specific to maximizing muscle development from a high-rep protocol.
Brad
Comment by Brad — June 9, 2011 @ 9:26 am
I think it is really funny that someone thought of comparing Ronnie Colemann and Gwyneth Paltrow on a discussion about muscle growth (:-
Comment by Anoop — June 11, 2011 @ 8:51 am
Hi Anoop,
The reference was to Brad’s article ‘Stay Away from the Pink Dumbbells’ on Gwyneth Paltrow’s lack of muscularity visa her workout routine with trainer Tracy Anderson.
Comment by Charles — June 16, 2011 @ 12:13 pm
Thanks for your answer Brad.
With respect to TUT, your take home message for me is “…it is likely that there is an optimal range, and that a threshold exists beyond which no additional benefits are found.
I suspected that this was the case. Yet, I was probing for an exact numeric balance between sub-maximal load and repetitions that would produce the greatest hypertrophic gains.
Now that I think about it, it’s rather silly for me to focus so narrowly. I realize that the load is specific to the individual and varies according to one’s capacity at a given moment. However, what I didn’t consider initially was that the excepted number of repetitions for strength/hypertrophy/endurance training overlap and aren’t static either. You’ve previously noted that these numbers are a general range, whereas the 6–12 hypertrophy rep range might be from 5–15 and so forth, depending on the other variables.
As I began doing additional research on the subject of TUT seeking a one size fits all approach to hypertrophic gains, your phrase “It depends” brought home the message,… Optimal training is dependent on the individual and is specific to one’s technique, experience and physiology.
I would be interested though in reading the research material that studied hypertrophic thresholds relative to repetitions.
-Charles
Comment by Charles — June 16, 2011 @ 12:41 pm