Points regarding “types” of hypertrophy well taken. My understanding of “irrational hypertrophy” is that Eastern Bloc strength coaches observed that their athletes would eventually hit a plateau using very low reps and high loads and thus theorized that their muscles lacked sufficient sarcoplasmic hypertrophy to facilitated further sarcomere hypertrophy. That does not exactly prove anything, I agree. Such a plateau could be explained by CNS fatigue or the “repeated bout effect” that you explained–a sort of desensitization I suppose. I’m tending to agree with your view of hypertrophy in that it cannot be segregated. Which raises an interesting point about the strength athletes being “stronger” than bodybuilders mantra we always hear. I don’t buy it, which is why I’ve always believed (even when playing power sports) that training for hypertrophy was superior for “strength” and sports. Problem is that it has taken me years upon years to figure out how to maximize hypertrophy (naturally). I still don’t know or am not totally convinced, but feel closer to the answer thanks to guys like you.
To me it seems that the concept of “strength” is elusive. I don’t think it can be measured by a give lift given all the variable. People tend to believe that if a person can bench more or squat more etc.. Then that person is stronger at pushing or pulling in general. Not true. Thanks to the SAID principle, all it shows is that that person is better at those particular exercises and may or may not have more muscular strength. I still believe that muscle is functional through and through always. A bodybuilder’s muscles are functional and are capable of being adapted to any activity–it’s just that bodybuilder’s don’t care to develop superior neuro-muscular efficiency in a limited number of lifts. That’s just my take on the issue.
Great response.
Did you find this post helpful? Yes |
No |