+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Submit your email address to subscribe to
our free newsletter.
You can receive our weekly email letting you know
when there are new Questions and Answers. We will
also keep you up to date with upcoming events and
new ways to become a better athlete.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Why All Muscle Was
Not Created Equal
by Joe DeFranco, Owner, Performance Enhancement Specialist
DeFranco’s Training Systems
Have you ever noticed an athlete in the
weight room who is built like Tarzan, yet lifts weights
better suited for Jane? Yet, there are other athletes who
are every bit as strong and functional as they look. Although
an athlete’s genetic make-up is always a factor, the
answer to this discrepancy in strength and functionality
of the muscle can also be due to the different types of
training performed by different athletes. Although two athletes
may possess similar physiques, the muscle they have built
using their different training methods may not be the same.
In other words, all muscular growth was NOT created equal!
There are actually two very different types of hypertrophy
that can take place within the muscle. Being aware of this
helps to answer the question of why some athletes possess
superhuman strength and others are “all show, no go.”
The two types of hypertrophy to which I am referring are
sarcoplasmic and myofibrillar hypertrophy.
Sarcoplasmic Hypertrophy
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).
One of the biggest problems I see with
the training of power athletes (football players, baseball
players, basketball players, wrestlers and even powerlifters)
is too much emphasis on training in the 10 – 15 rep
range. This type of training has its place, yet should not
be the focal point for these athletes. For example, most
football lineman benefit from added bulk to prevent from
getting pushed around on the field. “Bodybuilding”
methods, using these rep ranges, can be beneficial if incorporated
during the season to prevent muscle mass loss, as well as
after the season to add bulk, which may have been lost during
the season. Also, there is some scientific evidence that
states a bigger muscle may have a better chance of becoming
a stronger muscle once maximal strength training methods
are employed. The key to remember is that this type of hypertrophy
has little to do with such explosive movements as hitting,
running, throwing, jumping or performing a one-rep max.
This is why professional bodybuilders, whose training mainly
hypertrophies the Type IIA fibers and causes an increase
in the non-contractile components of the muscle (sarcoplasmic
volume, capillary density, and mitochondria proliferation)
are not the fastest or even the strongest of all athletes.
This is despite the fact that they generally have more muscle
than any other class of athlete! I consider this type of
hypertrophy to be form over function.
Myofibrillar Hypertrophy
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).
One must remember that the average football play lasts 4.5
seconds, it takes about 3 seconds to complete a 1 RM, it
takes less than a second to swing a bat, less than a second
to throw a punch and less than a second to jump for a rebound.
As you can see, most athletic activities are explosive in
nature. This is why it is imperative for athletes to incorporate
maximal strength training methods (1-5 reps), which train
the part of the muscle responsible for these explosive contractions,
into their routines. Repetitions in the 1-5 rep range, using
85 – 100% of a 1RM, also have the added benefit of
training the nervous system – which I feel is the
most overlooked component of training the athlete. Some
of the many benefits of training the nervous system are:
increased neural drive to the muscle, increased synchronization
of motor units, increased activation of the contractile
apparatus, and decreased inhibition by the protective mechanisms
of the muscle (golgi tendon organ) (1). These training methods
also hypertrophy the pure fast twitch fibers – the
high-threshold, Type IIB fibers. Incorporating these training
methods into your routine at the right time will undoubtedly
improve your muscles ability to generate more force and
contract maximally during any sporting activity. In essence,
myofibrillar hypertrophy is what I would term functional
hypertrophy.
Conclusion
Although the human eye cannot tell these
two types of hypertrophy apart, the difference will always
become quite apparent as soon as it’s time for an
athlete to put his/her muscle to use. As athletes and strength
professionals, I feel we all have a responsibility to prevent
ourselves from getting into the “3 sets of 10”
rut. It is our job to educate ourselves, be creative, and
put together the most result-producing programs available
for our athletes or ourselves. This may mean incorporating
both types of hypertrophy training into your routine, depending
on your goal and training phase. But remember that no matter
how bad those high-rep sets of leg extensions burn, they
will never build the strength, power, and functional
hypertrophy of a heavy set of squats or deads!
-
Poliquin, Charles. Modern Trends
in Strength Training. Volume 1.
QFAC Bodybuilding, 2001.
-
Siff, Mel C. and Yuri V. Verkhoshansky.
Supertraining. Colorado: Denver, 1999.
-
Tsatsouline, Pavel. Power to the
People. Dragon Door Publications, Inc., 2000.
Return to Top
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
