PDA

View Full Version : Cardio leading to overtraining?



Sinep
07-10-2001, 07:16 PM
I'm wondering wether doing cardio the day next to my back or leg workout going to overtrain it since I can really feel the soreness.

PowerManDL
07-10-2001, 07:18 PM
Depends--

You really aren't using the same metabolic pathways or muscle fibers if you're doing endurance cardio.

To be honest with you, I don't think its that big of an issue. If anything, it might aid in your recovery.

Something to think about, anyway

Power

chris mason
07-10-2001, 07:45 PM
Oh Powerman, you dissapoint me. You are one of the people on this site with a decent command of physiology, yet you are quite incorrect. Your training will dictate your results. The S.A.I.D. principal. If you train for endurance, your muscles will adapt to it. Your medium twitch fibers (IIa) will become much like slow twitch fibers (I) in makeup. Strength training and aerobic training are in direct opposition to each other. You CAN do both, but you will maximize neither by doing both. A muscle fiber which is maximally adapted to aerobic training is essentially the polar opposite of a muscle fiber adapted for strength. So, if you want the biggest, strongest muscles possible, you will limit your aerobic training. Again, you can do both and improve at both, but you will limit what you can do with either form of training by doing both. For health purposes, I think one SHOULD do both, but we all know that most of us are not in this for our health........

Sinep
07-10-2001, 08:09 PM
But you're missing the question Chris... I asked about doing threadmill after my deadlift day (spinal erector = burning dead). I could only run 7min1/2 because of the soreness ... can't be good can it?

Frankster
07-10-2001, 08:44 PM
I"d say no it isn't .... do some other kind of cardio.. stairmaster?.. bike?

Maki Riddington
07-10-2001, 09:05 PM
Sinep said,
But you're missing the question Chris... I asked about doing threadmill after my deadlift day (spinal erector = burning dead

*** LOL, anything to make Powerman look foolish huh Chris;)

YatesNightBlade
07-11-2001, 02:38 AM
lol@mac

Sinep, I wouldn't worry about your back recovering. I think Leg soreness is an issue though.

When I dieted last year I used to train legs on a Monday and do some Bike work on the Tuesday. I lost some noticable size off my legs. I now give my legs a couple of days to recover and only do speed/incline walks.

Joe Black
07-11-2001, 02:41 AM
Sinep...

I think you would definetely affect back or leg recovery by performing cardio the day after for sure..

Whats more important..

Workout recovery or cardio activity ?

I say workout recovery :)

PowerManDL
07-11-2001, 05:41 AM
Originally posted by chris mason
Oh Powerman, you dissapoint me. You are one of the people on this site with a decent command of physiology, yet you are quite incorrect. Your training will dictate your results. The S.A.I.D. principal. If you train for endurance, your muscles will adapt to it. Your medium twitch fibers (IIa) will become much like slow twitch fibers (I) in makeup. Strength training and aerobic training are in direct opposition to each other. You CAN do both, but you will maximize neither by doing both. A muscle fiber which is maximally adapted to aerobic training is essentially the polar opposite of a muscle fiber adapted for strength. So, if you want the biggest, strongest muscles possible, you will limit your aerobic training. Again, you can do both and improve at both, but you will limit what you can do with either form of training by doing both. For health purposes, I think one SHOULD do both, but we all know that most of us are not in this for our health........

Ok, you want some physiology command, here it comes:

He asked if it would hurt him to do cardio after his heavy weight training.

I said yes, and that it may in fact aid in recovery.

Why? Well, main reason being, he's not activating the fibers or metabolic pathways that were previously stressed. Ok, so they're resting while he's doing cardio. True, there may be some issues regarding total energy usage, but I don't think it'll be an issue for the duration he's talking about. That being said regarding the original question, I'll move on.

For the very SAID principle you mentioned, he won't be causing any adaptations in the previously trained fibers because he won't be stimulating them. As long as his cardio work is being kept short, and weight training is the lion's share of his program, there won't be any issues regarding aerobic adaptations vs. glycolytic adaptations in any fibers. The only ones that would be susceptible to aerobic adaptation are the type II oxidative, and they will only do so under *massive* endurance protocols, when the ST fibers actually require their assistance. A few light cardio workouts aren't sufficient to cause this, especially if weight training is the primary stimulus.

Thirdly, light stimulation of a muscle that has been trained recently, including mild aerobic workouts, can actually aid in recovery and help speed repair of the said muscle. This occurs by increasing blood flow and general metabolic activity in the area. Increased blood flow allows faster removal of damaged tissue as well as greater access to metabolites and substrates required for repair. Its the concept of "active rest."

Hope this cleared things up.

Power

chris mason
07-11-2001, 07:24 AM
Let me ask you a question, when you are lifting a heavy weight and perform 10 reps at or near your limit, do you think that your type I fibers are contracting or not?

You don't target specific fibers when training, that is a bodybuilding myth. Read the following excerpts below:


Olympic Champions are Oddballs
If you want to win an Olympic medal in the 100 meter dash, you had better be born with about 80% fast twitch fibers! Want to win the Olympic marathon? Put in an order for 80% slow twitch fibers in your quads. The fast twitch fibers benefit the absolute sprinter because they reach peak tension much faster than their slow twitch counterparts. Gram for gram, the two types are not different in the amount of force they produce, only the rate of force production. So, having a lot of fast twitch fibers only makes a difference when the time available for force production is very limited (milliseconds), like the brief time the foot is in contact with the ground during a sprint, or a long jump. It makes no difference to the powerlifter. In cycling, the only event that they are decidedly advantageous for is the match sprint, analogous to the track 100 meter dash, but with more anticipatory tactics and theatrics. For the pure endurance athlete, it is slow twitch fibers that are needed. These fibers give up lightning speed for fatigue resistance. Lots of mitochondria and more capillaries surrounding each fiber make them more adept at using oxygen to generate ATP without lactate accumulation and fuel repeated contractions, like the 240 or so in a 2000 meter rowing race, or the 15,000 plus in a marathon.

For the athletic community, the important information is this. It does appear that pure fast (Type IIb) fibers can transition to "hybrid" (Type IIa) fibers with chronic endurance training. Biopsies of elite endurance athletes reveal that after years of training, they have almost no IIb fibers, but often have a significant percentage of the intermediate, IIa fibers. BUT, the majority of the available research suggests that Type IIa fibers do not transition to Type I. This is the more accurate way of saying what I said at the end of Part I of the Fiber type discussion.


So you see Powerman, you are quite wrong in your assumption that you are using different muscle fibers when training with weights or endurance exercise, you are not, the fibers just adapt differently. As for the active rest thing, I really don't buy into it when one wants to maximize their weightlifting potential. I think a nice walk would be a fine way to achieve the calorie burning effect he is out for without taxing the muscles to any appreciable degree (we'll call this "not very active rest":) ).

tuttle
07-11-2001, 01:39 PM
the overtraining and negitive effects of to much cardio is something i am quite worried about as although i want to increase my muscle mass i am training for joining the military and am more of a cross trainer. I train 3-4 cardio sessions a week for a duration of 30-50 mins at one time, is this to much to totally effect my gains? and is circuit training (sit-ups, press-ups etc) counted as an aerobic session? and will one session of this a week heavily effect my gains? as Bruce Lee used to do tons of aerobic and circuit training as well as weights and had an incredible physique.
Thanks to anyone who can help

Tuttle.

chris mason
07-11-2001, 02:29 PM
Bruce Lee was incredible indeed, incredibly skinny (albeit ripped). He was a very SMALL man, and if you saw him in person and he was wearing a shirt, you would NOT be impressed. Now, don't get me wrong, he was an incredible martial artist and athlete, but not really a physique to aspire to be like in my opinion.

The_Chicken_Daddy
07-11-2001, 02:37 PM
Bruce lee was a scrawny mofo.

Yaz
07-11-2001, 02:49 PM
Sinep there is no soreness, you're just a sissygirl. Now I'ma kill you, boy. :D

Actually, as a personal thing I did some light intensity cardio after my leg days almost all the time... eventhough sore as a biatch, and my legs grew quite well.

Anthony
07-11-2001, 03:26 PM
I think you should see the doctor Sinep, this has been something bothering you for awhile and it's obviously not going away.

PowerManDL
07-11-2001, 04:44 PM
Originally posted by chris mason
Let me ask you a question, when you are lifting a heavy weight and perform 10 reps at or near your limit, do you think that your type I fibers are contracting or not?

You don't target specific fibers when training, that is a bodybuilding myth. Read the following excerpts below:


Olympic Champions are Oddballs
If you want to win an Olympic medal in the 100 meter dash, you had better be born with about 80% fast twitch fibers! Want to win the Olympic marathon? Put in an order for 80% slow twitch fibers in your quads. The fast twitch fibers benefit the absolute sprinter because they reach peak tension much faster than their slow twitch counterparts. Gram for gram, the two types are not different in the amount of force they produce, only the rate of force production. So, having a lot of fast twitch fibers only makes a difference when the time available for force production is very limited (milliseconds), like the brief time the foot is in contact with the ground during a sprint, or a long jump. It makes no difference to the powerlifter. In cycling, the only event that they are decidedly advantageous for is the match sprint, analogous to the track 100 meter dash, but with more anticipatory tactics and theatrics. For the pure endurance athlete, it is slow twitch fibers that are needed. These fibers give up lightning speed for fatigue resistance. Lots of mitochondria and more capillaries surrounding each fiber make them more adept at using oxygen to generate ATP without lactate accumulation and fuel repeated contractions, like the 240 or so in a 2000 meter rowing race, or the 15,000 plus in a marathon.

For the athletic community, the important information is this. It does appear that pure fast (Type IIb) fibers can transition to "hybrid" (Type IIa) fibers with chronic endurance training. Biopsies of elite endurance athletes reveal that after years of training, they have almost no IIb fibers, but often have a significant percentage of the intermediate, IIa fibers. BUT, the majority of the available research suggests that Type IIa fibers do not transition to Type I. This is the more accurate way of saying what I said at the end of Part I of the Fiber type discussion.


So you see Powerman, you are quite wrong in your assumption that you are using different muscle fibers when training with weights or endurance exercise, you are not, the fibers just adapt differently. As for the active rest thing, I really don't buy into it when one wants to maximize their weightlifting potential. I think a nice walk would be a fine way to achieve the calorie burning effect he is out for without taxing the muscles to any appreciable degree (we'll call this "not very active rest":) ).

Show me where I said specific fibers were contracting.

Its the body's mechanism for conserving energy in any activity; ST fibers contract first, followed by FT. I'm not getting into the entire discussion about the role of type IIb fibers, but for this discussion, we'll say they're relevant.

In endurance activities, the ST fibers are the only fibers contracting. As the article states, they are extremely fatigue resistant (and thusly, hypertrophy resistant).

In slightly anaerobic activities, those using the glycolytic pathway, the IIa fibers now come into play, *along with* the already contracting ST fibers. However, since activities using glycolytic metabolism, including BB style training, are of a relatively short duration (30-90 seconds) the ST fibers aren't active long enough to receive enough stimulus to cause adaptive response.

In explosive, entirely anaerobic activities using the ATP/CP pathway, the IIb/x fibers are generally accepted to be the main players. These are extremely susceptible to fatigue, and to hypertrophy. This is where Olympic lifters and powerlifters play, using movements that take less than 30 seconds. In these movements, all three types of fibers contract, even ST. But again, the duration of the movement is so short that the IIa and ST fibers aren't stimulated. They activate, yes, but don't receive nearly enough stimulus to cause any adaptation.

So yeah, you're right that you can't selectively activate fibers. Which is why I specifically listed metabolic pathways as well, since they are intimately linked to which fibers are activated and stimulated. The reasons noted above also give some understanding of why BB style movements lead to growth (because of the biochemical effects of glycolytic metabolism, and the longer duration of the exercise leading to more muscle microtrauma) and OL training leads to power output (short duration, using the body's most potent source of cellular energy, and using the heaviest loads. The fast recruitment of IIb/x fibers also does neat things for the nervous system).

As far as fiber conversions, I've seen recent research which has shown that *all* athletes eventually lose a good portion of their IIb/x fibers after training for a time. I'm not sure what the implication of this is, but we'll see.

For IIa's converting to ST, I don't think its possible. However, in *heavily* endurance-trained individuals, the IIa's can become more endurance oriented. They even take on the ATPase isomer found in ST fibers, and may exhibit changes in MHC structure. But light to medium cardio a few times a week won't do it.

Whether you like active rest or not, that's your *opinion.* Myself and countless others have found it practically invaluable for accelerating muscular and systemic recovery. I'm just tossing out the idea.

Power

chris mason
07-11-2001, 08:41 PM
I understand what you are saying, but I don't think that you understand my post. The point is that your fibers, all types, will adapt to the stress placed on them. So, if you train aerobically to any appreciable degree, all of your fibers will adapt to varying degrees over time. Now, if this occurs, it will occur at the expense of size and strength (or possible gains thereof). So, I think that any type of strenuous aerobic activity should be avoided and only very, VERY low intensity aerobic types of activities should be performed by the individual trying to maximize his/her size and strength.

Oh yeah, slow twitch fibers are used in weightlifting, not just IIa or b fibers. You want me to show you where you spoke about specific fibers. Ok:

"Why? Well, main reason being, he's not activating the fibers or metabolic pathways that were previously stressed. Ok, so they're resting while he's doing cardio"

So here you are stating that aerobic activity and weightlifting activity will use mutually exclusive fibers, yes or no? Well, that is incorrect, you ARE using type I fibers when lifting with weights, so those same fibers are not resting when doing aerobic work on a different day. Here, read this article:




Introduction
Adaptability is a fundamental characteristic of skeletal muscle (and the body in general). The nature of this adaptation can be summarized using the following principle: The cell will adapt in a manner that tends to minimize any movement away from homeostasis, or resting conditions. In exercise physiology we refer to the acute changes that occur in a sytem, organ, or cell during exercise as responses. An example is the increase in heart rate that occurs when we jump up from our chair and start jogging. Those long term changes that occur as a result of repeated bouts of exercise are called adaptations. Cellular adaptations generally involve an increase or decrease in the rate of synthesis of a specific cellular component. All muscle cells are in a constant state of synthesis and degradation. If synthesis rate exceeds degradation rate, an increase in the cellular component occurs. A change in protein synthesis requires a cellular signal. Biologists and physiologists continue to explore the communiction process by which different forms of muscular work induce cellular changes. At the cellular level, there are some theories, but no complete understanding. However, we do know quite a bit about what adaptations do occur, even if we aren't sure how just yet.



Contrast Between Maximal Strength and Maximal Endurance
If we could build a skeletal muscle for the purpose of endurance, what would the recipe be? Since the heart is the supreme endurance muscle, let's look at it first.
Characteristics of Fatigue Resistant Muscle Cells
Heart cells are smaller in diameter than skeletal muscle cells. This results in very short diffusion distance between oxygen molecules coming from capillaries and the mitochondria where they are used.
The surrounding network of capillaries is extremely well developed. This characteristic also facililitates even and rapid oxygen distribution to all myocardial cells.
The mitochondrial density of heart cells is extremely high, 20-25% of cell volume in adults. Mitochondria use oxygen to metabolise food and produce ATP.
The cytoplasmic enzymes responsible for breaking down fatty acid molecules into 2 carbon fragments that can enter the mitochondria are present in high concentrations.
Contractile protein makes up about 60% of cell volume. The ATPase subtype found in heart is slower than that seen in skeletal muscle. Consequently, the rate of force development is slower, although absolute tension/cell diameter is the same.
Heart lactate dehydrogenase, the enzyme that converts pyruvate to lactic acid competes poorly with pyruvate dehydrogenase. This contributes to the very low lactate production in heart cells despite high metabolic flux.
So, heart cells display almost zero fatiguability due to the tremendous capacity they have to receive and consume oxygen. Fatigue resistance is traded for anaerobic capacity. This is why the heart has little tolerance for oxygen deprivation, or a heart attack. If we want to build a skeletal muscle that is highly fatigue resistant, it must resemble heart muscle in its basic features.
Now let's build a muscle that is optimized for brief efforts and maximum force production. Here are the characteristics needed.

Characteristics of Maximal Strength Muscle Cells
Each muscle cell should contain a high volume of contractile protein. Since oxygen diffusion is not a concern, making the cell diameter larger will help it hold more contractile protein (actin and myosin).
To make more room for actin and myosin, mitochondrial density should be minimized to that necessary to maintain resting cell function.
Since fat can only be metabolized aerobically, high levels of fat cleaving enzymes in the cytosol are also unnecessary.
The capacity for anaerobic glycolysis should be high to allow brief but high capacity energy production without oxygen. The capacity for lactic acid production should be high.

What you should notice is that these two lists are exactly opposite. The optimal muscle for endurance CAN NEVER be maximally strong. And the muscle fiber that produces the most force CANNOT be optimally developed for endurance as well. The two conditions are mutually exclusive. This is one of the most important concepts to understand when designing a training program.

Three Points to Remember:

There are identifiable proteins in the muscle that contribute to its ability to produce high force at high rates (strength and Power).
There are also identifiable proteins and structural characteristics that confer high fatigue resistance (endurance).
There is no identifiable specific protein or structure that confers the quality "Strength-Endurance". When we train for strength-endurance, what we are really doing is training in a way that fails to stimulate either strength or endurance adaptations optimally. An example of this "best of neither worlds" approach is circuit training.
As a coach/athlete, your sucess begins with your ability to accurately understand the muscular demands of your sport. Then, a training program can be designed that will result in muscular development suited to the combination of strength and endurance that your sport requires. Here are two real world examples.

Cackerot69
07-11-2001, 08:56 PM
OK Chris, enough with copy/pasting Stephen Seiler's articles. PowerMan doesn't need to go back to extremely BASIC physiology.

In my understanding, Type I fibers only come into play with reps above 15 or so and/or a very slow tempo. Let's take a look at a typical bodybuilding set, with (say) 8 reps and a 2-0-2-0 tempo:

You pick up the weight and perform one rep; at this point some of the IIAís are recruited while the IIBís have not yet been recruited. On rep two, some more IIAís are recruited and fatigued, while the IIBís start to pick up the slack that the fatigued IIAís left. By rep three more IIAís are fatigued and consequently more IIBís are recruited, then you go on to perform 3 more reps. Now, as you go for rep seven, all of the IIAís are fatigued, and all of your IIBís are recruited but are not yet twitching at maximum frequency - they still have some gas left. As you go for rep 8, all of your IIBís are firing at maximum frequency, all of your IIBís are completely fatigued, and finally your IIBís are completely fatigued. You have just reached momentary muscular failure.

Now, unless all available IIA fibers are fatigued to a point that they can no longer contract, the Type I fibers will not be recruited simply because the oxidative properties of the IIA's are enough to get past the initial "easy" reps before the glycolytic fibers need to be recruited.

Also, what about the role of myosin heavy chain IIX fibers? If one focuses his/her training around glycolytic fibers then he/she will have more of these fibers because the MHC IIX fibers will be converted to them. Same goes with IIC fibers in that if one focuses on the IIB fibers they will have more IIB's (comparitevely).

Personally, I think aerobic training is good for general health and has a place in a fat loss regimen, but if you're trying to be a big mofo...then drop it, but not primarily because of the factors Chris mentioned.

PowerManDL
07-12-2001, 05:29 AM
Originally posted by Cackerot69
OK Chris, enough with copy/pasting Stephen Seiler's articles. PowerMan doesn't need to go back to extremely BASIC physiology.

In my understanding, Type I fibers only come into play with reps above 15 or so and/or a very slow tempo. Let's take a look at a typical bodybuilding set, with (say) 8 reps and a 2-0-2-0 tempo:

You pick up the weight and perform one rep; at this point some of the IIAís are recruited while the IIBís have not yet been recruited. On rep two, some more IIAís are recruited and fatigued, while the IIBís start to pick up the slack that the fatigued IIAís left. By rep three more IIAís are fatigued and consequently more IIBís are recruited, then you go on to perform 3 more reps. Now, as you go for rep seven, all of the IIAís are fatigued, and all of your IIBís are recruited but are not yet twitching at maximum frequency - they still have some gas left. As you go for rep 8, all of your IIBís are firing at maximum frequency, all of your IIBís are completely fatigued, and finally your IIBís are completely fatigued. You have just reached momentary muscular failure.

Now, unless all available IIA fibers are fatigued to a point that they can no longer contract, the Type I fibers will not be recruited simply because the oxidative properties of the IIA's are enough to get past the initial "easy" reps before the glycolytic fibers need to be recruited.

Also, what about the role of myosin heavy chain IIX fibers? If one focuses his/her training around glycolytic fibers then he/she will have more of these fibers because the MHC IIX fibers will be converted to them. Same goes with IIC fibers in that if one focuses on the IIB fibers they will have more IIB's (comparitevely).

Personally, I think aerobic training is good for general health and has a place in a fat loss regimen, but if you're trying to be a big mofo...then drop it, but not primarily because of the factors Chris mentioned.

Type I fibers come into play in *all* contractions-- it can't be avoided.

The reason that shorter-duration exercise doesn't affect them is exactly that-- its too short. Those fibers have fatigue times ranging from 6 minutes on; if they aren't fatigued, they aren't trained.

My whole point about this is that you can do aerobic work, as long as its not excessive, and still make muscular gains; as I previously stated, some endurance adaptations even aid in both short-term recovery and long-term hypertrophy (by supplying the support structure for more tissue).

Its really a moot point, though-- do it if you want. My personal recommendation is to include at least some aerobic- and anaerobic-endurance training (more of the former) in your training at different stages for the best effect.

Power

Cackerot69
07-12-2001, 12:34 PM
I think you've been hanging around supertraining too much PowerMan :)

If the Type I fibers aren't fatigued then it doesn't matter if they are activiated, not enough stimulation to cause adaptation.

Btw Chris, those articles are 6 years old. You might wanna try updating your info. New research has shown that although Type IIB fibers become more IIA like and IIA fibers become more I like in that they increase their mitochondrial density to become oxidative, that does NOT mean they lose their ability to produce maximum force. So, it actually a good thing.

The_Chicken_Daddy
07-12-2001, 12:51 PM
...This lad is 15 years old...

...My God...

chris mason
07-12-2001, 12:56 PM
Actually, it's 4 years old (from the last update), and that fact doesn't make it incorrect. Actually, I never said that they would lose the ability to contract with maximum force, only that it would limit their ability to improve. The other key factor here involves good old fashioned recovery. Your body can only deal with a finite amount of exercise induced trauma, adding more training to the mix will NOT help matters. Like I said, and have said before, for maximum health, do aerobics, for maximum results, don't (or do an extremely limited low intensity version). It's that simple. Steroid using athletes can get away with it because of the greatly enhanced recovery they receive from the drugs, drug free athletes cannot. Cack, one problem with you is that you are very intelligent an obviously do quite a bit of reading on the topic, however, you have a very limited amount of real world experience with some of the concepts you throw around (due to your young age and lack of experience). If you wish to run and run, and drink 8 gallons of water a day, you may do so, but you will find as you age and gain experience that many of the things you read about don't necessarily translate well into the real world. Like I said, you are smart and articulate for your age, but sometimes your ego outstrips your abilities.

The_Chicken_Daddy
07-12-2001, 01:03 PM
Yes - Cack: 'Never bite the hand that feeds you'

PowerManDL
07-12-2001, 01:12 PM
Actually, it's 4 years old (from the last update), and that fact doesn't make it incorrect. Actually, I never said that they would lose the ability to contract with maximum force, only that it would limit their ability to improve.

Ummm....... what's the difference? If they're still contracting with maximal force, but have added mitochondria, the fiber can now contract with maximal force AND has greater energy available. Why is that not improvement?

The other key factor here involves good old fashioned recovery. Your body can only deal with a finite amount of exercise induced trauma, adding more training to the mix will NOT help matters.

Aerobic training doesn't really induce trauma. Not nearly the same way that weights do.

Like I said, and have said before, for maximum health, do aerobics, for maximum results, don't (or do an extremely limited low intensity version). It's that simple. Steroid using athletes can get away with it because of the greatly enhanced recovery they receive from the drugs, drug free athletes cannot. Cack, one problem with you is that you are very intelligent an obviously do quite a bit of reading on the topic, however, you have a very limited amount of real world experience with some of the concepts you throw around (due to your young age and lack of experience). If you wish to run and run, and drink 8 gallons of water a day, you may do so, but you will find as you age and gain experience that many of the things you read about don't necessarily translate well into the real world. Like I said, you are smart and articulate for your age, but sometimes your ego outstrips your abilities.

Yes Cack, you can't know anything; you're just 15.

Translation: you said something he can't counter.

Power

Cackerot69
07-12-2001, 01:21 PM
Yeah.

chris mason
07-12-2001, 01:39 PM
No, translation: I am getting tired of your insolence dating back to the comments concerning my wife. How do you like that FUC*ING translation Powerman?


Aerobic training doesn't induce trauma? Is long distance running aerobic training? Well, a study was done on long distance runners. This study biopsied the muscle cells in the legs of the runners, it was done 1 month after the race. The muscles cells were torn and actually turned inside-out, I would say that is trauma, wouldn't you Powerman????

PowerManDL
07-12-2001, 01:46 PM
Originally posted by chris mason
No, translation: I am getting tired of your insolence dating back to the comments concerning my wife. How do you like that FUC*ING translation Powerman?


Aerobic training doesn't induce trauma? Is long distance running aerobic training? Well, a study was done on long distance runners. This study biopsied the muscle cells in the legs of the runners, it was done 1 month after the race. The muscles cells were torn and actually turned inside-out, I would say that is trauma, wouldn't you Powerman????

Hey, hey!! Calm down there skippy!

First off, I've never insulted your wife. I don't know what kind of acid you're taking, but I try not to make it a habit of insulting you personally unless you start it-- and even then, I limit it to you.

Secondly, that's *hard* aerobic training. Mild aerobic training won't do that. If you aren't running marathons, or something similar, you won't have a problem.

Power

chris mason
07-12-2001, 02:01 PM
Hey Skippy, I wasn't saying YOU did, I was speaking of Cack. I was merely translating my previous statement which had been directed at Cack, not you. So, the translation was directed at Cack, not you. Get it? However, I mentioned you in there because you chose to be a "funny" guy and try to translate My statements.

Anthony
07-12-2001, 02:50 PM
Hehehehehe. This is hilarious.

Sinep - go see a doctor. Your back is hurt, you need to find out what needs to be done to fix it.

Chris, Cack, and Power. All your arguments can be summed up in 4 words. Eat steak and squat. Nuff said.

Yaz
07-12-2001, 03:08 PM
We've determined this:

Steak, Squat, Steak, Cornflakes...

Maki Riddington
07-12-2001, 03:21 PM
Originally posted by Cackerot69
I think you've been hanging around supertraining too much PowerMan :)




*** That is a good thing I presume?

Like I said on another board Cack, try peeling yourself away from your text and putting your knowledge to the test. You'll be quite suprised at the results you get.

Cackerot69
07-12-2001, 03:51 PM
Maki, why don't shut your face? You talk like I don't train, you go take your androsol and hope to be Ronnie Coleman. Just don't get drunk too often, might be a little hard on your liver.

The supertraining comment was about PowerMan picking out some little irrelevant detail and making it a big thing, like they do over at supertraining :)

Chris, if Type II fibers becoming more oxidative limits their ability to grow, then what is irrational hypertrophy? Irrational hypertrophy is when actin and myosin filaments "outgrow" the amount of mitochondria which leads to an ATP debt in the muscle cell and actually prevents any more contractile hypertrophy. If there is an ATP debt in the muscle it won't be able to produce the ATP necessary to fuel contraction of actin and myosin or even protein synthesis for that matter. You can actually lose muscle when this happens. This is why, for maximum growth, you MUST train for sarcoplasmic hypertrophy at some point in your training because contractile hypertrophy can only take you so far without increaseing mitochondiral density.

Alex.V
07-12-2001, 03:54 PM
One quick question: Can IIB hypertrophy occur while a cell is trying to build/regenerate different pathways? i.e., yes, the cells may be growing regardless, but does aerobic training slow down the hypertrophy process because it's diverting energy (and the body is diverting its overall attentions) to creating more mitochondria? Or can both processes occur simultaneously?

(In other words, the adaptive process is not zero-sum regarding hormone production/utilization; the body will compensate well for both.)

.....

*eats steak*

*squats*

chris mason
07-12-2001, 04:05 PM
Cack, your theory assumes that the body will not add any oxidative capacity as the myofibrils hypertrophy, it assumes incorrectly. Irrational hypertrophy is most likely a theoretical possibility, not, once again, a real life occurence.

PowerManDL
07-12-2001, 04:26 PM
Originally posted by chris mason
Cack, your theory assumes that the body will not add any oxidative capacity as the myofibrils hypertrophy, it assumes incorrectly. Irrational hypertrophy is most likely a theoretical possibility, not, once again, a real life occurence.

Well Chris, assuming the SAID principle, why would the body grow more mitochondria if it doesn't have too?

Ok, granted this doesn't really apply to the untrained person, but in a *trained* individual, trying to add more of something the body doesn't want in the first place, why would the body help out by just adding more mitochondria?

Assuming the SAID principle, if you don't train for more mitochondria, I don't believe you're going to get any more. Ie, if you aren't training for oxidative capacity, you aren't going to get oxidative capacity. And if you don't get oxidative capacity, you get irrational hypertrophy.

Power

Cackerot69
07-12-2001, 04:29 PM
Yeah, myofribrillar hypertrophy will cause mitochondria size to increase, but not mitochondrial density, and because mitochondria have a very low potential for hypertrophy and actin and myosin have a very large potential for hypertrophy the result is the contractile proteins outgrowing the mitochondria and an ATP debt in the muscle cell - irrational hypertrophy.

chris mason
07-12-2001, 04:43 PM
Ok, Specific Adaptation to Imposed Demand. If your training dictates a growth in myofibrils, and that growth necessitates greater oxidative capacity, doesn't it stand to reason (if we assume the principle is sound) that the body will commensurately increase oxidative capacity if it is capable of doing so.

PowerManDL
07-12-2001, 04:46 PM
Originally posted by chris mason
Ok, Specific Adaptation to Imposed Demand. If your training dictates a growth in myofibrils, and that growth necessitates greater oxidative capacity, doesn't it stand to reason (if we assume the principle is sound) that the body will commensurately increase oxidative capacity if it is capable of doing so.

Yeah, but here's the thing: the body's not going to say, ok, I need more myofibrils, but I need more energy to support them.

The adaptive process is going to focus on the myofibrils. If the resources are there, you get more myofibrils; if not, you get either no net change, or even *less*

The adaptation will occur regardless.... Now, if you want more mitochondria, you have to train for more mitochondria.

There's no reason for the body to suddenly create an oxidative adaptation from an anaerobic stimulus.

Power

Cackerot69
07-12-2001, 04:48 PM
Exactly.

chris mason
07-12-2001, 04:51 PM
Actually, Cack said that the increased oxidative capacity was necessary, I am saying that if this is true then the SAID principle dictates that it would occur if training stimulates myofibrillar growth.

chris mason
07-12-2001, 04:56 PM
I am following his line of reasoning to its logical conclusion.

PowerManDL
07-12-2001, 04:57 PM
Originally posted by chris mason
Actually, Cack said that the increased oxidative capacity was necessary, I am saying that if this is true then the SAID principle dictates that it would occur if training stimulates myofibrillar growth.

Not at all. Just because the oxidative capacity is required doesn't mean its automatic.

The SAID principle is just that-- the muscle adapts specifically to the stimulus applied. If you apply heavy anaerobic stimulus, to stimulate more myofibrils, why would the body include an aerobic adaptation? That's not very specific.

As far as oxidative capacity of the IIb's, this is what we call a plateau when irrational hypertrophy occurs. You can't grow anymore because the fibers literally can't support any more myofibrils.

Power

chris mason
07-12-2001, 05:01 PM
You are being quite obstinate here. If training stimulates myofibril growth, and increased oxidative capacity is required for this growth, as CACK said, then for the growth to occur, increased oxidative capacity must occur. Do you get it? If you wish to argue about the oxidative process being linked to increased myofibrillar growth, then you need to argue with Cack, not me.

PowerManDL
07-12-2001, 05:05 PM
Originally posted by chris mason
You are being quite obstinate here. If training stimulates myofibril growth, and increased oxidative capacity is required for this growth, as CACK said, then for the growth to occur, increased oxidative capacity must occur. Do you get it? If you wish to argue about the oxidative process being linked to increased myofibrillar growth, then you need to argue with Cack, not me.

Ok, here's the source of confusion.

We've gotten *stimulus* for growth and *growth* confused.

What should be said is this:

If you train a IIb for myofibrillar growth, you *stimulate* that fiber to create more myofibrils.

Now, whether that growth actually comes about or not is dependent on available resources.

If the resources are available, then you get more. If not, you don't.

The *actual* growth will only occur if resources are available, even though the *potential* for growth is created by the training.

Power

Tryska
07-12-2001, 06:03 PM
well said powerman.

that sums it up nicely, and i think that's what cack was getting at too.....

but still......i'm gonna have to go with "eat steak and squat" on this one.:D

UFO
07-12-2001, 06:09 PM
Of course cardio can lead to overtraining. Cardio alone can do that so why wouldn't it do it if you pre-exhaust your body with a workout??? :eek:

vox
07-12-2001, 06:12 PM
I was eating steak and doing some squats when I wondered if Sinep gets blammed for starting this. I agree with Anthony go see a doctor or there is a massage therapy school here, not to $.

chris mason
07-12-2001, 06:23 PM
Ok, let's attack this from a completely different angle. In an untrained individual, it is generally accepted that the body will exist with just enough capacity to perform the normal tasks asked of it, with a bit of reserve for emergency situations. Now, as one begins to train with weights, the body will adapt by growing larger, stronger muscles. If we accept that increased myofibril size requires more oxygen to function, then we must also accept that for the increased muscle size to occur, the body will also adapt by increasing oxidative capacity. Now, we all know quite a few individuals who have gained large quantities of muscle with weightlifting alone, no aerobic work whatsoever (I am one of these people). So, if large gains in muscle mass can occur without aerobic training, we must conclude that stimulation of muscle growth will also stimulate an increased oxidative capacity, for without the latter, the former could not happen, or at least would be completely non-functional. So, your argument that aerobic work is required for increased muscle size must be unfounded, and the evidence directly contradicts this statement by you, Powerman.....

There's no reason for the body to suddenly create an oxidative adaptation from an anaerobic stimulus.


If this didn't occur, then we could not build larger muscles without aerobic training, and as I have demonstrated, it happens all of the time.

Cackerot69
07-12-2001, 06:39 PM
Chris Chris Chris....

You can progress for a while before your actin and mtosin filament density outgrows your mitochondrial density. It's not just an immediate thing, it takes consistent long-term heavy exclusive weight training with no high rep and/or aerobic training. After a while, (as many will confirm), you will hit stagnation in using only low rep/high weight training, and this is because of irrational hypertrophy and (somtimes) neural burn-out due to failure training.

When you do hit a plateau, up your volume a bit, raise reps, take a little less time between sets, and don't train to failure, and see if when you go back to low volume/high weight/low rep training your progress doesn't kick-start back up.

chris mason
07-12-2001, 07:58 PM
I'll tell you what, you keep believing that. I progressed to the tune of about 220 lbs from 165 lbs or so. If you think that is insufficient, or unsatisfactory, then I think you will probably in the minority on that one. Yes, amazingly enough, I was able to progress to a point (and strength level) that most people on this site would kill for, all without aerobic training of any sort, who woulda thunk it? Of course, if I hadn't dabbled in steroids at that time, who knows how far I might have gone? So Cack, you can up your sets, not train to failure, drink a ****load of water, and run 5 miles per day, and I will just keep on plugging!

Gyno Rhino
07-12-2001, 08:13 PM
You all can be so sad sometimes... *sigh* I really wish we could have less of these arguments. It doesn't matter what the **** the Type I fibers do. I'll take this advice:

I trained for 6 solid years while doing my bike aerobics a day after my leg workout, and I made great gains! Never overtrained!

Wayyy over this advice, any day:

FU*K you all! Where the hell do you get the idea that the mitochondria would ever cause the IIB fiber to cause oxidative stress? Your mother is a *****ing cow sucker!

NOBODY CARES!!! If you want to argue like men, go ahead! If you want to scream about ****, each quoting articles that contradict each other, that's fine! The bottom line here is use some textbook stuff, some real life stuff, and go from there. Nobody came here to read a damned article about fiber type conversion. We came here to get experienced, intelligent views. Would y'all quit bein' babies? I don't care if you're fifteen or forty, if you have FIRSTHAND knowledge, then let's have it. If you have to go quote articles and read up on the subject, we really don't need you arguing as if your life depended on it. If you all are shouting at each other, no one wants to hear your opinion. So please, be decent!!!!!

Cackerot69
07-12-2001, 08:18 PM
First off, you have said yourself that you include higher rep training along with lower rep training to stimulate Type I fibers and aerobic adaptations. You don't need to do aerobic exercise to stimulate aerobic adaptations, you know. You need to do higher reps sets, as in 12+ reps. Which you did.

And, you can try to change the subject all you want, but...

1. I haven't upped my sets, i choose to perform both high and low rep sets in each session to avoid irrational hypertrophy.

2. I generally train to failure, but I do take periodic breaks from failure training.

3. I drink one gallon per day, which is just perfect.

4. I currently do no cardio.

5. I am currently "plugging away".



PS - Gyno, if it you don't give a sh*t, then don't read it...dummy.

Life4ever
07-12-2001, 08:39 PM
This thread is full of information; im glad that you guys had this debate. One thing, Chris, it was just funny how you tryed to insult cack about the wife thing; also, the translation to powerman was damn hiliarious, SKIPPPY LMFAO.... I don't see how you guys insult eachother about using sciecne and then saying we'll we will see how it works in reality; I mean all of you use science ALL THE TIME, so dont tell one another that they dont know what they are talking about because there using it. This thread is funny and helpful. Chris, calm down; I havent seen you like this in awhile; just lay back chris and watch or porn something man. Maki, how you been man havent talked to you in awhile? I tryed to Private message you, but it didnt work. Take care all.

Cackerot69
07-12-2001, 08:43 PM
*Watches porn*

That's better.....

Werd.

Alex.V
07-12-2001, 10:01 PM
Originally posted by Cackerot69


Werd.

You are hereby fined for excessive ganking of Belial's expression.

Cackerot69
07-12-2001, 10:11 PM
Werd...

Oops...

That ain't your expression, it's basic ebonics.

Cackerot69
07-13-2001, 02:00 AM
Originally posted by YatesNightBlade
Bollox

:)

YatesNightBlade
07-13-2001, 03:10 AM
Hahaha

IceRgrrl
07-13-2001, 05:43 AM
I think I'm going to sign up for a marathon...in the interests of scientific inquiry and all :p

Tryska
07-13-2001, 06:48 AM
word.


you keep spelling it wrong cack. :p

b....excessive ganking? what's the fine for that violation anyway? *lol*

Yaz
07-13-2001, 07:38 AM
Buttrape. *nods sagely*

Anyway, be nice to eachother... or I may have to mediate. You don't want that... You guys are too small to endure my wrath. tuttut

Tryska
07-13-2001, 07:42 AM
hee hee...


yaz = killa

The_Chicken_Daddy
07-13-2001, 07:58 AM
Hmmm...Degeneration.tuttut We promised Daniel and Paul about this..and yes, i realise i am one of the worst for it, but anyhoo...

All this info about fibers etc...is all very good and interesting, but you guys are forgetting a few things:

[1] Does all this info help you sleep better at night?

[2] Does this info help you shovel down that damn tin of tuna or that bland chicken breast?

And most importantly,

[3] Does it help you move the bar?

All this info is proving to be more of a way for you guys to show the other who's smarter and polish your egos.

All the contrasting info is proving to be a headache - hindering instead of helpful, so i propose the following advice:

'Just lift the f**kin' weight!'

I thank you...

IceRgrrl
07-13-2001, 08:07 AM
...the world is spinning backwards, the constants of the universe have been overturned, the apocalypse is at hand...

The_Chicken_Daddy is steering us back on topic!

Sinep: a little cardio will probably make you feel better if there isn't anything wrong w/your back other than the normal muscle fatigue

The_Chicken_Daddy
07-13-2001, 08:13 AM
I know - what is the world coming to?!

IceRgrrl
07-13-2001, 08:14 AM
Well said, BTW...

Tryska
07-13-2001, 08:14 AM
wow schweet, you got hardcore.

nice to see you have a serious side...;)

The_Chicken_Daddy
07-13-2001, 08:22 AM
..yeah, don't expect that to stick around for long...

chris mason
07-13-2001, 08:24 AM
Doing higher reps and doing aerobic exercise are two different things.

Gyno, if you have trained all along with aerobic exercise and have never overtrained, I must assume that those 6 years of non-overtraining have left you a man who squats with at least 500 lbs for reps and has 30+ " quads. If not, then I think you may not have made as good of gains as you would have if you did not. I am willing to guess that you lift and have considerably smaller thighs than that, so that leads me to believe that you may be incorrect in your statement.

Cack, you are acting like a fool, or better yet, the little boy that you are, so I guess I shouldn't hold it against you.

Gyno Rhino
07-13-2001, 08:35 AM
ROFL @ Chris! Chris, you totally missed my point! I was complementing YOU!!! I was saying that your experience is more valuable than guys spouting off articles! I never said that I had done that, I was saying I value that kind of advice much more than people mouthing fiber types. Damn, chris, LOOSEN UP! It was a complement to you, not anything else. Don't be so quick to hammer people. I don't squat 500 for reps, I can barely do 300 for about 8 reps. I'm not all that strong. I have 27.5 inch thighs up top, but I don't like the way that my lower quads look, I'd like to improve that. Not too shabby, but not that great. Here's what I was trying to say, let me clarify for you:

If Chris, who's been training plenty years says:

"I have been doing aerobics for X years and it does/doesn't hinder my gains."

And Mr. X, who's been training a year, is very young, inexperienced, and reads alot of articles about muscle theory/composition, etc says this:

"I have thought that doing aerobics does/doesn't hinder my gains based on studies done by so-and-so."

I would believe YOU any day! Because theory and fiber **** is great, but experience rules the day. It was a complement. Don't blast me, Chris, I'm training just fine and making a ****load of progress. And I haven't trained for 6 years at all, I've been lifting under two. And I've made more progress than 90% of people that have been training in comparable time. I've brought myself from 145lbs at 16% BF to 210lbs at around 14-15%, in under two years. And for a guy that has the genetics of a marathon runner, I'm doing pretty well. I was on your side in this argument, Chris. Just trying to say PLEASE don't sink to statements like this:


Cack,you are acting like a fool, or better yet, the little boy that you are, so I guess I shouldn't hold it against you.

The_Chicken_Daddy
07-13-2001, 08:39 AM
Yeah Chris, don't degrade yourself.

"Keep your head while those around you are losing theirs..."

Tryska
07-13-2001, 08:41 AM
Originally posted by The_Chicken_Daddy
Yeah Chris, don't degrade yourself.

"Keep your head while those around you are losing theirs..."

Kipling. my favorite poem.:D

IceRgrrl
07-13-2001, 08:43 AM
Or the other version:

"If you can keep you head while all those around you are losing theirs, perhaps you don't understand the situation."

The_Chicken_Daddy
07-13-2001, 08:45 AM
"To dream but not let dreams be your master"

[or something to that effect.]

Tryska
07-13-2001, 08:47 AM
My Personal Favorite Mantra?

If you can force your heart and nerve and sinew
To serve your turn long after they are gone,
And so hold on when there is nothing in you
Except the Will which says to them: "Hold on!":cool:

chris mason
07-13-2001, 09:02 AM
You guys are right, but he pulled the wife bullsh*t thing again, and that really ****es me off!

Joe Black
07-13-2001, 09:11 AM
I edited that part just now...

Lets not refer to that again ok Cack ?

Theres one thing arguing over a bodybuilding issue but donlt try to make personal references..

chris mason
07-13-2001, 09:15 AM
Thanks.

Cackerot69
07-13-2001, 03:35 PM
You can BS your way through all your replies if you want as you do 90% of the time with your big words that nobody understands to make yourself feel smart. I'm done with your immature egotistical ass, Chris.

chris mason
07-13-2001, 05:01 PM
You just remember that little man.

Joe Black
07-13-2001, 05:01 PM
well this is way off topic now..

Good time to end this if you ask me.....