Muscle mass v. muscle endurance - fibers added or strengthened

[Good Row G]

OK, NF rebels, riddle me this:

Can an individual muscle fiber get stronger? Or in gaining strength, will your body add muscle fibers? How about endurance - a single muscle fiber can be trained to increase endurance while not increasing mass, right? Thus, bulky weight lifters and lean marathoners.

Specific background - I'm a woman in a push-up challenge with friends. I want to work up to 40 push-ups at once (at 27 now), and from there to 120 a day in three sets by December. What are the body composition consequences of 3 sets of 40 push-ups v. any other way of doing it, like 6 sets of 20? Are there any? When I get into the higher reps, is that endurance (ie no bulk added) or am I on a path to larger and larger mass?

[Centurion]

You will only add bulk by increasing the amount you lift and increasing the amount you lift. Obviously barring any huge weight changes you will always be lifting the same weight when you do pushups so going from 27 to 40 is just a matter of endurance. No sure about specific numbers but the consensus seems to be that once you an do in the region of 5-15 reps of something you should add more weight if you are looking to increase strength rather than just improve endurance

[161803398874989]

An individual muscle fiber (sarcomere) may become more resistant to popping, I think, but that's it. Increases in strength require either more fibers (also known as myofibrillar hypertrophy) or better neurological signalling (muscle coordination and stuff like that), the latter being a HUGE part of it.

As for body composition consequences, 3x40 pushups is not going to do a whole lot except burn a few calories. You're already far into the endurance spectrum as well.

Even if you were on the 'path to larger mass', you wouldn't gain very much muscle if you're a woman. You'd need to eat LOADS for that to happen and even that is still limited (look at Staci).

[aj_rock]

There is no scientific literature in existance that supports the hypothesis that you can increase the number of muscle fibers in your body.

When looking at endurance types versus power types, what you're seeing is a difference in muscle fiber TYPE and SIZE. Strength oriented people see huge muscles because hypertrophy of the fibers is advantageous to lifting more weight. Similarly, endurance oriented people do not see the same increase in size because it does not affect the muscle's ability to complete endurance type work. Most of the endurance improvements seen have more to do with improving the efficiency of a system rather than anything else.

Anyway, at the number you're looking at (20+ reps per set), all you're improving really is the body's ability to remove lactate. The only thing really stopping you from performing more push-ups is pain/discomfort from lactate build-up, which can be improved either with practice OR with general anaerobic training.

[andygates]

...Ultimate pushup ninjas are not hulking walls of beef.

[Good Row G]

...Ultimate pushup ninjas are not hulking walls of beef.

There might be exceptions, and I might be one, without even reaching pushup ninja status!

I've dropped out of the challenge I had going with my friends. Second year in a row, nearly the same time and for the same reason.

One good reason for scaling back, was my suffering from over-training. I felt like I had pulled leg and neck muscles, and had exercise headaches.

But instead of changing things up and working in more rest and more gradual build up, I quit entirely a week ago. And I feel great, just a little reluctant and sad. I quit because please believe me I was getting way too big and defined. Not just to my eye, my husband independently saw it and requested gently that I stop. In five months of training I not only have new chest cleavage, bigger than my already big arms, traps, and Frigging!!! Ripples between my pecs like bodybuilders!!! Why! I am female!

I'm reluctant because I was proud of being able to say I was knocking out 100 pushups a day, and because I thought I was getting a decent exercise in a few minutes with my office door closed. (My time is equally divided between work, commute and kids. Free time is gold.)

I'm not new to fitness, I was a competitive kayaker. When I was racing at 14% BF I wasn't bulky like this. Sure, I did some weight training, but it seemed casual to me. Never remember over-training, but I did have a good coach.

Now I'm focusing on fat loss, and an ad hoc mix of cardio and pilates. Not trying to build much until I'm at a goal weight.

In the back of my mind I'd like to complete some part of the 300 workout. I like how this site eases you into it:

http://www.perfectbalancefitness.com/300-workout-challenge.html

Will I run into the same size issues with this workout as I did with push-ups? What am I doing wrong?

This isn't about not loving the body you're given, I believe my body's amazing, I know and love well it's strengths and weaknesses. It's about whether to focus on strength training or not. I've come to love bodyweight exercises. But I wonder if for my body I wouldn't be better off focusing on sports - rowing, hiking, swimming - rather than specific exercises. I don't want to work hard to box myself out of looking hot naked.

[andygates]

Sounds like you're very lean. Those definition elements describe visible "muscularity" without informing much on mass - compare climbers to gymrats - but I'm not going to argue. Your body is exclusively *your* plaything, do with it what makes you happy.

[Luthorcrow]

I don't know, what you describe regarding muscle size sounds cool to me. A fit girl should have muscles. But if you are getting larger than you like than yes the workout you linked may not be what you want. Honestly, I don't see how circuit training or high volume push ups would make you look anything other than fit and sexy. But we have our own goals and tastes.

If that is this case you might want to stick something like yoga or general aerobics that do not focus on strength. High rep strength training (15 and up) will not make you big but maybe bigger than you want to me be based on your posts.

[Waldo]

The "endurance" gained from high rep work does in fact cause hypertrophy. A lot of it.

People confuse aerobic endurance with anaerobic endurance.

All 3 of your primary energy systems have the capacity for hypertrophy. Aerobically it is very small in the muscle, however the oxygen and blood supply system strengthens significantly. Anaerobically you supercharge your bodies ability to store glycogen in the muscle, recharge it, and remove the waste byproducts during (and immediately after) exercise. The C-P system develops the ability to hold and transport more C-P and recharge faster, this goes hand in hand with increasing the contraction power of muscle fibers.

The anaerobic system has the greatest capacity for muscular mass gains. This is why many people specifically look for "the burn" which signals very high lactate production, overloading the system's ability to remove it.

To gain mass at the maximum rate, strength should be periodized with "endurance", anaerobic endurance is not a self-progressing system, you will stall in relatively short order without accompanied strength gain which the training style itself is very poor at progressing.

The idea that high rep work won't cause mass gains is flat out wrong. It will not sustain mass gains by itself long term however.

All those bodybuilders that noobs on 5x5 systems make fun of for being weak..... if they aren't strong, why are their muscles gigantic? It is because they have an awesome ability to use glycogen anaerobically and remove lactate from their muscles. They can do an obscene number of reps an sets with their muscles before they run out of gas.

[JamesAE]

Just a few things -

- I thought hypertophy occurs when the body overcompensates for any breakdown in muscle fibres, making them bigger, not adding them. This is like the body's way of protecting itself from any further damage.

- When you train for endurance, the body responds by burning calories and not decreasing muscle size, but keeping mass to a minimum, essentially making the job easier for you.

- Is it possible to train for strength with endurance? It's just with the 1st rep, your body doesn't know how many reps you are planning to do. So if you go up to 12 reps, you've done the strength bit. Surely your body doesn't then "forget" and go "oh no, I can't build any strength. I'm training for endurance." Does that make sense?

Correct me if I'm wrong - that's just what I thought.

[Waldo]

- Is it possible to train for strength with endurance? It's just with the 1st rep, your body doesn't know how many reps you are planning to do. So if you go up to 12 reps, you've done the strength bit. Surely your body doesn't then "forget" and go "oh no, I can't build any strength. I'm training for endurance." Does that make sense?

You body doesn't know how many you are planning to do, but it sure as heck knows how many you CAN do. If you've got sufficient weight on the bar that you'll fail in 3 reps, it will use maximum resources and receive a good bit of damage from the strain. If you won't fail for 20 reps, the weight is so light than it won't use its full resources and will save its peak resources, likewise very little strain related damage will occur.

[JamesAE]

You body doesn't know how many you are planning to do, but it sure as heck knows how many you CAN do. If you've got sufficient weight on the bar that you'll fail in 3 reps, it will use maximum resources and receive a good bit of damage from the strain. If you won't fail for 20 reps, the weight is so light than it won't use its full resources and will save its peak resources, likewise very little strain related damage will occur.

So it goes all out on the heavier load, depleting its resources quicker. On a lighter load, it conserves itself meaning you can go for longer.

[Luthorcrow]

@Waldo, sometimes I think you like to take a run with some facts, turn the other person's point into a straw-man argument then knock the whole artifice down. Why reference body builders? It just not relevant. Ignoring the prevalence of use and acceptance of using juice in that community, you are talking about a group that represent such a small slice of genetic pool that it reveals little that is useful to the average person. The idea that if anyone trains that way they would achieve similar results is a lie that Wieder rich.

Yes, all strength training will lead to some hypertrophy. But if you are suggesting for the average person that will make large gains on a high rep, low rest and high volume program is just laughable. Did I ever suggest that there would be no increase in muscle size with circuit training? Nope, in fact that is why I suggested that she might be better off not doing any strength training if her goals were not increased muscle size. If she does a pure aerobics program will her muscles be larger than if she was sedentary, sure but probably well within a degree that better matches her stated aesthetic desires. I don't really see what there is to debate?

[Waldo]

But if you are suggesting for the average person that will make large gains on a high rep, low rest and high volume program is just laughable.?

They will. If it is periodized with a low rep strength gaining program (that is pretty much how "large gains" is done...)

Some reading:

http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/training/periodization-for-bodybuilders-part-1.html

http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/training/periodization-for-bodybuilders-part-2.html

http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/training/periodization-for-bodybuilders-part-3.html

[js290]

So it goes all out on the heavier load, depleting its resources quicker. On a lighter load, it conserves itself meaning you can go for longer.

The body is an efficient machine and will always conserve its resources. That is, it will always try to use the least amount of energy to perform a certain task. The more you train that task, the more efficient you get at it, i.e. the less energy you use.

Muscle motor unit recruitment is done sequentially: slow twitch (aerobic) fibers first, intermediate (aerobic/anaerobic) fibers next, then finally fast twitch (anaerobic) fibers. If the load is heavy enough and your movement deliberate enough, you will recruit all those motor units for a particular movement.

Informative blog post on fatigue: http://conditioningresearch.blogspot.com/2012/06/all-in-your-mind-even-with-weights.html

[js290]

@Waldo, sometimes I think you like to take a run with some facts, turn the other person's point into a straw-man argument then knock the whole artifice down. Why reference body builders? It just not relevant. Ignoring the prevalence of use and acceptance of using juice in that community, you are talking about a group that represent such a small slice of genetic pool that it reveals little that is useful to the average person. The idea that if anyone trains that way they would achieve similar results is a lie that Wieder rich.

Yes, all strength training will lead to some hypertrophy. But if you are suggesting for the average person that will make large gains on a high rep, low rest and high volume program is just laughable. Did I ever suggest that there would be no increase in muscle size with circuit training? Nope, in fact that is why I suggested that she might be better off not doing any strength training if her goals were not increased muscle size. If she does a pure aerobics program will her muscles be larger than if she was sedentary, sure but probably well within a degree that better matches her stated aesthetic desires. I don't really see what there is to debate?

http://youtu.be/fQra-ME7vIo?t=57m3s

http://www.jappl.org/content/110/2/301.full

[azsf]

Good links waldo, thanks! Answers the questions about strength v endurance pretty nicely too:

"Stimulating myofibrillar growth means imposing some combination of tension, fatigue and damage components onto muscle fibers (stimulating sarcoplasmic hypertrophy is more about fatigue and energy depletion than tension per se). By improving strength in low rep ranges with pure strength training, bodybuilders can use more weight in higher rep ranges. This means more tension, more damage and more ultimate growth."

Or in layman: the stronger you get, the more your body can endure.

as for this:

the average person will make large gains on a high rep, low rest and high volume program is just laughable

not really, depends how you define gains. they will likely notice a size increase early on (especially if untrained and eating appropriately), strength not so much. for the OPs case though, working in this range would likely lead to the "pump" effect that many body builders go for (sarcoplasmic hypertrophy) and hence she appears more muscular. dropping resistance training altogether will reduce this, as will working primarily on isometric / bodyweight training programs. depending on diet, you could probably also continue to lift big (in low rep ranges) and build neuro-muscular patterns to keep your strength gains going.

[Good Row G]

But if you are suggesting for the average person that will make large gains on a high rep, low rest and high volume program is just laughable.

That is exactly what happened, maybe not the same for every one, true for me. Five months, max sets and minimal rest between sets and now I've got bigger arms and shoulders than the average man. (Maybe similar pecs, although that's hard to compare. ) Bringing bodybuilders into the conversation isn't inappropriate, because the way I was exercising was producing results that seemed to me more show than substance. Yes I was strong, but not in a well rounded way, and I was working toward an aesthetic extreme.

Thanks for your analysis, Waldo. I dig science, and I'll re-read the comments and links and see if I can understand.

I love NF but I'm hopeless confused since it seems like the old wisdom has been turned on its head. Long rest or short rest? High rep, low rep? High weight / low weight doesn't really apply to BW, although I guess I could do less reps, more intense moves. I think I understand the need for cardio - increase ability of heart and lungs to exert effort over time. Right, I do need that, and an extra couple calories burned will help. And yes for intervals.

I'd like to do some BW with my weight loss and cardio-ish activities. Given that high rep / low rest / low weight wasn't working for me, what should my guidelines be to get strong but not pumped?

[Waldo]

That is exactly what happened, maybe not the same for every one, true for me. Five months, max sets and minimal rest between sets and now I've got bigger arms and shoulders than the average man. (Maybe similar pecs, although that's hard to compare. ) Bringing bodybuilders into the conversation isn't inappropriate, because the way I was exercising was producing results that seemed to me more show than substance. Yes I was strong, but not in a well rounded way, and I was working toward an aesthetic extreme.

Thanks for your analysis, Waldo. I dig science, and I'll re-read the comments and links and see if I can understand.

I love NF but I'm hopeless confused since it seems like the old wisdom has been turned on its head. Long rest or short rest? High rep, low rep? High weight / low weight doesn't really apply to BW, although I guess I could do less reps, more intense moves. I think I understand the need for cardio - increase ability of heart and lungs to exert effort over time. Right, I do need that, and an extra couple calories burned will help. And yes for intervals.

I'd like to do some BW with my weight loss and cardio-ish activities. Given that high rep / low rest / low weight wasn't working for me, what should my guidelines be to get strong but not pumped?

Thing is that you size gains from the high rep work will be relatively short lived. You won't continue to get bigger going down the path you were going down unless you add more resistance.

This is why you cannot get big with that approach alone.

Toning in the sense that most women know it does work, your muscles harden and gain some size, but as long as you don't up the weight, those gains will be relatively rapid and then plateau. Training that way helps to prevent you from being able to increase the weight as well since you don't get much stronger.

On the flipside physical gains from low rep work will be much slower but much more sustained.

Combine the two and you get big.

[Good Row G]

http://www.jappl.org/content/110/2/301.full

Thanks for this post, js290! That makes me feel a little better. (No sound on my office computer so I'll have to check the other link out at home.) OK, maybe I'm an outlier. Unusual size gains.

What really bothered me is not being as strong as I think my big arms (about 15" at the bicep) should make me. There are girls out there with smaller arms that can do more pushups than me, faster. Not many, but not many try. Accepting that I have "fluffy" muscles - ie muscles that look bigger than the strength they convey - is annoying. But I guess there's a range for everything. Maybe I'm stronger than I realize, which is entirely possible. I do carry my twins around in my arms frequently, 40 lbs each. Can't do one at a time, that wouldn't be fair!

It's all self-knowledge, I guess. I wanted to get through a year of the pushup challenge, but I quit for the good reasons that I was over-training and experiencing hypertrophy. I want to do some of the 300 challenge. I can take that at my own pace, try to use leg and core muscles instead of all arms, and see where that gets me. Maybe cautiously dabble in high intensity / low rep work. That might suit my body type just fine.

[Good Row G]

Combine the two and you get big.

Crazy as it seems, I may have been doing the equivalent of the high weight / low rep thing round the house since moving 6 months ago - at the same time I started the push-up thing coincidentally. New house has a million stairs. Packing an army duffel full of clothes and carrying it to the laundry mat, roping furniture through the window on a somewhat regular basis (moving in slowly.) Changing our mind about mattresses - one goes out the window, 140 lbs latex comes up the stairs. Goes back down the stairs. Firewood. Groceries. Beer! I'm a pack horse and refuse to make more than one trip carrying things.

So another solution would be to call it quits on the moving heavy crap around all the time. Which sounds good, just as soon as that credenza gets in the house through the third floor window . . .

[Anivair]

This has sort of ben said here, but you don't grow new fibers (except when you heal damaged muscle, which , of course, is just you getting the old ones back). Strength increases are the results of neurological progress (the muscles learning to communicate better) or the actual cells get bigger (hypertrophy).

[js290]

Thanks for this post, js290! That makes me feel a little better. (No sound on my office computer so I'll have to check the other link out at home.) OK, maybe I'm an outlier. Unusual size gains.

What really bothered me is not being as strong as I think my big arms (about 15" at the bicep) should make me. There are girls out there with smaller arms that can do more pushups than me, faster. Not many, but not many try. Accepting that I have "fluffy" muscles - ie muscles that look bigger than the strength they convey - is annoying. But I guess there's a range for everything. Maybe I'm stronger than I realize, which is entirely possible. I do carry my twins around in my arms frequently, 40 lbs each. Can't do one at a time, that wouldn't be fair!

It's all self-knowledge, I guess. I wanted to get through a year of the pushup challenge, but I quit for the good reasons that I was over-training and experiencing hypertrophy. I want to do some of the 300 challenge. I can take that at my own pace, try to use leg and core muscles instead of all arms, and see where that gets me. Maybe cautiously dabble in high intensity / low rep work. That might suit my body type just fine.

Interesting info on fatigue: http://conditioningresearch.blogspot.com/2012/06/all-in-your-mind-even-with-weights.html

Academic review on cardiovascular fitness: http://faculty.css.edu/tboone2/asep/JEPonlineJUNE2012_Steele.pdf

[LRB]

Can I just say? I'm loving this thread. THIS is why I love nerdfitness -- put a bunch of nerds in a room, give 'em a topic, and they're off and running with some of the best resources and most well-educated discussions I've ever seen.

Thanks everyone!

[Luthorcrow]

They will. If it is periodized with a low rep strength gaining program (that is pretty much how "large gains" is done...)

Some reading:

http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/training/periodization-for-bodybuilders-part-1.html

http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/training/periodization-for-bodybuilders-part-2.html

http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/training/periodization-for-bodybuilders-part-3.html

Yes, we agree. That is what I meant by taking some facts and jumping to conclusions. My statement still stands if you follow a high rep, low weight program you will see small gains but will not get big. I never said that high reps/low weight is counter to getting strong or isn't valuable as part of cycle of periodization. In fact that is what Lou/Alwyn's books are based on. That is what I meant by a strawman argument.

So other than you have esteem for BBs that I do not, it sounds like we are talking past each other but not really disagreeing.