An interesting article on Fiber Types and Bodybuilding.

[camarosuper6]

From the AST website.... I thought it was an interesting read.

Most bodybuilders understand that skeletal muscles are made up of slow and fast twitch fibers, and that the fast twitch fibers are required for explosive power and maximum force in lifting a heavy weight. Back in the 1980, it became ???fashionable??? (in sports science) to attempt to predict an athletes potential for success in sports based on the classification of their fiber types in various muscles. However, recent research studies such as one performed by Dr Ken Baldwin at the University of California revealed that this topic is so much more complex than initially suspected.

The myosin filaments in a muscle fiber cause the muscle to contract. The research by Baldwin showed that with heavy resistance training, the myosin filaments become more efficient with training. Muscle fibers respond to resistance training much the same way the cardiovascular system responds to endurance training; the muscle fibers become efficient and achieve more with less effort. This improvement within muscles during training occurs regardless of the muscles fiber-type composition. Other recent studies, have shown that variables such as technique, skill and individual biomechanics are just as important (if not more important) than fiber typing in predicting performance in strength and the capacity to build muscle sports (J Strength & Cond Res 17:746-754, 2003).

In terms of bodybuilding potential, don???t become too concerned with fiber typing. I???ve analyzed over 500 samples of muscle fibers from almost 200 bodybuilders and it???s become clear to me that the fibers that respond the most dramatically (in terms of growth) are the type-2a fibers. The muscles of most ???genetically average??? bodybuilder???s are 50-75% type-2a fibers. So the capacity for dramatic size increases in muscle mass is definitely there, even in normal, ???genetically average??? people.

 

[Saturday Fever]

All this article says is that muscles get stronger when you workout. It surely didn't take a doctor to tell us that.

This is exactly what I mean when I call something "pseudo-science." This "doctor" uses words that make the article seem very intelligent in an attempt to earn himself credibility and then he posts said article in a magazine or journal. Unfortunately, when you read what he is saying, you understand that all he is saying (though he tries to make it sound like much more) is "workout and you will get stronger."

Well thanks, Captain Obvious, I didn't recognize you without your cape!

 

[goal_500_bench]

lol

 

[sabre81]

All this article says is that muscles get stronger when you workout. It surely didn't take a doctor to tell us that.

This is exactly what I mean when I call something "pseudo-science." This "doctor" uses words that make the article seem very intelligent in an attempt to earn himself credibility and then he posts said article in a magazine or journal. Unfortunately, when you read what he is saying, you understand that all he is saying (though he tries to make it sound like much more) is "workout and you will get stronger."

Well thanks, Captain Obvious, I didn't recognize you without your cape!

thats also what i got from it.

 

[Duncans Donuts]

All this article says is that muscles get stronger when you workout. It surely didn't take a doctor to tell us that.

Actually, the gentleman was pointing out that heavy resistance training doesn't just build muscle, it improves the efficacy of the myosin filaments within the muscle fibers themselves. This improvement in efficiency is not limited by the muscle fiber range we have been endowed with (i.e. not just people with 80 percent type IIa will benefit from it). It serves as a reminder that even people of mediocre genetics can demonstrate vast improvement.

As simple as the article itself was, your analysis was just unfairly glib.

 

[truth]

I got that out of the brief article as well...that don't get too hyped up about "oh he's ripped because of his genetics"

It claims that a large amount of bodybuilders already have the genetics (the type of fibers) that are more responsive than the other fiber types

Better whip out that "Jump to Conclusions" game

 

[trHawT]

Good read. I have "average genetics." Watch out, Arnie!

 

[Saturday Fever]

Actually, the gentleman was pointing out that heavy resistance training doesn't just build muscle, it improves the efficacy of the myosin filaments within the muscle fibers themselves. This improvement in efficiency is not limited by the muscle fiber range we have been endowed with (i.e. not just people with 80 percent type IIa will benefit from it). It serves as a reminder that even people of mediocre genetics can demonstrate vast improvement.

As simple as the article itself was, your analysis was just unfairly glib.

The author said, with regards to myosin filaments,

. The research by Baldwin showed that with heavy resistance training, the myosin filaments become more efficient with training. Muscle fibers respond to resistance training much the same way the cardiovascular system responds to endurance training; the muscle fibers become efficient and achieve more with less effort.

So what the author is saying, quite plainly, is that if you lift weights, you'll get stronger. What else, is not stronger, could the author possibly mean by 'more efficient' or by claiming muslces will 'achieve more with less effort?'

Think back to your newbie days. Benching 135 wasn't easy. Now it's like a walk in the park. Hell, even 185 is a walk in the park. Why? Because you lift weights and got stronger. Or to use the authors words, your myosin filaments became more efficient and could achieve more with less effort.

Don't give credit where credit isn't due. That article, at least the section posted, is pseudo-science and it's horrible at best.

 

[Saturday Fever]

And people who bitch about genetics, or say they have bad genetics, or average genetics need to stop using that as a copout. Get dedicated and you'll get what you want. Otherwise just accept your faults and failures are because of yourself, not your genes.

 

[CowPimp]

And people who bitch about genetics, or say they have bad genetics, or average genetics need to stop using that as a copout. Get dedicated and you'll get what you want. Otherwise just accept your faults and failures are because of yourself, not your genes.

Agreed. Anyone can see massive improvements over their current untrained physique, strength, conditioning, and body composition. Just because you aren't going to become the next Mr. Olympia or WSM champion doesn't mean that you can't make drastic improvements.

 

[Duncans Donuts]

So what the author is saying, quite plainly, is that if you lift weights, you'll get stronger. What else, is not stronger, could the author possibly mean by 'more efficient' or by claiming muslces will 'achieve more with less effort?'

This is an oversimplified analysis, in my opinion. With regards to getting stronger, there are various mechanisms through which this can occur. A lot of common folks may not realize precisely how this can occur - this article would serve to benefit them. The fact that our bodies would adapt to use the contractile proteins more effectively is not something should be dismissed as a menial detail (or common sense). The fact that this increase in efficiency is not limited by the makeup of our muscles genetically is an interesting point.

 

[Saturday Fever]

I'm guessing that anyone who isn't a science geek (99% of the world just raised their hands) would rather be told "working out makes you stronger" opposed to "the myosin filaments become more efficient with training." And even then, wording it the way he did is still not going to impress science geeks because it comes off as saying something using words intended to lend credibility to what you're saying.

End result, the author intentionally worded a very simple statement in a way he thought would impress people. And it's ridiculous.

The fact that this increase in efficiency is not limited by the makeup of our muscles genetically is an interesting point.

Muscles are not exactly complex. There are 3 (arguably 4) fiber types. They all CONTRACT the same way. They are all made up of myosin and actin. So let's forget the term genetics was ever in the article (especially considering it was used in such an out of context manner, consistent with my observation the author is a pseudo-scientist and not credible) and honestly evaluate what was said.

All muscle being made up of the same stuff, it is not only feasible but reasonable to believe that it doesn't matter if you have all Type1 fibers or all Type2 fibers, or a 50/50 mix of both. If you train with resistance, they're all going to get stronger. They may not progress in their "efficiency" at equal rates, but they will get stronger simply by working out.

Most bodybuilders understand that skeletal muscles are made up of slow and fast twitch fibers, and that the fast twitch fibers are required for explosive power and maximum force in lifting a heavy weight. Back in the 1980, it became ???fashionable??? (in sports science) to attempt to predict an athletes potential for success in sports based on the classification of their fiber types in various muscles. However, recent research studies such as one performed by Dr Ken Baldwin at the University of California revealed that this topic is so much more complex than initially suspected.

What the hell does any of THAT have to do with any of THIS:

The myosin filaments in a muscle fiber cause the muscle to contract. The research by Baldwin showed that with heavy resistance training, the myosin filaments become more efficient with training. Muscle fibers respond to resistance training much the same way the cardiovascular system responds to endurance training; the muscle fibers become efficient and achieve more with less effort. This improvement within muscles during training occurs regardless of the muscles fiber-type composition. Other recent studies, have shown that variables such as technique, skill and individual biomechanics are just as important (if not more important) than fiber typing in predicting performance in strength and the capacity to build muscle sports (J Strength & Cond Res 17:746-754, 2003).

Absolutely nothing!

And my final tearing down of this "article" will come from this quote:

I???ve analyzed over 500 samples of muscle fibers from almost 200 bodybuilders and it???s become clear to me that the fibers that respond the most dramatically (in terms of growth) are the type-2a fibers. The muscles of most ???genetically average??? bodybuilder???s are 50-75% type-2a fibers. So the capacity for dramatic size increases in muscle mass is definitely there, even in normal, ???genetically average??? people.

He's analyzed over 500 samples of muscle fibers from over 200 bodybuilders?? So how did he accomplish this exactly? "Hey Ronnie, can I slice a piece of your right biceps off? Thanks man!"

This is an absolute bullshit claim, and despite what rag mags and pseudo-scientists would have you believe, these "studies" that show what type of fibers people are made up of, or "what part of a muscle this exercise works" say that, again pseudo-scientifically, because the study simply cannot be done. They will name a test they used (or in this author's case just make bullshit claims) that sounds impressive or that most people have never heard of. And yet if you do something as simple as google for these "tests" you will be able to deduce in a matter of minutes that no test like the ones they describe using could ever draw the conslusions they claim it did.

I'm done. That author is bullshit.

 

[Duncans Donuts]

I'm guessing that anyone who isn't a science geek (99% of the world just raised their hands) would rather be told "working out makes you stronger" opposed to "the myosin filaments become more efficient with training." And even then, wording it the way he did is still not going to impress science geeks because it comes off as saying something using words intended to lend credibility to what you're saying.

I'd disagree that 99 percent of the world would rather hear "muscles get stronger" than "this, myosin filament efficacy, is one of the steps through which muscles get stronger". I would assume that a person with a low level of fitness knowledge, when asked how a person get stronger, would say, "Your muscles get bigger!"

Perhaps a high percentage of people on this board may initially say "Increases in neurological efficiency" as a step in the improvement of strength at the gym (clearly you are aware of this), but I know a number of people that would be completely unaware of this. Perhaps the author was quite derelict in drawing his conclusions, but I wouldn't disagree with his points or bringing this to light.

I know you take issue with the author as a deceptive, fake scientist (I'd assume that this is because of his contention of taking hundreds of muscle biopsies from BBs), and I don't pretend to know enough about the gentleman to argue that, but his general observations have at least directed me to go research the studies itself.

But I respect your opinion, though I disagree with it.