Thread: Plyometric Movements, Weight Training & Hypertrophy

plyometric exercises are great for increasing sport-specific power but they are far from optimum for increasing hypertrophy...

assuming one was to build a considerable amount of muscle for a set period of time. Then endured in plyometric style weight training, would it be much more difficult to convert the muscle into fast-twitch muscle? and vice-versa?

I don't know that the changes associated with Type IIA fibers behaving more like Type I or Type IIB will do anything in terms of hypertrophy. I think the changes are more neurolgical/enzymatic.

Let me ask you this, what exactly are you trying to figure out? What is your goal?

See the Hypertrophy Formula:

8: The effects of tension on tissue depend not only on the magnitude or duration of the tension, but the way in which the tension is produced or maintained. For example, one can use high or low Rates of Tension Development, and one can increase tension by use of a large, slowly accelerated load or a smaller, rapidly accelerated load (in accordance with Newton II: Force = Mass x Acceleration).

if i am not mistaken the above has not given a clear conclusion about plyometric training.

It simply says that higher tension forces are achieved by either "slowly accelerated load" or "a smaller rapidly accelerated load". Does this mean muscle hypertrophy only occurs with a great tension load thus making plyometric movements more than viable for hypertrophy?

It says the plyometrics can induce hypertrophy as well as any other method.

to calrify once more, hypertrophy occurs consistantly during both plyometric and slower type weight training.

Plyometrics will not induce comparable hypertrophy to full ROM slower movements practiced with greater intensity (relative to 1RM) in practice.

I doubt it will have a negative effect on hypertrophy. It may be a good change of pace, and could turn out to be beneficial. Based on what I have read, I doubt that it is the optimal method of inducing hypertrophy. However, it is worth trying for fun, if nothing else.

Originally Posted by chris mason

Plyometrics will not induce comparable hypertrophy to full ROM slower movements practiced with greater intensity (relative to 1RM) in practice.

Please explain.

Let me ask a question as an explanation.

If you squat with a 400 lb barbell for 10 reps or perform jump squats for 50 reps which one do you think will induce greater hypertrophy?

The effects of tension on tissue depend not only on the magnitude or duration of the tension, but the way in which the tension is produced or maintained.

If the plyo work is being done properly (and I don't know that 50 rep jump squats is "proper") then I'd say the results would be pretty similar. The question leaves a lot of variables, but I see where you're going.

The results are similar?

Ok, let me try again. Name one individual you have ever known who has shown a significant degree of hypertrophy from plyometrics.

The load is insufficient with plyometrics. Not to say they will not induce any hypertrophy, just not comparable to that possible with barbells.

Well I suppose we'd first have to find someone who trains exclusively with plyometrics. Tall order, that. Although the lack of athletes training that way shouldn't be taken as a sign it's ineffective.

Ahhh, you fell into a salient point. Why have bodybuilders never incorporated plyometrics to any significant degree? Surely scores of bodybuilders (both competitive and recreational) have tried them in the last 50+ years and yet they were never adopted as a valid training method for bodybuilders. If they yielded significant results in terms of hypertrophy the word would be out and bodybuilders would use them. Years and millions of man hours have a way of working these things out.

Possibly. There was a time when the best powerlifters came from Westside. And yet recently people have realized the biggest benchers use the Metal Militia ideas. Now they aren't new ideas, just newly applied ideas. And they are better. But 15 years ago we would be here debating whether it would work or not, and if it DID work, why was everyone using Westside.

F=ma

actually recently there has been an NFL player who put on 45 lbs of muscle through plyometric training. The time frame was not given nor do i remember which team/who he is but he went from a nobody to running a LOONg touch down very recently. Ill find out the details. A friend told me about him. I expect this to been achieved between 2-3 years of training considering that a footballers career doesnt last that long: and intensive training must be quick and efficient to improve performance before the "oh so feared old age" begins settling in.

He was benching 250 , but during his reps he didnt bounce the weight, he dropped it and before it hit his chest he pushed up. Therefore the explosive movement is there and he has to add force to push it up once more (a falling 250 is alot heavier than a satic/slow moving 250)

It's Adam Archuletta and he comes from Phoenix where I lived 18 years. Plyometric training was part of his regimen, but it certainly didn't make him huge and he did not perform solely plyometric exercises.

As to Westside and Metal Militia, there were men benching nearly as much as the guys of today 30 years ago. Jim Williams did 675 in competition with a long pause and was said to have done 700 in training.

How many Metal Militia or Westside guys are benching a RAW 700 lbs?

Now, Jim Williams might have trained using many of the tricks of Westside but it was not called Westside.

Let me give you an example of a rehashed idea. Benching with boards is just another way of performing partial rep training just like the guys did years ago with power cages. Heck, Paul Anderson rigged-up an apparatus to perform partial benches 40 years ago.

The technique worked and is now used extensively. If plyometrics stimulated hypertrophy to a significant degree then bodybuilders now would use it extensively. You can't keep effective techniques secret forever.

I'm not saying any techniques are secret. And I'm sure lots of what people do today has been done in one form or another in the past. But where is there any evidence that proper plyo work won't induce the same hypertrophy?

I only ask because Dr. Siff felt it was true enough to publish in his book. This book being a huge collaboration of work done with lots of other trainers, doctors and scientists around the world. So we can reasonably assume that there is practical backing to the idea that plyometrics will induce hypertrophy in a comparable manner.

I'm not saying I'm right or anyone's wrong. And I may have read that item in the hypertrophy formula all wrong. I'm just questioning.

I go by experience and observation on this matter. I suppose I could get technical and say that most forms of plyometrics don't involve resistance through a complete ROM. Better stated, the load in a plyometric movement varies extremely and the peak load only is so brief as to ineffectively stimulate hypertrophy (again, in most movements). Of course, the net effect of these circumstances is only a theory on my part (in terms of them not strongly stimulating hypertrophy).

This could relate to the multi-set vs single set results. 3+ sets plyometrically trianing would probably induce as much exposure to the peak load as a single set would? If not double the amount of sets and simply because plyometrically trianing involves a light load it should not be a problem, when it comes to muscle endurance.

At this intensity plyometric trianing could border to be classified as a cardio exercise (depending on rest between sets) and could increase VO2 aswell as muscle endurance?

whats you thoughts on this?