Zware gewichten niet nodig voor grotere spieren

[Beaudien]

Wat zit je op je praatstoel, Gen...met 2 keer hetzelfde bericht!

Ik ben alleen benieuwd of ze het sec hebben over groeifactoren, of dat ze ook gemeten hebben in hoeverre er toename van spierweefsel plaatsvond. Zit nu op de bb dus is even lastiger nazoeken.

Ben hier wel erg benieuwd naar!

[talalelh15]

Ik ben er nu toe min of meer toe gedwongen wegens een armblessure. Ben daarom op zich dan wel weer content met dit artikeltje, want wie weet kan ik er nu toch voor zorgen om in elk geval niets kwijt te raken, al kan ik nu niet bouwen. Mag nog wel trainen maar echt maar heel licht. En dan dus echt met de nadruk op heel licht.....Bah.
Maar de tijd dat ik hier eigenwijs toch gewoon mee doorging, is nu over, want dit is inderdaad niet grappig meer zo.

Maar dat kan ook te maken hebben door dat jij niet geperiodiseerd hebt. Je kan nou eenmaal niet lang dezelfde trainingsschema hanteren zonder een rustweekje of een week minder zwaar trainen.

[Beaudien]

Maar dat kan ook te maken hebben door dat jij niet geperiodiseerd hebt. Je kan nou eenmaal niet lang dezelfde trainingsschema hanteren zonder een rustweekje of een week minder zwaar trainen.

Nou, wat fijn dat ik daar nu dan toch eindelijk aan toe kom.

[talalelh15]

Nou, wat fijn dat ik daar nu dan toch eindelijk aan toe kom.

ahah tegenstrijdig he :P. Ik houd er ook niet van maarja je komt de weken later wel lekkerder in je vel.

[Sammy75]

Maar dat kan ook te maken hebben door dat jij niet geperiodiseerd hebt. Je kan nou eenmaal niet lang dezelfde trainingsschema hanteren zonder een rustweekje of een week minder zwaar trainen.

Meerdere maanden maximaal doorknallen heeft ons naast goede groei ook een verplichte deload opgeleverd inderdaad...

[joachimrens]

Intermittent fasting diet for fat loss, muscle gain and health: Training

Hier wordt deze studie bediscussieerd door experts. Een quote:

1. I don't think the authors can make such a broad conclusion, given the study design. The only conclusion that can be drawn is that 4 sets of failure at 30% 1RM stimulates more protein synthesis than 4 sets of failure at 90% 1RM. This result doesn't surprise me given the much greater volume of work in the 30% 1RM group.

I know Stu Phillips personally and worked with him on a protein advisory committee. He does very good work, but I'm surprised they did this study in the way they did. Kumar et al (2008) already have a study like this, and it was better in the sense that they kept the volume load equal between conditions. They also did leg extensions, and they found an increasing protein synthesis response as you went from 20% 1RM to 60% 1RM, with no further increase beyond that.

However, when you look at Kumar's data, the young subjects showed a trend for increases up to 75% 1RM until a plateau was finally reached; I think the lack of significance in the 60-75% range was more an issue of statistical power. So that data would indicate that the middle range that is so popular likely is optimal for hypertrophy.

Another problem with this particular paper is they only looked at protein synthesis. However, hypertrophy is the result of protein synthesis exceeding protein degradation. Really you need to look at net protein accretion and not just the synthesis response in isolation. Without protein degradation data it's really hard to say which one did better.

I think this paper does indicate that there is value to "light" days, and you can obviously stimulate protein synthesis even if you're not using heavy weights. I think too many people are caught up in the notion that every work out must be heavy to get benefit out of it.

[joachimrens]

Intermittent fasting diet for fat loss, muscle gain and health: Training

Hier wordt deze studie bediscussieerd door experts. Een quote:

1. I don't think the authors can make such a broad conclusion, given the study design. The only conclusion that can be drawn is that 4 sets of failure at 30% 1RM stimulates more protein synthesis than 4 sets of failure at 90% 1RM. This result doesn't surprise me given the much greater volume of work in the 30% 1RM group.

I know Stu Phillips personally and worked with him on a protein advisory committee. He does very good work, but I'm surprised they did this study in the way they did. Kumar et al (2008) already have a study like this, and it was better in the sense that they kept the volume load equal between conditions. They also did leg extensions, and they found an increasing protein synthesis response as you went from 20% 1RM to 60% 1RM, with no further increase beyond that.

However, when you look at Kumar's data, the young subjects showed a trend for increases up to 75% 1RM until a plateau was finally reached; I think the lack of significance in the 60-75% range was more an issue of statistical power. So that data would indicate that the middle range that is so popular likely is optimal for hypertrophy.

Another problem with this particular paper is they only looked at protein synthesis. However, hypertrophy is the result of protein synthesis exceeding protein degradation. Really you need to look at net protein accretion and not just the synthesis response in isolation. Without protein degradation data it's really hard to say which one did better.

I think this paper does indicate that there is value to "light" days, and you can obviously stimulate protein synthesis even if you're not using heavy weights. I think too many people are caught up in the notion that every work out must be heavy to get benefit out of it.