SAME MUSCLE

ethan_wilde

ethan_wilde

Member
Is it very harmful to the body meaning will decrease size and strength if I do all upper body every 2 days? Then in between do legs and bis and tris but will still be doing bis and tris on upper days. Workout 6 days a week.
 
ethan_wilde said:
Is it very harmful to the body meaning will decrease size and strength if I do all upper body every 2 days? Then in between do legs and bis and tris but will still be doing bis and tris on upper days. Workout 6 days a week.
Click to expand...

Hi, what you're asking about is recovery. The only person who can tell whether you're recovering sufficiently is you. Since you are asking though, I'd say it's safe to assume you're a relative beginner, and therefore you can probably work out 6 days a week ok. Intermediate or advanced (or older lifters like me) need longer to recover because their weights are generally bigger. Short answer, you're probably good. Longer answer, as long as you feel like you're recovering ok and your strength is increasing, go for it. If you start to feel too beat up or your strength plateaus or starts going backwards, back off.
 
ethan_wilde said:
Im rarely ever sore in my upper body. And my workouts are all high set high rep intense workouts i dont get it .
Click to expand...

A lot of people don't get DOMS after the initial blast. I don't. That said, high set high rep might not give you the results you're looking for. To me anything more than 5 reps is high, anything more than 8 means it's not heavy. If your sets are more than 8 reps try adding some weight until you can only get 8 reps, then work at that until you can get 10, then add weight, and so on.
 
compudog said:
A lot of people don't get DOMS after the initial blast. I don't. That said, high set high rep might not give you the results you're looking for. To me anything more than 5 reps is high, anything more than 8 means it's not heavy. If your sets are more than 8 reps try adding some weight until you can only get 8 reps, then work at that until you can get 10, then add weight, and so on.
Click to expand...

I agree the reason your not getting sore is your getting used to the high rep range and weight. I usually find low rep, high weight is best for building muscle. As far as your plan is concerned another reason you might not be getting sore is probably because your not devoting enough time to each muscle group.I tend to stick to the classic approach of hammering one group a day along with some assistance work on corresponding muscles for example Ill do 5 different chest exercises 4 sets each and then 2-3 tricep exercises 4sets each then next day back/bis,shoulders/calves then legs minus the calves and lastly bis and tris again .. doing your whole upper body in a day probably means your only hitting each group with 1-2 exercises unless your in there for 4 hours.
 
ethan_wilde said:
Is it very harmful to the body meaning will decrease size and strength if I do all upper body every 2 days? Then in between do legs and bis and tris but will still be doing bis and tris on upper days. Workout 6 days a week.
Click to expand...

If anything, it is probably overkill IMO. Frequency and volume can be a good thing, as opposed to trainees who only hit an exercise every 7 or so days, but going to the other extreme too, will not yield more gains. More is not always better and size has a direct relation to food eaten. 3x per on small muscles and 2 on large is probably plenty for the vast majority of (especially natural) trainees hitting hard the compound exercises in the ranges of 70%-80% of a 1 RM with multi sets. (See 5x5 routines or thereabouts)
Also, using as a prime directive, the big compound exercises ie: squatting, leg pressing, deadlifts, rows, chins/pullups/ BP's and OHP's then adding in some arm work, will most likely have most trainees (no matter what there level) being ahead of the game.
The magic comes from adding weight to the bar when possible, eating properly and staying consistent with hard work and effort. All the other stuff falls behind that.

As far as soreness, it does not always relate to how much one is growing and or getting stronger. Usually more frequency negates some soreness because the body adapts to the stresses. I get sorer after squatting once per week than twice.
 
It might not be bad for a while, but like most programs you'd want to switch it up after a while. I've had good results hitting muscle groups twice a week, but I'll usually only do that for 6-8 weeks so to not get burnt out. And Doms shouldn't be your basis for a good workout, there's plenty of times I'll have a killer workout and not get them, only to get them the next time, no rhyme or reason.
 
Depends on your workout and exercises; some may go along with this, some may not. It is all up to recovery time needed as pointed.

I used to enjoy doing something similar to this; I would do complex exercises one day and then focus on the specific muscles the next, had a lot of success with it. Also, you can always vary the workload type, i.e. lower reps on monday and higher volumes on tuesday, hitting different exercises.

I would stay away from doing some more demanding programs 2 days in a row, though. e.g. doggcrapp. I am still absolutely exhausted after performing DC a few days after, I would not even try to do it every other day for instance.
 
compudog said:
Hi, what you're asking about is recovery. The only person who can tell whether you're recovering sufficiently is you. Since you are asking though, I'd say it's safe to assume you're a relative beginner, and therefore you can probably work out 6 days a week ok. Intermediate or advanced (or older lifters like me) need longer to recover because their weights are generally bigger. Short answer, you're probably good. Longer answer, as long as you feel like you're recovering ok and your strength is increasing, go for it. If you start to feel too beat up or your strength plateaus or starts going backwards, back off.
Click to expand...

Id state the oppisite; the more advanced/ adapted to higher training frequency, the less time needed to recover. Also, weight on the bar means nothing. Its about intensity.

If OP's 1RM is 80kg on the bench and trains at 77kg while meanwhile my 1RM is 130kg and i train at 100kg, whose training more intensly?

He is because its closer to his 1RM.
OP: If you're also doing 4 arm days a week and legs twice per week or less; you're doing it wrong
 
Jiigzz said:
Id state the oppisite; the more advanced/ adapted to higher training frequency, the less time needed to recover. Also, weight on the bar means nothing. Its about intensity.

If OP's 1RM is 80kg on the bench and trains at 77kg while meanwhile my 1RM is 130kg and i train at 100kg, whose training more intensly?

He is because its closer to his 1RM.
OP: If you're also doing 4 arm days a week and legs twice per week or less; you're doing it wrong
Click to expand...

I totally agree someone who is a beginner will absolutely need more rest than an advanced bb.Also its obvious your trying to build bigger arms. Training them 4 times a week will more than likely do the opposite of what your trying to do your going to over fatigue them and not allow the small muscle tears to repair which in essence is what muscle building is. Keep it to twice a week on the arms and be patient no one builds 22inch pythons over night lol.
 
I rather disagree from what I have seen and my own experiences ^, since I think a beginner has more room and thus his ability to recover is greater. Even though he may be using closer to his 1RM, he is not able to use or recruit the optimum fibers and his CNS/PNS, that a more advanced trainee is adapted nearer to limits. Most beginners programs can usually train more often. 3x per on big stuff (look at 5x5's like Starting Strength et al.) because the overall loads are less and the inroad is not as great as someone who is closer to their threshold or limit potential. Weights at this point is relative. If I use a single with #600 in the DL, that takes way more from me IMO, than a beginner who uses his 1RM, since he is not accustomed to tapping those heavy loads overtime.
I think this is another reason why beginners show great gains in big exercises at first, whereas the more advanced trainee bleeds for even #5-#10 pound gians over months.
 
Jiigzz said:
Id state the oppisite; the more advanced/ adapted to higher training frequency, the less time needed to recover. Also, weight on the bar means nothing. Its about intensity. If OP's 1RM is 80kg on the bench and trains at 77kg while meanwhile my 1RM is 130kg and i train at 100kg, whose training more intensly? He is because its closer to his 1RM. OP: If you're also doing 4 arm days a week and legs twice per week or less; you're doing it wrong
Click to expand...

He's a 17 year old football player that's stated he lifts 6 days a week, mostly upper body I believe

:D
 
PaulBlack said:
I rather disagree from what I have seen and my own experiences ^, since I think a beginner has more room and thus his ability to recover is greater. Even though he may be using closer to his 1RM, he is not able to use or recruit the optimum fibers and his CNS/PNS, that a more advanced trainee is adapted nearer to limits. Most beginners programs can usually train more often. 3x per on big stuff (look at 5x5's like Starting Strength et al.) because the overall loads are less and the inroad is not as great as someone who is closer to their threshold or limit potential. Weights at this point is relative. If I use a single with #600 in the DL, that takes way more from me IMO, than a beginner who uses his 1RM, since he is not accustomed to tapping those heavy loads overtime.
I think this is another reason why beginners show great gains in big exercises at first, whereas the more advanced trainee bleeds for even #5-#10 pound gians over months.
Click to expand...

I agree with that, it correlates with my own experience and what I've seen in others. Beginners can train more often because they're not beating the daylights out of themselves. They can go to their max often and recover quickly, because their max is limited by their level of training, not by their physiology. I think a lot of the strength gains beginners get are from getting better at lifts, so they don't necessarily have that much to recover *from*, basically DOMS and that's it. Since the OP stated he doesn't get DOMS much anymore that would indicate, to me at least, that it's time to start adding weight. When he gets to the point where recovery is taking longer he'll know it, nobody posting on an Internet forum can say when that is.
 
PaulBlack said:
I think this is another reason why beginners show great gains in big exercises at first, whereas the more advanced trainee bleeds for even #5-#10 pound gians over months.
Click to expand...

The reason that beginners gain so quickly is their muscle fascia is not totally maxed out like an experienced lifter/BB .more experienced lifters muscles are unable to grow quickly because the fascia (sheath around the muscle) wont stretch as easily. this is why a lot of bbers use synthol and make great gains in size quickly. Thats real science by the way no bro science lol .
 
PaulBlack said:
I rather disagree from what I have seen and my own experiences ^, since I think a beginner has more room and thus his ability to recover is greater. Even though he may be using closer to his 1RM, he is not able to use or recruit the optimum fibers and his CNS/PNS, that a more advanced trainee is adapted nearer to limits. Most beginners programs can usually train more often. 3x per on big stuff (look at 5x5's like Starting Strength et al.) because the overall loads are less and the inroad is not as great as someone who is closer to their threshold or limit potential. Weights at this point is relative. If I use a single with #600 in the DL, that takes way more from me IMO, than a beginner who uses his 1RM, since he is not accustomed to tapping those heavy loads overtime.
I think this is another reason why beginners show great gains in big exercises at first, whereas the more advanced trainee bleeds for even #5-#10 pound gians over months.
Click to expand...

You try sticking a beginner athlete on one of the advanced programs we use and I guarantee he could not handle it. I see what you are getting at, and my example was pretty poor. I should have stated muscle recovery vs. CNS recovery. We train advanced people 6 days per week, with higher volumes + reduced recovery than we do for beginners; why? Because recovery is much poorer as they have not adapted to that as of yet and mental/ muscular fatigue is very high and recovery is generally very poor.

While CNS recruitment may be lower, I wouldn't start a beginner on a 6 day per week split, IMO the volume would be too much even if intensity is low. I would much rather have them do a 4 day split using an upper/ lower or 3 days per week full body than a 6 day per week high volume training cycle.

Beginners don't get stronger per se in the first few months, but just become more optimal in their lifting technique and ability to recruit motor neurons. I have a feeling you know this as I have read your posts before -- but my approach for a beginner vs. an advanced athlete is vastly different.

just FTR, i'm talking athlete/ BBer not power lifting as that is not my forte (i.e. not necessarily training intensely but with increased volume)
 
Mike542 said:
The reason that beginners gain so quickly is their muscle fascia is not totally maxed out like an experienced lifter/BB .more experienced lifters muscles are unable to grow quickly because the fascia (sheath around the muscle) wont stretch anymore. this is why a lot of bbers use synthol and make great gains in size quickly. Thats real science by the way no bro science lol .
Click to expand...

They gain quickly because of new neural adaptations. And even experienced lifters fascias can still stretch. Just not with ad much elasticity. Look at FST-7. Even IFBBers can stretch their fascias. When you workout and get a pump do your muscles look bigger? It's because your facia stretched to allow for more blood flow in your muscles.
 
I completely agree there is no way a beginner could do my routine 6 days a week as I do . and yes I kno BBers fascia can stretch to but at a much slower rate as they have already greatly stretched it. You cant deny the reason for the invention of synthol to help stretch your fascia in order to allow your muscles to grow tissue into the extra space ..I do agree in one regard beginners have more elasticity which basically coincides with my point that their muscles have more room to grow more quickly.As far as new neural adaptions that's something ive never heard before so you most certainly could be right in that regard.ill have to reed up on it lol.
 
Aparently neural adaption has nothing to do with building muscle but is an explanation of how beginners get stronger in their training without actually gaining muscle.Other theories for increases in strength relating to neural adaptation include: agonist-antagonist muscle decreased co-activation, motor unit synchronization, and motor unit increased firing rates.
 
You can't make a simple generalization about training programs and recovery times without specifics. No one is on the same page in this discussion and several people I feel like, don't really know what they are talking about.
 
CountryLiftin said:
You can't make a simple generalization about training programs and recovery times without specifics. No one is on the same page in this discussion and several people I feel like, don't really know what they are talking about.
Click to expand...

We are speaking in generalizations; you don't need specifics when making generalized statements. re-read the thread.
 
CountryLiftin said:
You can't make a simple generalization about training programs and recovery times without specifics. No one is on the same page in this discussion and several people I feel like, don't really know what they are talking about.
Click to expand...

It's made for some lively conversation though.
 
CountryLiftin said:
You can't make a simple generalization about training programs and recovery times without specifics. No one is on the same page in this discussion and several people I feel like, don't really know what they are talking about.
Click to expand...

Nothing that's been said is necessarily wrong and of course your going to have differences of opinion that's exactly what a forum is for discussion on certain topics to voice your opinions and I don't think anything said is detrimental to the person who started the thread he has to make his own decision off the info he gets.
 
Jiigzz said:
We are speaking in generalizations; you don't need specifics when making generalized statements. re-read the thread.
Click to expand...

Wrong. I don't need to reread anything. The OP asked a specific question then most of the posters went off on a tangent, arguing about things. You can't speak in generalizations when you are trying to talk about application to an individual. Everyone person, situation, training goal etc will have different needs. It's half silly to see people argue over two different things when they are trying to say the same thing. And you can speak in generalizations all day but they are completely worthless in real life.


Mike542 said:
Nothing that's been said is necessarily wrong and of course your going to have differences of opinion that's exactly what a forum is for discussion on certain topics to voice your opinions and I don't think anything said is detrimental to the person who started the thread he has to make his own decision off the info he gets.
Click to expand...


There have been some things said that are completely wrong though. I'm not calling anyone out but there is actually factual information out there that can answer his question is we get enough info on him. But making generalizations and having silly arguments about recovery time vs lifting experience without factoring in the other real work factors like intensity, goals, training program, the actually exercises done, age, diet, sleep, supplementation, etc is kind of dumb. Heck we need to define "recovery" because people are using it in different contexts within this thread. It just bugs me that everyone could work together to answer this guys question but instead it becomes a debate on meaningless generalizations that don't apply.



I'm not trying to be the bad guy but that's my opinion. I haven't had time to sit down and write a post for the OP yet but was hoping someone would chime in in the meantime. And there have been some very good posts and info here. Just some bro science mixed in which I thought was funny.
 
CountryLiftin said:
Wrong. I don't need to reread anything. The OP asked a specific question then most of the posters went off on a tangent, arguing about things. You can't speak in generalizations when you are trying to talk about application to an individual. Everyone person, situation, training goal etc will have different needs. It's half silly to see people argue over two different things when they are trying to say the same thing. And you can speak in generalizations all day but they are completely worthless in real life.

There have been some things said that are completely wrong though. I'm not calling anyone out but there is actually factual information out there that can answer his question is we get enough info on him. But making generalizations and having silly arguments about recovery time vs lifting experience without factoring in the other real work factors like intensity, goals, training program, the actually exercises done, age, diet, sleep, supplementation, etc is kind of dumb. Heck we need to define "recovery" because people are using it in different contexts within this thread. It just bugs me that everyone could work together to answer this guys question but instead it becomes a debate on meaningless generalizations that don't apply.

I'm not trying to be the bad guy but that's my opinion. I haven't had time to sit down and write a post for the OP yet but was hoping someone would chime in in the meantime. And there have been some very good posts and info here. Just some bro science mixed in which I thought was funny.
Click to expand...

A forum is a place to express varying opinions is it not? If you dont perceive it that way,head to wikianswers and write out a completely one sided answer.

All threads go on tangents, that is forum life.
 
I'm curious to see some form of "science" stating or even hinting that hypertrophic gains are limited by fascia.
 
Jiigzz said:
A forum is a place to express varying opinions is it not? If you dont perceive it that way,head to wikianswers and write out a completely one sided answer.

All threads go on tangents, that is forum life.
Click to expand...

I agree. So why the hell did you quote my post and disagree with me, instead of just considering the point I was trying to bring to the conversation. Now you're just being hypocritical. All I said was you can't answer a specific question with general statements. You're welcome to disagree with me but if you quote me and tell me I need to reread and that I'm wrong... Then tell me this is a place for varying opinions. I actually agreed with pretty much all your postings, so I have no clue why you are getting offended in this way.

tigerdb2 said:
I'm curious to see some form of "science" stating or even hinting that hypertrophic gains are limited by fascia.
Click to expand...


Ding ding.


mountainman33 said:
It's made for some lively conversation though.
Click to expand...

I agree. I wasn't trying to say otherwise. Just saying from a clinical point of view if you are working with an individual one maybe recover faster than another despite any generalizations based on other factors and that at different levels of training experience recovery changes but the type of recovery we are talking about whether it be speed or quality or another factor can vary as well. There are several aspects to "recovery" basically.
 
CountryLiftin said:
I agree. So why the hell did you quote my post and disagree with me, instead of just considering the point I was trying to bring to the conversation. Now you're just being hypocritical. All I said was you can't answer a specific question with general statements. You're welcome to disagree with me but if you quote me and tell me I need to reread and that I'm wrong... Then tell me this is a place for varying opinions.
Click to expand...

Disagreeing is a form of debate is it not? I don't have to like your opinion for it to be valid so tell me how that is being hypocritical?

OP's post was vague; gave zero illusion into what his regime consists of, or any very useful info therefore I class that as being vague and so i gave a generalised answer.

I respect Pauls insight and as i alluded to, i speak mostly on muscular fatigue as that is what I know and have experience with.
Paul likely comes from a place of mostly CNS fatigue and so his points are also valid.

I have zero clue how close to 1RM OP is training so a debate about recovery formed. I like debates.

You can strawman my argument all you want but if you can answer the OP's question, then do so.
 
Jiigzz said:
Disagreeing is a form of debate is it not? I don't have to like your opinion for it to be valid so tell me how that is being hypocritical?

OP's post was vague; gave zero illusion into what his regime consists of, or any very useful info therefore I class that as being vague and so i gave a generalised answer.

I respect Pauls insight and as i alluded to, i speak mostly on muscular fatigue as that is what I know and have experience with.
Paul likely comes from a place of mostly CNS fatigue and so his points are also valid.

I have zero clue how close to 1RM OP is training so a debate about recovery formed. I like debates.

You can strawman my argument all you want but if you can answer the OP's question, then do so.
Click to expand...

For the last time, I had no qualm with your argument. My point was you are both right but neither one is true 100% of the time because individuals vary. So we should try to ask the OP questions that get us the info we need to answer him, if that's what we are here to do. Your posts and Paul's are both well thought out and correct.

I simply said you were being hypocritical because you disagreed with me flat out, instead of recognizing, discussing or at least raising points again it. Then you told me a forum is a place for discussing opinions. Personally I prefer facts to opinions when possible. Do you not think that we should try to actually help the OP? Do you not see the practical downfalls of over-generalizing everything when it comes to training? Are specifics not much more effective than a cookie cutter program?
 
CountryLiftin said:
For the last time, I had no qualm with your argument. My point was you are both right but neither one is true 100% of the time because individuals vary. So we should try to ask the OP questions that get us the info we need to answer him, if that's what we are here to do. Your posts and Paul's are both well thought out and correct.

I simply said you were being hypocritical because you disagreed with me flat out, instead of recognizing, discussing or at least raising points again it. Then you told me a forum is a place for discussing opinions. Personally I prefer facts to opinions when possible. Do you not think that we should try to actually help the OP? Do you not see the practical downfalls of over-generalizing everything when it comes to training? Are specifics not much more effective than a cookie cutter program?
Click to expand...

Absolutely to all of the above.

To be fair, my initial post was actually directed at compudog :D
 
tigerdb2 said:
I'm curious to see some form of "science" stating or even hinting that hypertrophic gains are limited by fascia.
Click to expand...

Muscles are surrounded by a sheet of fascia that compresses and contains it in the same way a pot does to a plant. While it adds support, protection, tissue integrity, and potentiates a certain degree of functionality, it is also a limiting factor in muscle growth. Much like the way the growth of a plant is limited by the size of the pot, so is muscle limited by the confines of the fascia. It is for this reason that peculiar muscle-expanding drugs like synthol actually work to create bigger-looking muscles.

Carlon M. Colker, M.D.

it took me all of 3 seconds to find this and theres plenty of other articles out there to support it otherwise why would a routine like fst-7 be made its a no brainer.Alos I gave an answer as to What I thought he should do in my first post (maybe the 2nd I don't feel like looking back) ..obviously working your arms 6 plus times a week is not advisable that was stated in the beggining
 
It's hardly a "no brainer". By what mechanisms would fascia restrict the accrual and and remodeling of contractile proteins? By science I was hoping for a textbook reference or some scholarly position statement. I'll look into for myself, certainly, but skeptical is an understatement.
 
You would have to be super advanced as far as muscle size for fascia to inhibit muscle growth, if it would at all. Think about your muscles contracting and how the fascia stretches to accommodate the contraction and thickening of the muscle belly. Fascia will hardly inhibit hypertrophy/anabolism. And if you have ever been inside any living creature, fascia is not that tough, and very flexible/stretchy. Just IMO. I have heard of fascia stretching like most of us, but have never seen any journal articles or studies on it.
 
CountryLiftin said:
You would have to be super advanced as far as muscle size for fascia to inhibit muscle growth, if it would at all. Think about your muscles contracting and how the fascia stretches to accommodate the contraction and thickening of the muscle belly. Fascia will hardly inhibit hypertrophy/anabolism. And if you have ever been inside any living creature, fascia is not that tough, and very flexible/stretchy. Just IMO. I have heard of fascia stretching like most of us, but have never seen any journal articles or studies on it.
Click to expand...

Yeah I'm certainly open to learn new things at any and all opportunities but this doesn't even jive with basic anatomy and physiology. And, quite honestly, if the fascia was inhibiting muscle growth to that extent in advanced populations, how would it even expand to accommodate the fluid build up associated with a pump?
 
tigerdb2 said:
Yeah I'm certainly open to learn new things at any and all opportunities but this doesn't even jive with basic anatomy and physiology. And, quite honestly, if the fascia was inhibiting muscle growth to that extent in advanced populations, how would it even expand to accommodate the fluid build up associated with a pump?
Click to expand...


Exactly. And I've had quite a bit of anatomy, exercise science, bio, and other college classes under my belt which have mentioned nothing of it. I have a few more until DPT school is over though, so who knows. I'm always up for learning new things. I think it's more likely that people think they stretch fascia, when they really just get extra stimulation to the muscles, and promote growth. Of course if someone wants to post a study proving it then I will read it.
 
tigerdb2 said:
Yeah I'm certainly open to learn new things at any and all opportunities but this doesn't even jive with basic anatomy and physiology. And, quite honestly, if the fascia was inhibiting muscle growth to that extent in advanced populations, how would it even expand to accommodate the fluid build up associated with a pump?
Click to expand...
It was never my intention to say that it completely stops growth altogether but there is no doubt in MY mind that it does indeed have a factor in restricting muscle growth the farther its stretched. it is certainly a known topic in bodybuilding that I have heard in countless times. Even if you dont have a scientific study in front of you use logic .. fascia is an elastic material like the rubber in a balloon. a balloon (fascia) easily blows up (fills with muscle) until it reaches its limit then each consecutive blow into the balloon inflates it very little after . I know this analogy is a far cry from science its just an aid to help visualize the similarities. there is no substance that is infinitely elastic. and it most certainly jives with basic anatomy muscle is surrounded by this material and of course it expands to accommodate fluid build up its not a rigid structure it is elastic we have already addressed this..

I don't think muscular development would post an article about some crazy theorist that has some hair brained idea that he pulled out of his arse. Im sure this man is very credible read the article. Invalid Link Removed .Speaking of anatomy if anyone knows something about it im sure a doctor with a focus in this field would .IMO I think it would be wise to trust ppl with yrs of knowledge and experience in the field .
 
And with all this said Im done wasting energy on this trying to change someones mind on something like this is doing zero to help me and further myself in BBing look up the subject and make your own conclusions thats really the only reason I posted anything about it in the first place not to turn a bbing theory to fact. It was a lively convo fellas have a nice day
 
I'll ask one of my profs next week. He's a DPT (doctor of physical therapy) and getting his masters in biomechanics right now.

The thing you are missing is that fascia is a living tissue and will grow just like skin grows etc. It is a connective tissue and can stretch over time, similar to how you can stretch tendons/ligaments over time for more flexibility. Fascia is also not very thick most places (some it is) and from my understanding, wouldn't impede mitosis/anabolism/hypertrophy from sheer "pressure" or containment of the muscle. Every part of the muscle has a covering or sheath. The whole muscle is covered my fascia, or often groups are. But each muscle belly is surrounded by epimysium, the inside fascicles are covered with perimysium, and each individual muscle fiberis covered with a layer called endomysium. It goes even smaller. Basically what I am saying is everything in your body is layered. It's connective tissue because it covers, protects, or attaches tissues. It doesn't really inhibit growth. IMO, you would have to either be insanely huge, or growing at a faster rate than the stretching of the fascia could cope with... if it is even possible. I will give that link that you posted a read.
 
Don't take it the wrong way man, we just like to debate/discuss things on here. I agree, unless you are really interested in the subject there is really no reason to keep up the discussion.
 
CountryLiftin said:
Don't take it the wrong way man, we just like to debate/discuss things on here. I agree, unless you are really interested in the subject there is really no reason to keep up the discussion.
Click to expand...

No I have no hard feelings and I am quite interested in the subject but our continued conversation by only injecting more opinions and guesses into the mix is not gonna get us closer to a real definitive answer .I am interested in what your professor's thoughts would be on the subject .Also one thing you stated was the strength of the fascia in subjects you have seen dissected (im assuming they were small lab friendly sized).You have to take into account our size difference. I have dissected (aka skinned and butchered lol) deer and there fascia is pretty resilient and thick and we are a larger animal still. Just food for thought and I certainly could be wrong about this whole subject but it would be only because of being misled by greater minds than my own .. Post your Prof. take on the subject when you get an opportunity to ask him..
 
Yeah don't take it personally. There is a lot of incorrect information in BB and fitness, in general. Some of it works but for reasons different than stated and some of it is just plain wrong. I'll be getting my Master's Degree in strength and conditioning and want to be a strength coach. The science, whether people like it or not, makes this whole thing go. I want to know why and how so I can make intelligent decisions in my own training as well as the training of others. It's nothing personal but I like science and sound logic. The body grows and adapts and fascia is no exception. That would be quite the design flaw in our design. As far as the doctor, his plant pot analogy is all I need to be skeptical of him. That analogy doesn't work at all as the pot is a rigid structure that is incapable of change, whether transient or permanent. Either way, I'll let this die off.
 
Mike542 said:
No I have no hard feelings and I am quite interested in the subject but our continued conversation by only injecting more opinions and guesses into the mix is not gonna get us closer to a real definitive answer .I am interested in what your professor's thoughts would be on the subject .Also one thing you stated was the strength of the fascia in subjects you have seen dissected (im assuming they were small lab friendly sized).You have to take into account our size difference. I have dissected (aka skinned and butchered lol) deer and there fascia is pretty resilient and thick and we are a larger animal still. Just food for thought and I certainly could be wrong about this whole subject but it would be only because of being misled by greater minds than my own .. Post your Prof. take on the subject when you get an opportunity to ask him..
Click to expand...

Ill do my best. I do cadavers as part of my doctorate program in a year so I can let you know, but I have seen them as well and it's not as bad as you would think. Deer are definitely tougher animals as well I agree. I've cut up about any animal you can think of haha. I'm just interested in the truth because I have heard the fascia thing before but personally don't buy it and haven't learned read or seen anything to prove it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top