Erroneous Claims Regarding The Stimulus For Muscle Hypertrophy

Discussion in 'Hypertrophy Research' started by Bryan Haycock, Nov 11, 2020.

  1. Bryan Haycock

    Bryan Haycock Administrator Staff Member

    This paper is by Ralph Carpinelli. He's connected to the Department of Health Studies, Physical Education and Human Performance Science at Adelphi University. His critical commentary on hypertrophy research is impressive and cannot be ignored by any of us who claim to "know" this or that about how experienced lifters grow.

    This Critical Commentary (attached) addresses some recent review articles and training studies specifically focused on the stimulus for muscle hypertrophy in participants with several years of resistance training experience. It reveals that many of the recommended resistance training protocols have their foundation in some long-held, self-described bias.
     
    Scubby, NWlifter and _Simon_ like this.
  2. Dan Moore

    Dan Moore New Member

    Hello Bryan, I simply love this "
    Note: Although broscience is not a real word, it refers to
    anecdotal and usually clueless opinions about how to train for
    optimal physiological adaptations such as muscle hypertrophy.
    Broscience is not always wrong but usually is not
    substantiated with resistance training studies. Proponents of
    broscience (bros) believe that their opinions are more credible
    than the scientific research."

    Nice paper BTW.
     
    Bryan Haycock and _Simon_ like this.
  3. Dan Moore

    Dan Moore New Member

    Interesting results........

    91. Barbalho M, Coswig VS, Steele J, et al. Evidence for
    an upper threshold for resistance training volume in
    trained women. Med Sci Sports Exerc 2019; 51(3):
    515-22.
    92. Barbalho M, Coswig VS, Steele J, et al. Evidence of a
    ceiling effect for training volume in muscle
    hypertrophy and strength in trained men—less is
    more? Int J Sports Physiol Perform 2019; June 12: 1-
    23 doi: 10.1123/ijspp.2018-0914 [Epub ahead of
    print].
     
    Bryan Haycock and NWlifter like this.
  4. NWlifter

    NWlifter Active Member

    OK you guys are freaking me out.. Bryan posting... Dan replying..... it's like 2005 again! kewl ;)

    Paper looks interesting, will read for sure
     
    Bryan Haycock and _Simon_ like this.
  5. NWlifter

    NWlifter Active Member

    oh yeah that's a cool paper, I remember that one. So you DO still read on this a bit eh?
    Have you read some of Cody Haun's stuff about sarcoplasmic hypertrophy?
     
    Bryan Haycock likes this.
  6. Dan Moore

    Dan Moore New Member

    No actually I hadn't in some time. But Bryan's post looked interesting so I read through it and, as usual the references (where I could).
     
    NWlifter likes this.
  7. Dan Moore

    Dan Moore New Member

    No I haven't. Has something change wrt to Sarcomeric growth vs sarcoplasmic growth?
     
    NWlifter likes this.
  8. NWlifter

    NWlifter Active Member

    Yes confirmation that the ties between sarco and myo isn't nearly so tight as we thought.
    And another cool study recently by Mathias showing really delayed hypertrophy (well after that usual 48 hour post workout window).
    I'll have to dig those up if your interested.
     
    _Simon_ likes this.
  9. NWlifter

    NWlifter Active Member

Share This Page