Jump to content

Number Of Reps To Gain Stegth On Coc Grippers


Jeremy Sipple

Recommended Posts

John, I agree with some of your points but in your last post it sounds as if your saying there's a correlation between muscle growth and strength which isn't necessarily true. For me, strength must be measured by something in order to guage any sort of results. Strength and strength endurance are intertwined If I go from 20 reps to 30 reps on the #1 gripper then of course I've gotten stronger so I agree with you there but strength has a lot to do with skil and the CNS rather than just muscle growth!!!

I agree. I made this point before, that strength is not only based on hypertrophy but neural adaption (CNS effectivization, for instance).

Also there is the fact that a certain training induces more sarcoplasmic hypertrophy in the fast twitch fibers, which does not aid the contractile properties of the muscle, but aid in energy transferall. But that's perhaps a bit out of scope of this discussion. :)

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 172
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • nagual

    39

  • John Wood

    18

  • Wannagrip

    12

  • speedy

    12

By reading some of the terms used here I take it we have some physical therapists and quite possible doctors here?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just for kicks, what kind of training would induce more sarcoplasmic hypertrophy in the fast twitch fibers?

You would become an excellent politician, mr Wood. :D

Google for it, and read some of the articles I previously linked to.

But I believe we are talking about the 10-15 rep range, with short rests between sets.

Just for kicks, how would you train for muscular endurance?

Edited by nagual
Link to post
Share on other sites

I read the articles that you previosuly linked to. None of them provide any info as to the physiologicall basic for how sarcoplasmic hypertrophy occurs.

You would train for endurance in exactly the same manner as strength (assuming that isnt an end in itself) since they are, in fact the same thing, as related by my example.

Anyone for whiffleball?

Link to post
Share on other sites
dubthewonderscot

Have I missed something. Strength and endurance are the same thing?

W

Link to post
Share on other sites
I read the articles that you previosuly linked to.  None of them provide any info as to the physiologicall basic for how sarcoplasmic hypertrophy occurs.

You would train for endurance in exactly the same manner as strength (assuming that isnt an end in itself) since they are, in fact the same thing, as related by my example.

Anyone for whiffleball?

Well, then you have a quite rare definition.

And you are using semantical arguments to confuscate the matter, which is entirely unneccessary. I quite enjoy a discussion about definitions and semantics, but it serves little purpose here.

Do you mean that you don't know how sarcoplasmic hypertrophy occurs?

Those pages might not be exhaustive, but I could take some quotes from those pages that give a decent, if brief, explanation. Also, I can find some more in-depth info, if you are having trouble finding it on the internet.

That's interesting that you would train the same. You must have extraordinary genes, if any training yield the same results for endurance as it does for strength for you. If that is the case, I congratulate you. But for the rest of us unfortunate, it just doesn't work that way.

The example you gave was as I explained, flawed, since you only talked about a certain rep range, where strength and endurance gains still are related (and for other reasons which I have already mentioned, in this and a previous thread).

Also, as far as this discussion is concerned, it was not pertinent, since I have been talking about higher reps all along (as seperate and not trained together with low reps).

I would love to play some whiffleball. But since you would have to explain the rules for me, I'm afraid we never would get to play. :D

Edited by nagual
Link to post
Share on other sites

More usefull is share if rep work for you or not.

How you define reps, timly hold, negatives, or reps.

Reps after 12 to 15 need to change to inbetween gripper.

But some respond well to reps if you are good for you keep it up.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Zach Passman

John-

I'm getting a bit confused.

Break it into an example, if you would--how about using kettlebell training (I think you do/have done some of this)?

IE how might you go about training for a GS comp (32kg bell for max snatches/jerks)--the same methods that you're currently using?

Would you train differently if the competition were of a different sort--let's say...bent pressing for a max single, or military pressing a much heavier kettlebell (lets use a 45 kg bell here) for maximum repetitions?

Understanding that even in pressing the heavy KB for fewer repetitions, you're using your muscular endurance (right?).

I don't know anything about sarcoplasmic hypertrophy--nor do I have much knowledge about physiology/kinesiology, etc...

I was a good powerlifter, but didn't necessarily understand the mechanisms that were working on/for me while I was training. It's kinda the same for me as regards training my grip.

I read most of your postings, trying to gain some real understanding of what works for you/other humans in training your grip--but I don't understand much of it. I do "get" that you train using HIT principles--am I incorrect here?

If I'm off base, or trying to compare apples and oranges, straighten me out.

Thanks--

Zach

I read the articles that you previosuly linked to.  None of them provide any info as to the physiologicall basic for how sarcoplasmic hypertrophy occurs.

You would train for endurance in exactly the same manner as strength (assuming that isnt an end in itself) since they are, in fact the same thing, as related by my example.

Anyone for whiffleball?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Zach,

The key to training the human body is understanding how it functions and reacts to different stresses (in our case, by getting bigger and stronger through training)

Now, understand, there are two schools of though when it comes to training , training as a means to an end, i.e. The raw materials are developed and then used for a particular skill say football, golf, whatever.

Then there is training as an end in itself, or just to get as strong as possible in a partricular lift or group of lifts such as powerlifting.

There is no need for football playersor basketball players or swimmers to train like powerlifters or olympic lifters since that would involve developing skills that were unnecessary or in the sport of football.

If that were not the case, we could drop the superheavyweight powerlifting champs on the football field and they would dominate.

I believe that a lot of confusiopn occurs as a result of not knowing the distinction.

So just like any other sport, training with weights for competition necessitates increasing the skills of the lift for that particular competition. I.e. if you are going to get good at powerlifting, youll have to lift heavy. But you can't lift heavy (or "practrice")all the time, youll wear yourself out.

Again , if you dont know the factors which will allow you to get stronger through your training, how will you know how to include them in your training.

As far as training, I use HIT when the situation calls for it and I use other methods when appropriate, it all depends on the end result that I am striving for.

If you are still confused, write up your specific questions and send them to Karen at info@functionalhandstrength.com

In my upcoming teleseminar, among other things, I will go into the factors which have the most influence on whether or not your training is working, common mistakes that most people are making in their programs and the best ways to correct them.

(It will be free of charge but better hurry to sign up, there are less than 20 spots left as of today.)

Link to post
Share on other sites
No, I don't know how or why sarcoplasmic hypertrophy occurs.  Please explain.

As I gather, you are having seminars to teach/help people how to improve aspects of their training. I therefore find it hard to believe that you are not aware of underlying physiological fundamentals of strength training, as you yourself are keen to point out, are the same for everyone. Different aspects of hypertrophy, and the physiology of the muscle, count as such.

Because of this, it seems to me you are trying to make an argument for arguments sake (for reasons unknown to me). You are also not commenting my rebuttals to your examples and theorys either, which is starting to make this discussion go around in circles, and is getting nonsensical. Furthermore, if you in fact would have read the articles in the links I posted, you would have gotten an answer to your question, for instance:

http://www.strengthcats.com/JDallmusclesnotequal.htm

http://www.engr.mun.ca/~butt/training/growth1.html

Quoting:

"Sarcoplasmic hypertrophy is an increase in the volume of the non-contractile muscle cell fluid, sarcoplasm. This fluid accounts for 25-30% of the muscle’s size. Although the cross sectional area of the muscle increases, the density of muscle fibers per unit area decreases, and there is no increase in muscular strength (2). This type of hypertrophy is mainly a result of high rep, “bodybuilder-type” training (3)."

"Intimately involved in the production of ATP are intracellular bodies called "mitochondria". Muscle fibers will adapt to high volume (and higher rep) training sessions by increasing the number of mitochondria in the cells. They will also increase the concentrations of the enzymes involved in the oxidative phosphorylation and anaerobic glycolysis mechanisms of energy production and increase the volume of sarcoplasmic fluid inside the cell (including glycogen) and also the fluid between the actual cells. This type of hypertrophy produces very little in the way of added strength but has profound effects on increasing strength-endurance (the ability to do reps with a certain weight) because it dramatically increases the muscles' ability to produce ATP. Adaptations of this sort are characteristic of Bodybuilders' muscles."

It is interesting to add, that high-rep in this case means around 15 reps. Since after 15-20 reps (again, note that this is an approximation) the load starts to be to low to engage fast-twitch muscle fibre to any meaningful extent.

Also, for good measure, something about myofibrillar hypertrophy (or what we generally think of when we think muscle growth):

"Myofibrillar hypertrophy, on the other hand, is an enlargement of the muscle fiber as it gains more myofibrils, which contract and generate tension in the muscle. With this type of hypertrophy, the area density of myofibrils increases and there is a significantly greater ability to exert muscular strength (2). This type of hypertrophy is best accomplished by training with heavy weights for low reps (3)."

Edited by nagual
Link to post
Share on other sites

Here are also some interesting articles you might want to read, John

(links to them can be found in the previous link list, but thought I'd link to them directly):

http://sportsmedicine.about.com/cs/exercis...a/aa080901a.htm

http://sportsmedicine.about.com/gi/dynamic...%2Fmusfacts.htm

http://sportsmedicine.about.com/gi/dynamic...ns%2Fmustrn.htm

http://sportsmedicine.about.com/gi/dynamic...%2Flacthres.htm

Link to post
Share on other sites

Nonsensical? Yeah, absolutely.

If bodybuilders musles were largely a result of sarcoplasmic fluid increase, wouldnt they "deflate" significantly (by a quarter to a third)when they dry out before a show?

Since we are dealing with a lot of relative terms("high volume", "higher rep", "bodybuilder-type training" "heavy weights for low reps" etc ), very little conclusions can be made by any of the material that you provided.

And so what are we left with? Neither an understanding nor an application of how muscle growth occurs nor how we should address those factors in our training.

"Muscle fibers will adapt to high volume (and higher rep) training sessions by increasing the number of mitochondria in the cells. "

How so? How much work (in either quantity or quality) would have to be performed for this adaptation to occur? Will this adaptation simply "happen" or are there other factors involved?

And so all we have to do to increase in size is a lot more reps?

And what exactly is "bodybuilder-type training" high volume? Is one set of 30 the same as ten sets of three? How about 50 sets of 3 would that count as high volume? And since we are talking "high volume" here wouldnt that mean that construction workers who perform thousands of "reps and sets" per day would all turn into giant blobs of sarcoplasmic goo as a result of not ever hitting those fast twitch fibers ?

We are supposed to simply accept that because we do 15 or more reps, that sarcoplasmic hypertrophy occurs automatically and that we cant get any stronger as a result from that training(yet we have established that if someone goes from 30 reps with the trainer to 30 reps with the #1 (or for that matter from 30 reps with the #1 to 50 reps with the #1) )that they have in fact gotten stronger.) So which is it? It can't be both ways.

But since no one can gain real strength, only fuid retention with training with anything over 15 reps I guess that makes the the whole 20+ rep squat thing is a bunch of bs. Hell, that program never did anything for anybody.

Can someone get stronger by using lower reps? yeah. Can someone get stronger by using high reps? yeah. We have seen good evidence for both cases so the argurment that you can only get stronger with lower reps and heavy weight simply doesnt hold water. As I stated from the very beginning, the amount of work is secondary to the manner in which it is perfomed. And so young Jeremy from Columbus should take a look at his training, establish a fundamental framework of how his current program is allowing him to make progress (or not) based on muscular adaptation and in doing so gain an understanding of why his current routine is working (or not.)

Link to post
Share on other sites
By reading some of the terms used here I take it we have some physical therapists and quite possible doctors here?

I'm in my third year of Kinesiology so I've studied this stuff for a while. I'm no expert though!!!

Link to post
Share on other sites
Matt Van Weele

I'm a construction laborer and have yet to turn into a blob of goo.

Link to post
Share on other sites
dubthewonderscot

Good points on that last post John. I misunderstood your previous post.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Seems my last post dissapeared. Oh well, here it goes again:

Nonsensical?  Yeah, absolutely.

If bodybuilders musles were largely a result of sarcoplasmic fluid increase, wouldnt  they "deflate" significantly (by a quarter to a third)when they dry out before a show? 

Where did you get this information from? Largly? That wasn't said in either article, nor did I.

Approx. 20%-30% was stated, and as I said, this is a factor in hypertrophy, nothing else.

Now, tell me where your information to disprove this would come from?

Since we are dealing with a lot of relative terms("high volume", "higher rep", "bodybuilder-type training" "heavy weights for low reps" etc ), very little conclusions can be made by any of the material that you provided.

And so what are we left with? Neither an understanding nor an application of how muscle growth occurs nor how we should address those factors in our training.

This is a valid concern. I too would like this information to be more precise. And although much is still unknown about the physiological processes that govern muscle growth, it's not quite as relative as you would have it. There is some variance, sure, but basically it's the same amount of reps and sets we are talking about. And some numbers are in fact provided. These are conclusions drawn from physiological knowledge by the likes of Mel Siff et al.

Again, what information to you possess that you draw your conclusions from?

"Muscle fibers will adapt to high volume (and higher rep) training sessions by increasing the number of mitochondria in the cells. "

How so? How much work (in either quantity or quality) would have to be performed for this adaptation to occur? Will this adaptation simply "happen" or are there other factors involved?

And so all we have to do to increase in size is a lot more reps?

And what exactly is "bodybuilder-type training" high volume?  Is one set of 30 the same as ten sets of three?  How about 50 sets of 3 would that count as high volume? And since we are talking "high volume" here wouldnt that mean that construction workers who perform thousands of "reps and sets" per day would all turn into giant blobs of sarcoplasmic goo as a result of not ever hitting those fast twitch fibers ?

You have your facts mixed up. Sarcoplasmic hypertrophy of the fast-twitch muscle fibres is discussed, NOT slow-twitch.

You seem to put sarcoplasmic hypertrophy with muscle endurance as equal. It is not.

As I have stated many times, there is overlap between strength and endurance.

How many sets and how many reps you have to do to build muscle size the most optimal way (be it sarcoplasmic or myofibrillar) is still largely a matter of debate. Perhaps because there are still very few impartial studies with trained subjects about it.

However, we do know some fundamentals. I won't get into the definitions of high-volume etc. since my intent is not to provide anyone with an

optimal "body-building" routine. I have all along been talking about the effects of very general rep-ranges.

That is quite an amusing analogy, but you are again forgetting that when doing that high amount of reps, we are talking about slow-twitch muscle fibre, NOT fast-twitch muscle fibre. There would be no need for sarcoplasmic hypertrophy in slow-twitch muscle fibre, since that type of fibre is quite dense with mitochondria, for instance, i.e. energy-efficiant against a light-moderate load.

Again, only approx. a third of muscle size is made up of sarcoplasm. I'm summizing you can increase the percentage with adequate training, but if you can or can't, that really is not interesting to me, since I'm personally not interested in maximum muscular growth.

We are supposed to simply accept that because we do 15 or more reps, that sarcoplasmic hypertrophy occurs automatically and that we cant get any stronger  as a result from that training(yet we have established that if someone goes from 30 reps with the trainer to 30 reps with the #1 (or for that matter from 30 reps with the #1 to 50 reps with the #1) )that they have in fact gotten stronger.)   So which is it? It can't be both ways.

No, "we" haven't established that you are getting stronger, if you go from 30 reps with the #1 to 50. You have not offered one single piece of information to back that claim. If you have gone from 30 reps with the trainer to 30 reps with the #1, you have gotten stronger however, that I agree upon obviously. I do think that it is highly unlikely that you would gain the strength to do 30 reps with the #1 by simply churning out more and more reps with the trainer, without ever training with the #1.

Regarding sarcoplasmic hypertrophy, read my answers above.

But since no one can gain real strength, only fuid retention with training with anything over 15 reps I guess that makes the the whole 20+ rep squat thing is a bunch of bs.  Hell, that program never did anything for anybody.

Read my answers above.

Can someone get stronger by using lower reps? yeah.  Can someone get stronger by using high reps? yeah.  We have seen good evidence for both cases so the argument that you can only get stronger with lower reps and heavy weight simply doesnt hold water.  As I stated from the very beginning,  the amount of work is secondary to the manner in which it is perfomed.   And so young Jeremy from Columbus should take a look at his training, establish a fundamental framework of how his current program is allowing him to make progress (or not) based on muscular adaptation and in doing so gain an understanding of why his current routine is working (or not.)

You are talking a lot about quality of work. Perhaps you would clarify what exactly this means.

I haven't said that you can't gain strength with higher reps, higher reps here meaning 15-30 reps. I have said it is less effective than lower-rep training, and that after a certain amount of reps, strength gains stop completely. Where that point is excactly, is not really interesting, and probably quite individual, which is why I have given approximations and rough estimations.

I'll say it again: At around 20 rep sets, you start to train more for muscular endurance than strength, ie. start engaging more slow-twitch muscle fibre. But you are still in the realm of strength gains and fast-twitch muscle hypertrophy. At around 30 rep sets, your strength gains have dropped significantly, and you are training mostly for muscle endurance, lactic acid tolerance etc. Some people can however still make good mass gains here. If that's mostly from sarcoplasmic hypertrophy or whatever, I'm not really interested in.

Higher rep numbers than that, solely work muscle endurance and slow-twitch muscle fibre. Period.

Please disprove me, as I'm always eager to learn.

But please, get your facts straight first.

Edited by nagual
Link to post
Share on other sites

John Wood speaks from much training experience. His own as well his dad's, who may know a thing or two about real strength as well. While he gets good results, all of you guys can type until your fingertips are sore. It all looks scientific and swell on paper, but put your theories and research into practice like John has, and maybe you'll all be lucky enough to be as strong as he is one day.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Back to the question in the post that started this thread, the magic number or reps is 7 reps. No more no less :tongue   ;) .

Finally! Someone who gets it! :D

Edited by nagual
Link to post
Share on other sites
John Wood speaks from much training experience.  His own as well his dad's, who may know a thing or two about real strength as well.  While he gets good results, all of you guys can type until your fingertips are sore.  It all looks scientific and swell on paper, but put your theories and research into practice like John has, and maybe you'll all be lucky enough to be as strong as he is one day.

That just doesn't fly.

With that logic I would have to do a lot of drugs to know that doing a lot of drugs is bad for you.

I'm not being solely theorethical here, my interest for excersize physiology stems from personal interest, i.e. optimizing my strength gains.

So I HAVE put my views (well they are not really mine, from what I gather this is the general concensus among excersize physiologists, experienced trainers et al) to the test.

But I don't use that as a basis for my arguments. Why? Because the routine and gains of one person proves absolutely nothing. I'm not saying it is not valuable, because you should respect and take into account all points of view and the experience of as many as possible. The key word here beeing MANY. And then try to sift out what that anecdotal evidence actually points to.

And John has still not even related to his personal experience to prove his points, as I have shown.

All of this is getting too argumentative for my taste, and that's a shame, because a wealth of information could be shared here. Take a look at the other thread on this same subject, and you would see other points of view that disagree with John.

Edited by nagual
Link to post
Share on other sites
Matt Van Weele

Who gives a damn if other points of veiws diesagree with John. If your way is so much better how come there aren't guys no setting the #4 or pros all over the place. There are plenty of guys with better genetics than John but i'd put money on it that few are stronger. He knows how to train for the best all around results. Period. As far as his style working for only him this is simply not true. There have been others that have trained in the same manner and have developed hand strength that perhaps only a select few on this board could truly appreciate.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Wannagrip

Let's keep the debate civil and not start getting personal. John doesn't need help in the debate. Certainly not by people piping in with personal remarks. It was suggested that it be closed already. I said leave it open because I thought it was interesting. :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy policies.