Still studying away while I'm waiting to get past this health stuff and had something I wanted to ask anyone who might be able to lend their perspective on.
I may have posted this on the other site, I've also written to Guy Andrews at Exercise etc. and untypically have not heard back from him. I did send this again to him tonight though just in case he never got it in the first place. :)
Okay, the question from the disc is:
Which of the following is not an expected outcome of strength training?
A. Less inhibition
B. Increase in mitochondria (which is the one I thought was most correct as not being an expected outcome)
C. Increase in cross sectional area of the muscle
D. increase in muscular endurance (which is listed as correct).
Now I do understand that from a resistance training perspective (according to the specificity chart) muscular endurance is typically from doing less than 70 percent of 1RM for 12-20 reps, so I understand that perhaps muscular endurance wouldn't be an outcome for higher percentage of 1 RM w/ lower rep ranges (8-12 or 1-8).
Also, I don't believe that Strength training would help muscular endurance in terms of aerobic endurance (rather than just high rep/endurance strength training) due to the principle of specificity of training.
However, I couldn't find anything that said that there was an increase in mitochondria as an outcome of strength training. According to Douglas Brooks "Program Design For Personal Trainers" pgs 134-135 it says
"The increase in actin and myosin and energy generating compounds (anaerobic enzymes stored ATP, CP and Glycogen) with "heavy" (8-12 repetitions to muscular fatigue) resistance training occurs without parallel increases in capillarization or in total volume of mitochondria or mitochondrial enzymes within muscle cells."
So I'm puzzled as to why D would be more correct than B.
thats a tricky one!!! A)less inhibition of what???lol
Aerobic activity increases mitochondrial density and would also increase muscular endurance BUT....dramatic drum role
any activity could possibly enhance mitochondrial density from increases in total work capacity with that being said muscular endurance is absolutely NOT an outcome of STRENGTH training as most real strength comes from under 6 reps I know that is commonly referred to as the power reps but that is a wrong interpretation of the force curve where real power can be broke down into 2 sub categories 1) strength-speed and 2) speed-strength
IMO
__________________
If a person wants something that they have never had, they have to do something that they have never done. - Shawn Fears, CPT
thats a tricky one!!! A)less inhibition of what???lol
Aerobic activity increases mitochondrial density and would also increase muscular endurance BUT....dramatic drum role
any activity could possibly enhance mitochondrial density from increases in total work capacity with that being said muscular endurance is absolutely NOT an outcome of STRENGTH training as most real strength comes from under 6 reps I know that is commonly referred to as the power reps but that is a wrong interpretation of the force curve where real power can be broke down into 2 sub categories 1) strength-speed and 2) speed-strength
IMO
Hi Shawn,
First thanks for replying to this, I appreciate it!
I think w/ inhibition they were referring to autogenic inhibition (Golgi tendon organ) where the muscles get used to more intensity and so the GTO would be less likely to trigger and hence relax the contracting muscle. I'm not positive about this, but that's what I'm thinking.
The part of the question that's confusing to me is not knowing what type of endurance they were referring to. There's muscular endurance one develops doing a marathon which of course is related to cardiovascular endurance, but there's also the relative muscular endurance one develops in relation to a 1 rep maximum.
The idea that one can generally do 10 reps w/ 75 percent of their 1RM so if they increase their 1RM resistance then the resistance they used to be able to do for 10 reps maybe they could do for 12 or more reps etc..
I don't know if that makes sense but I was thinking about this in relation to the "Training specificity and recovery time" chart (Table 9.2 pg 268 of the ACE Manual) which gets into:
light loads of less than 70 percent of 1RM being for muscular endurance, 12-20 reps, 1-3 sets, 20-30 seconds rest,
for moderate loads, 70-80 percent of 1RM, Muscular strength/hypertrophy, 8-12 reps, 1-6 sets, 30-120 seconds rest etc....
So in the context of that chart in the ACE Manual they were speaking of muscular endurance in the context of resistance training.
Also on pg 251-252 it talks about Strength/Endurance Relationships where it says (last paragraph) "Although one may train specifically for muscle strength or muscle endurance there is an inherent relationship between these abilities"....and then they also talk about how people can perform about 10 reps w/ 75 percent of their maximum resistance and how "Kim's 10 rep maximum resistance changes in direct proportion to her one-rep maximum"
So, I guess one could speak of muscular endurance in that context.
However, if they (the exercise etc. disc) are speaking of strength training in relation to muscular endurance in terms of something like distance running then I think they'd be unrelated.
Anyway, I still haven't heard back from Guy Andrews, usually he responds to inquiries re: the disc. Certainly there's quite a few things that I think are incorrect on it.
Hey, I did hear from Guy Andrews, this is his reply:
Guy Andrews wrote:
Hey Scott:
You answered your own question, based on the concept of "specificity." Strength training results in gains of strength; endurance training results in gains of endurance.
Of course that makes sense but I wrote back to him (though I have added some things here to the email I sent him because I found them later on):
I must admit that I'm still unsure about the mitochondria thing w/ strength training because I thought primarily that mitochondria were increased thru aerobic endurance training. I couldn't find anything in the manual that mentioned an increase in mitochondria from strength training.
In the manual it's talks about anaerobic production of ATP "occuring inside the cell but outside the mitochondria". In lower rep ranges of strength training wouldn't one be relying more on the Creatine phosphate system (1-10 seconds) and the short term/lactic acid system (failure/muscle fatigue 30-90 seconds) rather than the aerobic system?
Now on page 18 it does say that Type 2a fibers (which are usually recruited when type 1 fibers can no longer perform the particular muscular contraction (pg 275)), being fast oxidative have more mitochondria than type 2b fibers. Though it does say that "although type 2 a fibers have some oxidative properties, they do not have nearly the endurance or aerobic capability of slow twitch fibers.
Still, it also says that "research shows that it is possible to increase either the oxidative capacity or glycolytic capacity, especially in the type 2a fibers depending on the specificity of training.
So, I guess I can assume from that, that the oxidative capacity in type 2a fibers is increased by an increase in mitochondria. :)
That being said, would strength training be the type of stimulus to increase the oxidative capacity in type 2a fibers?
I know this was totally and completely convoluted so I apologize :)
So, I guess I can assume from that, that the oxidative capacity in type 2a fibers is increased by an increase in mitochondria. :)
That being said, would strength training be the type of stimulus to increase the oxidative capacity in type 2a fibers?
I know this was totally and completely convoluted so I apologize :)
Take care,
Scott
-- Edited by Scott60 at 08:25, 2008-08-08
Again this is reffered to by most coaches as total work capacity and it is my impression that it can be trained through strength training.. the change would occur when said individual goes from 3 sets to 5 sets therfore increasing total work capacity and strength endurance
lol and the inhibition thing was a joke as I am sure they are reffering to neural inhibition or neural pathway activation efficiency which as I am sure that you know is the strength gain acheived when first begining to strength train.
__________________
If a person wants something that they have never had, they have to do something that they have never done. - Shawn Fears, CPT
So, I guess I can assume from that, that the oxidative capacity in type 2a fibers is increased by an increase in mitochondria. :)
That being said, would strength training be the type of stimulus to increase the oxidative capacity in type 2a fibers?
I know this was totally and completely convoluted so I apologize :)
Take care,
Scott
-- Edited by Scott60 at 08:25, 2008-08-08
Again this is reffered to by most coaches as total work capacity and it is my impression that it can be trained through strength training.. the change would occur when said individual goes from 3 sets to 5 sets therfore increasing total work capacity and strength endurance
lol and the inhibition thing was a joke as I am sure they are reffering to neural inhibition or neural pathway activation efficiency which as I am sure that you know is the strength gain acheived when first begining to strength train.
Hi Shawn,
Thanks for clarifying that! So I guess in that context then strength training can sort of help w/ muscular endurance.
I think I found in the manual about the inhibition thing they were referring to (because the exercise etc. disc is supposed to be mostly based on the ACE manual though there are some things referred to on the disc not in the manual). On page 23, top of column 2, it's under "Decreased Nervous Inhibition".
It says that "Nervous inhibition is both psychological and physiological." They refer to the Golgi tendon organ as being a physiological (functional) adaptation. It goes on to say that it's possible to override the physiological Golgi protective inhibition.
A bit later it says that "strength training raises the threshold of force generation at which the Golgi tendon organ is stimulated".... The associated muscle can then generate greater contractile force before the tendon organ is stimulated.
What I was referring to is higher number of motor unit recruitment through more efficient neural pathway activation...not the overriding of the deactivation of the muscle through the Golgi Tendon. This is in effect the training of the central nervous system to become more efficient...I am not sure but I think that this is covered in the ACE manual although not in any depth, and I don't really remember where in the book it is.
so you get less nervous inhibition due to higher recruitment activation and therefore more efficient movement patterns. Then the next stage in the development of strength would be actual strength gains from increasing the Golgi Tendon organ threshold then muscle hypertrophy.
Sound about right? or am I missing something?
-- Edited by akyoda32 at 17:59, 2008-08-08
-- Edited by akyoda32 at 18:04, 2008-08-08
__________________
If a person wants something that they have never had, they have to do something that they have never done. - Shawn Fears, CPT
What I was referring to is higher number of motor unit recruitment through more efficient neural pathway activation...not the overriding of the deactivation of the muscle through the Golgi Tendon. This is in effect the training of the central nervous system to become more efficient...I am not sure but I think that this is covered in the ACE manual although not in any depth, and I don't really remember where in the book it is.
so you get less nervous inhibition due to higher recruitment activation and therefore more efficient movement patterns. Then the next stage in the development of strength would be actual strength gains from increasing the Golgi Tendon organ threshold then muscle hypertrophy.
Sound about right? or am I missing something?
-- Edited by akyoda32 at 17:59, 2008-08-08
-- Edited by akyoda32 at 18:04, 2008-08-08
Hi Shawn,
I think what you wrote makes complete sense!
Thanks for answering that and for putting up with my long and often rambling (and convoluted) posts
