Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

does dc/rest pausing hit both muscle fibers?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • does dc/rest pausing hit both muscle fibers?

    Does the rest pausing technique with dc training hit both the sacro and myofilber fibers? The fibers that are known for growth and that puffy look and the fibers that are known to cause strength but little msucle size? Cause ive always tried to hit both with varying rep ranges in various sets but does the rest pause allow you to hit both?

  • #2
    Originally posted by Taurus View Post
    ....Cause ive always tried to hit both with varying rep ranges in various sets...
    How has this approach been working for you so far in regards to size/strength gains?

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by Michael Travis View Post
      How has this approach been working for you so far in regards to size/strength gains?
      very good. I lost some weight with my 2 week cruise but it was probably just me loaded with food cause i took a food break as well on the cruise.

      Just wondering if most the gains are scaromplasic or myfilbier (to lazy to check the spelling ) lol. Or is it a mix of both? Just a thought that popped into my head since rest pause seems like it may hit both? since on the second rest pause set you are essentially doing a 4-6 rep set since your so taxed. So would that be targeting your strength fibers more?

      Comment


      • #4
        i think it mostly hits the sarcomeres
        M.S., B.S., B.A., CSCS, USAW

        "There is no substitute for strength, and no excuse for the lack of it"

        "Two pains in life: pain of hard work and pain of regret"

        Comment


        • #5
          I think you're overanalyzing things.
          Disclaimer: I am not a DC trainee/expert/guru/coach, anything I say is purely my opinion based on experience and research I've read

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Carlito Gambino View Post
            I think you're overanalyzing things.
            x2.

            If you're doing DC training, you're probably only doing it for one reason.

            So if the answer to this question can change your mind about doing DC training, maybe you should pick a different program.
            TRUE PROTEIN Discount Code- CSH730

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by darkguitars2000 View Post
              x2.

              If you're doing DC training, you're probably only doing it for one reason.

              So if the answer to this question can change your mind about doing DC training, maybe you should pick a different program.
              why is everyone so negitive lol.. The reasoning behind my question is I like to read into things alot about this type of stuff and this came across me. So it was more I like dc training alot and not I want to do something else if it doesn't do this or that. But I want to understand better how its working. Its nice to know what kinda training is doing what to your body or muscle fibres its hitting. Other than just knowing it works.

              Comment


              • #8
                Im pretty sure it hits that 3rd muscle type that is very rarely tapped into by most lifters. It has been referred to as the "Totally awesome" fiber, the "Stop being a pussy" fiber, but I believe the technical term is the "Be a F*cking man" fiber.

                Just joking, I agree with you I like reading into things and learning as much as I can

                Comment


                • #9
                  No, DC training only utilizes soluable fiber.
                  2010 NPC North Star

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    I know it depends alot on rep range being heavy under 5 or 4 I believe reps compared to 8 to 12 for sacro which is fluid increase in muscle cells. But I was thinking maybe it hits both. If your doing a 10 or 12 rep set first one. Could thatt second set be hitting the myo fibres since its a 5 repper usually even though its same weight your body obv thinks its heavier since so exhausted already.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Yes, they do, which is the reason for the explosive concentric and slow, controlled eccentric.
                      Ph.D., Theoretical Physics '16
                      kind of a douche

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        From what I've gather our understanding of the whole rep range/intensity range/muscle fiber relationship is fairly limited anyway. Mostly theory, lots of exceptions...

                        And also remember it wouldn't be just doing sets in that rep range that cause the growth, but the increase in weight ( tension ) that you must adapt to or the increase in endurance that must be fueled.

                        So its certainly possible to do a set that causes both an increase in tension, and an increased need for glycogen storage in muscle. A rest pause set done DC style would seem to do this better than almost any other technique.

                        But to truly answer your question would require incredibly well designed and monitored experiments with muscle biopsies over x amount of time....and that's just not real likely.

                        But this is all broscience, at least coming from me, so take it with a grain of salt ;-)

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Taurus View Post
                          why is everyone so negitive lol.. The reasoning behind my question is I like to read into things alot about this type of stuff and this came across me. So it was more I like dc training alot and not I want to do something else if it doesn't do this or that. But I want to understand better how its working. Its nice to know what kinda training is doing what to your body or muscle fibres its hitting. Other than just knowing it works.
                          Taurus,

                          Your understanding of skeletal muscle histology is really pretty convoluted, I'm guessing from reading misinformation on the web, so you're beating down a path that will lead to great frustration.

                          Muscle fiber types in humans are generally broken down into I, IIA, and IX forms which express different myosin isoforms. (This is a long story, but that's the easiest way to look at it.)

                          The term sarcoplasmic hypertrophy can be traced back, as far as I can tell, to Mel Siff's book Supertraining and is not quantified as such in the scientific literature. (Check www.pubmed.com and you'll not find it there.) It is a concept based on increasing cell volume via non-myofibrillar material such as sarcoplasmic reticulum and mitochondrial content and glycogen with associated water. For what it's worth, the greater the energy demand by aerobic means the moreso you'll increase the sarcoplasmic component of mitochondria. Endurance exercise it interval training does this best whereas resistance training does very little in that regard. There is something to say for increasing chronic levels of glycogen storage, but these can be so easily manipulate with diet in a matter of days, its seems silly to target a training system at glycogen storage... Also, both heavy and lighter, higher volume trainign with increase glycogen storage, so that's sort of a moot point.

                          I'd guess that DC will (does) myofibrillar mass and likely do little, relatively speaking for mitochondria content in most folks, especially if you're switching from a high volume type of training to DC. Glycogen levels will go up substantially if you were to start from the untrained state, but this is rarely the case.

                          The volume of the cell occupied by mitochondria is generally <5% that occupied by the myofibrils and the packing density of these does not change with training (this is MacDougall's work from the late 70's). So, even if you double your mitochondrial volume (as with an extreme cardiovascular training regimen, say from 4% to 8% of cell volume), you only need to increase myofibrillar mass by 10% (barely noticeable and often would not even be detectable with a biopsy) and the increase in cell volume would be about twice as much.

                          To make the math easier, consider in a cell made up 4 parts mitochondria, 15 parts sarcoplasm including glycogen and the rest (~80 parts) myofibrillar mass (including the volume of the sarcoplasm between protein filaments. Increase mitochondria to 8 parts (100%) and you have a 4% increase in cell volume. Increase myofibrillar mass by ONLY 20% and you have a 16% increase in cell volume.

                          -Scott
                          The Book Has Arrived!
                          The Book Has Arrived!

                          Life's journey is not to arrive at the grave safely in a pristine, well-preserved body, but rather to skid in sideways, used up, worn out, and shouting, "Holy #$&^%$^... What a ride!!!"


                          www.TrueNutrition.com

                          2012 NPC Master's Nationals HW 5th. Mid-USA HW & Overall
                          2010 NPC Jr. USA HW 4th, Pacific USA Heavy 2nd
                          2009 NPC Mr. Arizona HW & Overall, Jr. Nationals HW 16th, Smoked at USA's

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            You made that up.
                            Ph.D., Theoretical Physics '16
                            kind of a douche

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by homonunculus View Post
                              Taurus,

                              Your understanding of skeletal muscle histology is really pretty convoluted, I'm guessing from reading misinformation on the web, so you're beating down a path that will lead to great frustration.

                              Muscle fiber types in humans are generally broken down into I, IIA, and IX forms which express different myosin isoforms. (This is a long story, but that's the easiest way to look at it.)

                              The term sarcoplasmic hypertrophy can be traced back, as far as I can tell, to Mel Siff's book Supertraining and is not quantified as such in the scientific literature. (Check www.pubmed.com and you'll not find it there.) It is a concept based on increasing cell volume via non-myofibrillar material such as sarcoplasmic reticulum and mitochondrial content and glycogen with associated water. For what it's worth, the greater the energy demand by aerobic means the moreso you'll increase the sarcoplasmic component of mitochondria. Endurance exercise it interval training does this best whereas resistance training does very little in that regard. There is something to say for increasing chronic levels of glycogen storage, but these can be so easily manipulate with diet in a matter of days, its seems silly to target a training system at glycogen storage... Also, both heavy and lighter, higher volume trainign with increase glycogen storage, so that's sort of a moot point.

                              I'd guess that DC will (does) myofibrillar mass and likely do little, relatively speaking for mitochondria content in most folks, especially if you're switching from a high volume type of training to DC. Glycogen levels will go up substantially if you were to start from the untrained state, but this is rarely the case.

                              The volume of the cell occupied by mitochondria is generally <5% that occupied by the myofibrils and the packing density of these does not change with training (this is MacDougall's work from the late 70's). So, even if you double your mitochondrial volume (as with an extreme cardiovascular training regimen, say from 4% to 8% of cell volume), you only need to increase myofibrillar mass by 10% (barely noticeable and often would not even be detectable with a biopsy) and the increase in cell volume would be about twice as much.

                              To make the math easier, consider in a cell made up 4 parts mitochondria, 15 parts sarcoplasm including glycogen and the rest (~80 parts) myofibrillar mass (including the volume of the sarcoplasm between protein filaments. Increase mitochondria to 8 parts (100%) and you have a 4% increase in cell volume. Increase myofibrillar mass by ONLY 20% and you have a 16% increase in cell volume.

                              -Scott
                              Sooooo...magic. Gotcha
                              Max Muscle
                              5020 Katella Ave.
                              Los Alamitos, CA 90720
                              www.MaxMuscleLosAlamitos.com

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X