Five for Five with Jamie Hale – Part Two

In a rare turn for fitness blogs, part two of this installment of Five for Five contains a dose of humor alongside crunchy science awesomeness. Click here to read Part One. Jamie and I continue our discussion, covering ‘body part’ splits, Bruce Lee and metabolic training.

So travel to the mountain top and empty your cup as we conclude this installment of Five for Five with Sifu Jamie Hale. I hear tea tastes better at high altitudes.

RZ: There seems to be a huge split between what the literature claims as ideal and what coaches’ claim as ideal with respect to muscle hypertrophy.  Here, I’m thinking of the literature supporting a higher degree of training frequency, where what most professionals are doing falls closer to the one body part per week style of training.  Who’s right and why?  And if one body part per week is insufficient, why have so many competitors had success with it?

JH: Trainees from around the world have used a wide array of protocols to enhance hypertrophy.  There is no magic rep and set scheme. There are four key training elements to consider when training for muscular growth. These elements include load (weight on the bar), work (load multiplied by total repetitions), frequency (how often training is performed), and duration (time involved in seeing significant changes).

A commonly held belief often expressed in literature on hypertrophy goes something like this:

High volumes and moderate intensities (e.g. 8–12 sets of 6–12RMs) with short rest intervals are thought to promote hypertrophy whereas those with low volumes and high intensities are expected to promote strength gains without hypertrophy.

What does the evidence say?

In the mid 1960s, O’Shea compared a low-volume protocol (three sets of 2–3RM squats) with a high-volume protocol (three sets of 9–10RM squats) over six weeks and found significant increases in thigh girth in both groups, but there was no significant difference between the groups.  Campos had subjects train using a low repetition group (performing 3–5 RM for four sets), an intermediate group (performing 9–11 RM for three sets), or a high repetition group (performing 20–28 RM for two sets). Hypertrophy occurred in all three major fiber types for the low and intermediate groups whereas no significant increases were demonstrated for the high rep group.  Recent work shows that maximal hypertrophy can occur with loads as low as 40% (as in the case seen in the occlusion studies) up to and beyond 100% of 1RM (as seen in eccentric loading studies).

Most studies show that a range of 80–90% of 1RM is pretty close to ideal though.   There is little evidence to suggest that there is one supreme loading scheme.

So how does total work influence hypertrophy?

First let’s define work.  Work as defined in physics is force X displacement, a scientific way of saying work=force X distance moved. Putting this into a context we are interested in, we can say that work = load X total reps.

Moss looked at triceps brachii muscle mass ratio changes using three differing loads—90% 1RM for two repetitions, 35% 1RM for seven repetitions, or 15% 1RM for ten repetitions (each group performed 3–5 sets). Increases in triceps brachii muscle mass ratio were only seen in the 35% 1RM group. At first, this would leave one wondering. But, when the amount of work is computed, it’s apparent that increases in work may be a potent stimulator of hypertrophy. Using an average of four sets and assuming the 1RM for all groups averaged 50 lbs; the work for the 90% group was 360, 490 for the 35%1RM, and 300 for the 15% 1RM. The 35% had the highest work. In another study by Ostrowski, he found that two or three sets (9–12 RM) were superior to one set (9–12 RM) with regards to gains in triceps brachii muscle mass.

Looking at the scientific research data, it seems pretty clear that adequate work is necessary to increase the hypertrophic response to training. The volume used is dependent on the load or the intensity of 1RM.   What are the implications in training? In order for muscle to grow, it is important to use an intensity that would allow enough work to be performed no matter what the training status of the individual.

How about frequency (how often you train)?  Studies suggest:

DeMichele tested rotational torso strength gains between 1d, 2d, and 3d per week subjects. No differences between 2d and 3d per week were found, but both 2d and 3d were superior to 1d per week.  Carroll tested strength and MHC gains in the leg muscles for 2d versus 3d per week training. In this study, results were similar, but higher strength gains were seen in the 2d per week subjects.  Abe used a 3X weekly protocol and Staron used 2X weekly. Both training programs produced significant increases in mass.

In general healthy adults seem to benefit the most from training the same muscle or muscle group two times per week. Of course the optimal prescription may be different for competitive athletes.  I have found for many competitive athletes, training the same muscle or group once every five days (referring to targeted body part training) is sufficient.

Many followers of the bodybuilding-training gurus seem to be convinced that training a body part more than once per week is overtraining. I disagree with that statement for the most part.  Keep in mind; this thought process was originally promoted by heavily drug-induced athletes (and drug intake significantly alters normal physiology).

How long to see changes in hypertrophy?

The majority of studies indicates that initial gains in strength come primarily from neural adaptations that include improving recruitment patterns, rate coding, and synergistic/antagonistic muscle activation increases or decreases While hypertrophy does contribute to overall strength changes, this probably does not occur (at significant levels) during the early initial adaptation and is delayed more so than neural gains.

In as little as 4 weeks we can expect to see some gains in hypertrophy. This is primarily seen in smaller muscles that do not require as much nervous system learning.  In general, when looking at long-term studies we see much greater changes in hypertrophy.  It is the cumulative effect of repeated training bouts (in combination with proper nutrition) that ultimately leads to significant gains in skeletal muscle tissue. Don’t be upset if you don’t get huge over night.  You can also expect gains to come at a slower pace as you become more experienced.

Why have so many competitors done well with training bodypart 1x per week?

Maybe they could have done better with more frequent sessions?  Maybe genetics and a properly designed drug regimen may have helped. Maybe they have done better despite their training protocol not because of. It is not uncommon to see an athlete excel even though their training regimen is less than optimal.  In fact, I know some athletes who do very well in their sport despite horrible training, resting and nutrition protocols.  Think what they would do if they done things the right way (or at least a better way, as there is no one right way).

RZ: What was it that made Bruce Lee so awesome?

JH: I am a big fan of Bruce Lee and he was probably the biggest reason I became involved with martial arts.  Bruce was way ahead of his time when it came to his philosophies on fighting.  He was charismatic, a hard worker, and a true student of fighting.  He didn’t believe in being stuck in one particular style or way of doing things.  His thoughts were you need to be able to adapt to any situation.

I was watching a program last week on the History Channel about Bruce’s life and they referred to him as the godfather of mixed martial arts.  I am not sure if I agree with that statement but as I mentioned he was definitely ahead of his time when it came to understanding fighting and realizing the importance of not being reliant on any particular style.  I think he would have been really pleased today to see the popularity of mixed martial arts.  I am often asked if I think he would have done well as a MMA Competitor and my answer is always the same “I have no idea”.  I think he would have been involved with the sport, but probably as a coach, promoter or commentator.

RZ: What’s your take on ‘extensive’ bodybuilding protocols?  Here, I’m thinking of sets in the 15 – 20 range that have a tendency to deplete glycogen and approach the lactate threshold.  A few guys swear by this as a fat loss training protocol.  Is this just as viable as, say, HIIT sprints and why?

JH: As Zelasko (1995) stated:

Although exercise does increase energy output during and after exercise and can expend energy from fat for many overweight persons, excessive caloric expenditure has limited implications for substantially reducing body weight independent of nutritional modifications.

No matter what type of exercise regimen you are following or how many calories and fat you oxidize while training you must create a caloric deficit at the end of the day to lose bodyfat.  A calorie deficit on a regular basis will result in bodyfat loss.

The amount of bodyfat lost or gained also depends on P-ratio.  P-ratio is the amount of weight stored or mobilized as protein during weight gain or weight loss.  People with higher P-ratios tend to gain and lose higher percentage of weight as protein.  Lower P-ratios result in less weight deposition as protein and less weight loss in the form of protein (Henry 2008).  P-ratio can be altered to a degree (with exercise, nutrition, drugs) but is largely dependent on genetics.

My competitive bodybuilders rarely perform conventional high rep sets during contest prep.  Although the final week before the show I usually advise a workout similar to the one you mention.  This is used in conjunction with a very technical nutrition protocol.

RZ: Thanks again Jamie.

Tagged as: fitness, hypertrophy, jamie hale, metabolic training, Nutrition, strength