ExRx.net

Anytime I see a study that seems to contradict common practice, it makes me sit up and take notice. It usually means there is something new going on.

Theory to Practice has this article: http://theorytopractice.wordpress.com/2 ... protocols/
It relates to this study:
http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi ... ne.0012033



The study compares using light loads taken to failure and claim, based on blood tests, that this produces more hypertrophy than higher loads. The study compares 90% loads and 30%. It doesn't say what reps or time under tension this produces but my experience is that 90% would produce about 10 seconds TUT while 30% would be several minutes. I could see this generating much pain, but it's far too long to be optimal for hypertrophy. That it's better than 10 seconds is not surprising but probably far worse than 30 to 90 seconds which is the usual exercise range, with 40-60 being the normal hypertrophy range.

There is also debate as to whether the blood test is correlated with actual muscle growth or not. I would think that the damage to the muscles would be extensive and therefore require more protein sysnthesis to repair it.

Does anyone else see it this way or am I missing something?

The article doesn't say how much pain the young guinea pigs went through.

Edit: I just found table 2. TUT in the 90% group was 16.3 while the 30% was 43.3. That seems low to me.

I'm copying here the comment I left on the Theory to Practice site:

There is a missing step in the reasoning expressed by the authors. Their conclusions are dependent on this premise: "Resistance exercise stimulates the synthesis of skeletal muscle proteins [1], [2], which is eventually expressed as muscle hypertrophy [3], [4]." (From the Introduction of the article." Their study finds differences in the amount of the muscle proteins being formed, and CONCLUDES that this proves increased muscle hypertrophy, citing 2 studies for support (references 3 and 4).

Looking at reference 3 (West, et. al.) we find that this is a study of the possible relationship between presumably anabolic hormones and muscle hypertrophy, and that the study failed to establish a correlation. There is no mention in the abstract of any attempt to establish a relationship between protein synthesis and hypertrophy, nor does it seem likely (given that they filed to find a difference between study groups) that it might have done so.

The second reference, number 4 (Hartman, et. al.) also does not address the matter for which it is cited. Again, I only have the abstract, but that does not mention any analysis of protein synthesis, just of hypertrophy.

So, the authors measure protein synthesis, but claim to have proven matters relating to muscle hypertrophy, using bogus citations to support the correlation between synthesis and hypertrophy, citations that do not even address the matter at hand. I fear that this sort of intellectual and academic dishonesty is all too common. I think this study may be safely ignored.

Thanks Doc. Of course there will be those that are already using baby weights and going for the burn that are going to use this to confirm what they already know. So it goes...