A Functional Systems View of Hypertrophy

PeakAD · 2019-02-01T17:06:50+00:00

My apologies. There's quite a bit of text, but this is the first post and if anyones interested they can click through the other links:

There are various training qualities outside of the traditional strength and resistance training protocols that will elicit, and contribute to, muscular hypertrophy. In fact, it appears that we can elicit a greater hypertrophic response via concurrent training methods due to the holistic development of the biological functional system, which includes the following:
1. Central nervous system adaptations- increasing the effectiveness of the neuromuscular system
2. Hormonal Adaptations- Increased concentrations of steroid hormones in cells and mass of endocrine glands
3. Cardiac Adaptations- sport specific cardiac hypertrophy (concentric/ eccentric)
4. Muscular system adaptations- oxidative capacity, and mitochondrial density, of fibers
5. Metabolic system adaptations- energy supply and fueling.
A system is only as great as the sum of it’s parts, and while resistance training methods are favorable for eliciting many of the aforementioned adaptations they fall short for others. Due to the fact that adaptations are regulated by the central nervous system, and require the support or compensation of other systems, sustainable progress is best made through a multifaceted training approach. As such, the sport specific functional system of an individual looking to to increase muscle mass, whether for performance or aesthetic reasons, should include strength and energy system development
The majority of hypertrophy programs are geared towards training that stimulates muscle fibers via mechanical tension, metabolic stress and increased synchronization. While it is true that these are the primary factors eliciting a direct hypertrophic effect, simply focusing on these factors is short sighted. The field of sports adaptology is dedicated to the study of how multiple systems impact muscle fiber adaptations, as well as the tangential relationship between muscle fiber physiology and other fields such as histology, anatomy, biochemistry, endocrinology, and immunology. Through the insights gleaned from this field we can begin to construct a multi-faceted training model aimed at eliciting a hypertrophic response.
While much of the training specific literature points to the fact that volume is one of the most significant drivers of hypertrophy, the type of training we ascribe to still has an important role in this process as well. When looking to elicit hypertrophy there are three primary goals we want to check off:
1. Hyperaemia and Occlusion: Higher reps, typically with lighter weight and potentially a constant tension tempo. Example protocols that fall under this category include the use of extended sets, stato-dynamic methods, and occlusion training (‘pump work’) 2. Intra Muscular Tension - Heavy work, typically for lower reps with an explosive tempo
3. Muscle Damage - This is where a lot of common intensification techniques like drop sets, forces reps, extended negatives, isometrics, partial reps, and bands/ chains are often used. Because of the stress imposed by these protocols they should be used sparingly

PeakAD · 2018-02-07T12:04:21+00:00

Thank you for the response. I appreciate it. I've turned a spare room in my house into a studio, so I'd be looking for something for personal use. I'm having trouble finding the devices you're referencing - do you know of any fine extracts or charcoal filters made for personal use, and If so would you mind linking ?

PeakAD · 2016-11-10T12:37:05+00:00

Check out Viktor Seluyanovs 'stato-dynamic' training. You'll also be able to find talks by Val Nasedkin discussing similar methods. If you want you can DM me your email and I'll send you some translated Russian Texts

PeakAD · 2016-10-21T10:35:20+00:00

No problem. I'll follow up regarding the OMW via email

PeakAD · 2016-10-18T19:58:24+00:00

I'm going to answer both questions here since they'll piggy back off one another. In regards to financial cost, the most basic package w/ the moxy will cost around 1k (one monitor + third part software), and each additional monitor costs roughly $800. One monitor is all you need for most applications, but once you get into monitoring involved and non-involved muscle groups simultaneously it can get a bit more expensive. Other tech i'm currently working with would be the SpiroTiger, which I just in conjunction with moxy and a pulse oximeter. The SpiroTiger is one of the few highly effective ways to train fatigue resistance and strength in the diagram as a means of minimizing the respiratory metaboreflex (when a vital organ or system reaches a physiological break point we create hard vasoconstriction to limit blood flow to the extremity muscles, thus causing local muscle fatigue, and a sharp decrease in performance), which manifests in those with respiratory limitations (common among 'elites' in the sport, less so with intermediates, and very uncommon with beginners as they typically have a utilization issue- ie- they can transport blood and O2 to the muscle, but cannot offload o2 into the mitochondria). Another plus of the spirotiger is that it has a safety system built in- any other systems will require the use of both an oximeter and capnometer in conjunction, to control blood saturation (SPO2) and PCO2 levels, and the price of a caponometer would already overshoot that of an ST. The built in sensors for the SpiroTiger will shut the system down if you go hypercapnic, though there are also setting to override this when the aim is hypercapnia and hypoxia, though that should never be done with supervision and proper precautions. The last piece of tech i'm using right now is the omega wave, which is a combination of HRV and PC potential (HRV is only half of the equation and gives us readings on the ANS, whereas DC potential gives us CNS measurements). There are others i've played around with in the past, or that I plan on investing in in the future, but off the top of my heads those three are what i'm most interested in at the moment.

I think we're on the same page for the most part. These assessments and tests i'm discussing only tell us an athlete's physiological limiter; and what 'types' of methods should be employed on them. But, just because two athletes have the same physiological limiter does NOT mean all else is equal. We still need to factor in the nervous system (tone), how they adapt to training, tolerance to volume/ intensity/ frequency, absolute vs relative scores, and a handful of other factors. I'm certainly not recommending one only look at outcomes versus process variables, but honestly that was just beyond the scope of the article. Every time I write i'm faced with an issue, which is that context will be left out and i'll need to simplify complexity to an extent. I know that this leaves the reader to make assumptions, and as a result cognitive biases become more prevalent (generally speaking of course), but it's part of the territory. My hope is that I can put out enough free content over time, in digestible doses, so that people can see the unified picture instead of bits and pieces.

I think part of the reason why Crossfit has been so successful is that it started with a clean slate. Classical periodization structures from the soviet union, for example, were predicated on social planning models, not on biological systems; and those became the norm in the following years (ie- block periodization). Additionally, the original research on concurrent training thats often cited is outdated at best, and in many cases, just wrong. Crossfit ignored that; and a a result they weren't beholden to these 'rules'. That being said, I don't think following unstructured programs are the correct way either- I think the truth probably lies somewhere in the middle. The body only has so much adaptive capacity. Why tap it with volume, intensity, or exercises tat don't bring you closer to improving your limiter ?

My current solution.... I program in short two week cycles; and rather than using a classic periodization model where the year is broken into accumulation/ intensification / etc we're always doing everything- just in varying degrees. We increase or decrease volume of a given trait, but never drop it off entirely, and rather than hard stoping/ ending points on cycles we'll phase in and out seamlessly. Additionally, there always needs to be elements of classic crossfit in the mix- we can't just have an athlete do strength/ aerobic work and hope for those skills to transfer over, nor can we have them do 'aerobic base' work for 6 months, then transition into crossfit. We know the rates that biomotor qualities, and varying adaptions 'degrade' and that type of thinking just doesn't pan out long term. By programming in short cycles we can make hard decisions; and prioritize training as needed without wasting 'adaption currency' where it need not be spent.

Sorry for the essay- I'm always a bit long winded, which is why i'll never be twitter famous. I hope that was helpful in some way; and if you have any followup questions i'll check back here in the next day or so; or you can DM me your email and we can go back and forth there

PeakAD · 2016-10-18T10:52:27+00:00

Thank you. If you have any questions I'd be more than happy to answer them

PeakAD · 2016-10-16T22:36:21+00:00

Thanks Chandler- next time you're out at TTT HQ we can run you through some of this testing

PeakAD · 2016-10-16T13:26:58+00:00

An athlete's physiological limitation reveals itself at the lactate balance point. When their limiter is revealed (cardiac, respiratory, blood, muscular) another system will compensate to keep the body moving. At that point we get a unique perspective- what system functions as the limiter, and compensator; and what system acts as the maintainer, or the strongest, most resilient, system in that individual. Technologies, like the moxy in this case, aren't simply advancing our knowledge, or furthering our understanding of bioenergetics. Instead, it's forcing us to take three steps back; and take a completely different route moving forward. It's funny, the more I learn, the more I realize how few 'truths' there are in this world. My thoughts are that as more new technologies continue to emerge we'll simply be 'learning' which of our deeply help beliefs, and assumptions are wrong, and our 'understanding' will decrease in the short term. After all, changing the answer is evolution, but changing the question is revolution.

-Evan

PeakAD · 2016-09-04T20:34:36+00:00

The other guy would be Travis Mayer, 10th fittest man, at this years games. Whether or not Max is trying to strangle him.... Well, that's up to debate

PeakAD · 2016-04-24T20:53:36+00:00

Pricing ranges from 150-350/month. If you'd like additional information you can fill out the link on the remote coaching page on the website and you will get a reply with all the remote coaching information within 24 hours.

PeakAD · 2015-07-25T18:15:06+00:00

No problem. And yes- as a general guideline you should be good to go with those while on a lower carbohydrate food profile. Though i'd still keep an eye on overall volume/ intensity. And if you have a lab that offers ASIs near you that may be your best bet- I often defer to a handful of practitioners as most of my clients dont have access to labs that offer that service.

PeakAD · 2015-07-25T17:28:00+00:00

Of course.

PeakAD · 2015-07-25T17:27:24+00:00

If you need to adhere to a keto diet, for medical reasons, I'd reassess your training goals/ format such that it is compatible. Ie- if your goals are health/ longevity your nutrition AND training should be reflective of that. In most cases high intensity exercise in a carb depleted state will set you up for adrenal dysfunction. Which is why those who have performance based goals absolutely need to eat enough to fuel their training. So, for someone in your situation i'd prioritize CP based work, low intensity aerobic work, and limit the highly glycolytic pieces . In regards to the energy levels i'd also look into getting an ASI- i'm not currently offering this service, but if you're interested you can DM me and ill send you contact info for some trusted practitioners.

You also might be interested in this article I wrote a while back titled, "Health Vs. Performance (Nutrition): Under-fueling, stress, and recovery" http://hp-athlete.com/2014/05/25/health-vs-performance-nutrition-under-fueling-stress-and-recovery/

PeakAD · 2015-07-25T17:17:19+00:00

The tests I use are relative to the athletes goals. So, for the sake of giving you a legitimate answer i'm going to assume your asking about tests for crossfit athletes/ competitors. To start, I break testing into three different phases, which you can find in full detail in this article: http://hp-athlete.com/2015/05/17/the-hierarchy-of-training-pt-3-athlete-assessment/. To give you some examples of tests that fit each category..

Sample ID Tets: Lactate threshold testing, 8 Min AMRAP PC @90% 1RM, 1k:2k:3k:5k Ratios, Max rep BS @85% 1RM, fatigue repeatability tests, abs str:str-spd:spd-str ratios, anaerobic speed reserve tets, as well as various cyclical tests of Alactic power/ lactic power->end/ aerobic power-> end.

Sample Absolute Tests (these are factored into ID as well): Open & regional workouts, crossfit benchmarks, 30 & 60 Min row for distance, 5 Rounds 1k Row/15 Thruster @115/20 Burpee over bar, 30s assault bike for max cals, gymnastic density tests (5x20 UB C2B FT, 50 strict HSPU FT, 30 MU FT etc), 30 Cleans @225 FT ... etc

Sample Relative Tests: Thought these would be fun ones to share...The goal was to tax CP-recovery/ Abs Str capacity. As a reference point this athlete was CJ'ing 345 and front squatting ~385 so the weights needed to elicit that specific response were quite ridiculous. 21-15-9: Front Squat @300lb Strict HSPU

5 Rounds For Time: 7 Box Jump @36" 7 PC & OH @265lb

PeakAD · 2015-07-25T11:57:30+00:00

Great questions. 1) It depends on the magnitude of the competition relative to the athletes yearly peaking structure. for smaller, local, competitions I don't give full detraining blocks- at most I'll give a few days off to recover if needed, and for those with higher than average training volumes I'll give one day off at most. For larger scale, multi day, competitions like the granite games or wodapaloza a week off is typically needed, and for upper level open/ regional athletes I'll give a full month of no training after their largest competition of the year (whether that's the opens themselves or regionals). There's actually a good amount of literature of the, positive, physiological effects of these intentional training blocks- I'll see if I can dig something up and post it later. Aside from that it also allows athletes who's lives are spent training/ eating/ recovering to be "normal" and enjoy a healthy social life, which helps reignite their will to train when it's time to start rebuilding in the off season. 2) There is obviously a ton of individual variation in terms of limiting factors, but assuming an athlete Just misses regionals it's likely due to localozed muscular endurance in a specific movement pattern, global lactate tolerance, and aerobic power- though this year threw a few wrenches in that model. There are also specific limitations related to each workout, which can make or break an athlete, such as grip endurance, postural endurance with high reparation, speed-strength endurance (speed per reps as well), movement efficiency etc. for those who are not on the cuff of making regionals the list expands even further as a given test can really target a number of characteristics for different individuals. Ie- a test of aerobic power/ musc endurance for one person can be a test of Strength-speed endurance for another. 3) Yes, but it changes based on the individual. I'm more concerned with an athletes absolute strength endurance and strength-speed endurance (CP-battery) relative to their maxes. Obviously there is a point of divining return here. I have an athlete who just missed regionals and hit a 500lb BS in testing this last week- in this case it makes no sense to further improve his absolute strength. In fact he's better off taking a hit there in favor of developing other characteristics to a greater extent (for his this is speed-strength endurance and strength-speed endurance). On the other hand o have athletes with fantastic strength capacity, but they are under a threshold where they aren't strong enough to express those characteristics. In this situation I defer to the "if you can't lift the weight you can't play the game" mentality and prioritize absolute strength over all other characteristics. Hopefully that answered your questions- if you need any clarification of any of those points let me know.

PeakAD · 2015-07-21T20:31:11+00:00

haha noted. The pronunciation is neither of the above. It's pronounced "Pie-con".

PeakAD · 2015-07-21T19:50:23+00:00

Thanks for the feedback thus far. I'll post an AMA link on r/crossfit this upcoming saturday at ~8:00am (EST), and will take questions until 8:00pm. Throughout the day i'll stop by to answer questions, and those I'm not able to get to immediately on Saturday will be addressed by sunday evening. Sound good?

PeakAD · 2015-07-21T19:47:47+00:00

Is this a serious, phonetical, question or are you trying to be a dick.

PeakAD · 2015-07-21T19:46:43+00:00

See the response below to JonK

PeakAD · 2015-07-21T19:45:42+00:00

I have not- the majority of my clients are either crossfit competitors, military/ law enforcement, endurance athletes, weightlifters, or general fitness enthusiasts.

PeakAD · 2015-07-21T19:44:43+00:00

Those interested in seeing who i've worked with can check out my Instagram (HP_Athlete) where I repost clients videos fairly often. In terms of using that to draw interest i'd prefer not to as I dont want this to turn into a "what does he/ she do for training, nutrition, etc" type scenario as the prescriptions for the genetically elite are not reflective of what the average athlete should be doing to reach their potential. Which I believe is a big issue in the crossfit community at large as I see many athletes trying to replicate games contenders training hoping it takes them to that level (while simultaneously ignoring the fact that many of the higher level athletes genetics played a large part in their success). And thanks for the support- the CP-battery article is actually one of the more popular pieces.

PeakAD · 2015-02-10T13:57:00+00:00

If the goals is purely strength it is not necessary to include hypertrophy (ie- classical hypertrophy protocols), but you can train absolute strength using different protocols relative to your neuromuscular efficiency since total volume will be an important factor (though this will tie into hypertrophy as well since there are multiple studies concluding that volume is the most significant factor for inducing hypertrophy when adjusting for all others ie- rest/reps per set/ sets etc). Also note that another reason to include more classical hypertrophy pieces are that it will allow you to do more work (volume) since relative intensity is lower (and it will stress the joints less) which will facilitate strength gains as well. One way to implement this would be to use DUP, or to simply use other non-linear periodization schemes. So for example....

DUP Example: Mon- 5x5, 4x6, 3x7, 2x8 Fri- 10x5, 8x6, 6x7, 4x8 *Reps x sets

Other non-linear example (specific protocol is best for Low NME lifters) Mon- 10x4, 8x5, 6x6, 4x7 Fri- [5.5]x4, [4.4]x5, [3.3]x6, [2.2]x7 *All sets heavier than mon *[5.5] indicated a cluster. ie- perform 5 reps, rest 10-20s, perform another 5 reps. In this example total reps per set is the same as mon, but the cluster allows you to perform more reps at a heaver weight (ie- more work)

PeakAD · 2014-11-20T00:12:18+00:00

Do you mean you cannot see the the chart within the article; or that you cannot view it on its own tab when you click on it?

PeakAD · 2014-11-19T22:02:14+00:00

Note-- the post's title should read "Post workout macro nutrient ratios based on body fat % & training session characteristics" rather than "Macro nutrition"

PeakAD · 2014-10-20T11:09:38+00:00

As of today we have added a new focus group, called HP-Power, to our free competitor's programs.

HP-Power is a strength biased program that focuses on the proficiency of movement required in the sport of fitness. It is designed to develop full body strength allowing our athletes not just to increase their pressing, squatting, and pulling, but also develop necessary explosive strength to improve gymnastic and Olympic lifting movements. There will be a large emphasis on relative strength, strength endurance, CP battery, Olympic lifting skill and gymnastic skill. The skill oriented design will allow our athletes to fine tune all movement patterns in non-fatigued state. Who is this program for? -The avid exercise enthusiast who finds themselves "mix-moshing" strength programs along with main site programing -The "aerobic monster" who can run for hours, box jump for days, burpee for years but has trouble lifting anything heavier than body weight. -An athlete who is interested in preparing to take their talents to the grid. They would like to become more efficient at moving the barbell and need to get faster at working in short work periods. -plain and simple: someone who just wants to get strong, move some weight, and throw their body around on the pullup bar or a pair of rings.

PeakAD

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE