[bendavison]

Just came across this nice, easy to read review of how to get stacked in Frontiers: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fphys.2015.00245/full?utm_source=S-TWT&utm_medium=SNET&utm_campaign=ECO_FPHYS_20180319

[Murph]

That is a great review Ben. Thanks for sharing.

Summary: Resistance Exercise and Protein.

The weight lifted isn’t actually that important, so long as the total work load is high enough. And the actual timing or amount of protein isn’t so important either, so long as some basic threshold is met.

From what I can tell, the low weight and high reps vs high weight and low weight debate has largely been settled. It doesn’t matter, so long as it’s to a certain level of effort and then the exact protocol can be downto personal choice and compliance.

The protein timing debate trundles on though. Interesting how much of that science is funded by the protein shake industry who clearly have a bias in wanting people to believe that it makes a meaningful difference if you consume your shake in the 30 minute anabolic window. From what I can tell, the total consumption of often slower digesting proteins over a longer period is what really matters. And getting enough fuel in to make the workout hard enough.

But what do I know? I haven’t lifted a weight in two years.

[Nibile]

In my experience, in practice there are a few differences, especially with regards to different training protocols (low weights high reps and vice versa).
I've been lifting for a long time now, with some off periods due to only focusing on climbing, but I've only started to see radical differences after switching from regular weight lifting to Olympic style lifting.
When I used to lift (regular gyms, usual protocols, etc.), I've also been almost 10 kg bigger than I am now, with low fat percentages and good muscle quality. But, no matter what, I still had that "swole" look that most gym goers have. My muscles were bigger than now, but they looked "softer" and less dense.
With Olympic style lifting I've definitely improved muscular quality: I surely am leaner than before and my muscles look more dense and less rounded. I think that this is mostly due to using big weights for low reps and using slightly sub max weights for high reps (never more than 10). The low weight high reps protocols often go for 20/25 reps per set. In any case, I always apply a fast, explosive effort, generally avoiding any stretch reflex.
Plus, even when doing "regular" weights, I always do multi-joint routines, either in terms of the specific excercise (thrusters, etc.) or in terms of complexes (various excercises performed back to back with no rests).
I've really found great improvements both in terms of power gains and in terms of look.

As for the protein intake, I think it does make some difference as well, both for the session itself (pre, intra and post workout), and in general. I've read a few studies recently that recommended 1,62 gr per kilo of weight. I spoke with a friend of mine who's a sports medecine doctor and he told me he goes with that with his patients (he used to work for a Premier League Soccer Football Team, so high value athletes).

On a final note, I think the biggest bias these studies have, is that they don't really account for training intensity. There's a big difference between a good workout and an excellent workout. Another aspect that is often overlooked is the type of effort (grind or explosiveness).

In any case, a very good article with excellent references.

[jwi]

Good review. Biased by the admitted links to the dairy industry, but never mind.

I very much doubt that hypotrophy can be a goal for male climbers, but it can be somewhat interesting for female climbers. The article says pretty much the same as any recent literature review when it comes to rep-schemes for hypotrophy (that it doesn't much matter >30%). The weak points are that the different types of hypotrophy are barely discussed. As Nibile points out there is a big difference in the effects of sarcoplasmic (up glycogen storage) and myofibrillated (up the muscle fibril size) hypotrophy, the former being useful for endurance athletes and the latter being useful for power athletes. For a body builder both are obviously useful.

As climbers we should only be interested in increased relative strength. When it comes to rep/set/load/effort schemes the science has been clear since the 60s at least. Variation is the only way to guarantee an increase in strength in well trained athletes, and variation has also been proved better on untrained athletes–even if untrained athletes also improve on a non-varied rep/set scheme. (And, face it, in this context 95% of all climbers are untrained).

Murph, I haven't tried to keep up with nutritional science the last few years, but my lazy assumption is that no major break throughs have occurred. There is still no evidence for very high protein diets (>2g/kg) for building strength and some, but rather weak, evidence against similar diets from general health perspective. It seems to me though, that there possibly might be some evidence for eating a high protein meal just before bed time. Aka the Catalan climber's diet. (I haven't read any paper, just looked at some stupid infographics on twitter... so I am clearly in a good position to comment...)

[Nibile]

As Nibile points out there is a big difference in the effects of sarcoplasmic (up glycogen storage) and myofibrillated (up the muscle fibril size) hypotrophy, the former being useful for endurance athletes and the latter being useful for power athletes. For a body builder both are obviously useful.

Did I really say that?
 

[jwi]

...
My muscles were bigger than now, but they looked "softer" and less dense.
...

High reps = mixture of sarcoplasmic and myofibrillated hypotrophy.

I surely am leaner than before and my muscles look more dense and less rounded.
...
I've really found great improvements both in terms of power gains...

Low reps = myofibrillated hypotrophy (harder muscles)

Admittedly, there is also the question of how much the pennation angle change, and changes in surrounding structures for lateral force transmission.

[DAVETHOMAS90]

"I very much doubt that hypotrophy can be a goal for male climbers, but it can be somewhat interesting for female climbers."

O, you mean er .. ?

However, I've been thinking about this a lot - and ironically this morning, before seeing this thread.

For climbing, I've always tried to focus on maximum intensity.

The other factor to consider here, is the potential for injury.

Using high load/low reps, it's only possible to do the exercise when properly recovered. I have a recurring problem with my right elbow which flares up if I try to do "loads of pull-ups". I experience no problems, in fact therapeutic recovery even, when I do high load eccentric contractions - e.g. one arm negatives.

However, there are some things I'm working on, on bars, where I've been considering changing my approach.

Importantly, this isn't from low reps to high, but low reps with lower intensity - but more frequently.

I can anticipate good strength gains, but with higher mass gains - which, as climbers, we want to avoid.

The important relationship is between gaining strength and hypertrophy, or hypotrophy and retaining strength.

I remember when Jason Myers first went out to Buoux. Jason's life was gym, sleep, Edam and tomato sandwiches. He was huge and strong as hell. He came back to Sheffield completely dejected, having climbed little.

When he came back from his next trip, he was a comparative rake, but had had a great trip (including Le Spectre).

Dropping the mass will help the short term goal, but what about the long term? There are some strength gains that cannot be achieved without initial mass gains. We very often need the strength gain to learn new movement skills.

The question is how much mass is necessary to maintain the skill? Intensity seems to optimise this.

[jwi]

"I very much doubt that hypotrophy can be a goal for male climbers, but it can be somewhat interesting for female climbers."

O, you mean er .. ?

Haha.

No, I mean that since women have few muscles cells in their upper body than men that a long term development plan could be to first increase muscle size, then increase strength. Realistically speaking I don't know if this make much sense or if women should also just go for increased strength where necessary and let size take care of itself. But I am frankly struggling to imagine a scenario where having bigger muscle would be a worthy training goal in itself for a climber.

[EdGowSmith]

As Nibile points out there is a big difference in the effects of sarcoplasmic (up glycogen storage) and myofibrillated (up the muscle fibril size) hypotrophy, the former being useful for endurance athletes and the latter being useful for power athletes

From what I've read there is essentially no evidence supporting this, and seems to be regarded as a common misconception by many.

See here:
https://andersnedergaard.dk/en/kropblog/sarcoplasmic-hypertrophy/
http://baye.com/myth-of-sarcoplasmic-versus-myofibrillar-hypertrophy/
http://www.rdlfitness.com/sarcoplasmic-vs-myofibrillar-hypertrophy/

There's also this which might offer insight if you're willing to take the time to read it (I'm not):
https://www.strongerbyscience.com/sarcoplasmic-vs-myofibrillar-hypertrophy/

[Murph]

EdGow - fantastic links. The second quotes extensively from Stuart Phillips - one of the authors from Ben’s OP - that calls sarco vs mayo training “bollocks”. That’s the sort of thinking I had in mind when I thought it was settled!

"I very much doubt that hypotrophy can be a goal for male climbers, but it can be somewhat interesting for female climbers."

O, you mean er .. ?

Haha.

No, I mean that since women have few muscles cells in their upper body than men that a long term development plan could be to first increase muscle size, then increase strength. Realistically speaking I don't know if this make much sense or if women should also just go for increased strength where necessary and let size take care of itself. But I am frankly struggling to imagine a scenario where having bigger muscle would be a worthy training goal in itself for a climber.

Jwi - respectfully I think you might have misunderstood what DT90 was pointing out. You said hypotrophy “can be [a] somewhat interesting [goal] for female climbers”. But hypotropy means losing muscle. And that’s surely not what you meant.

The protein before bedtime claim - do you have the link/science? I can imagine the test where it would show an advantage but would hazard that it requires an unnatural experiment eg where all protein is fast absorbing whey rather than actual food. From what I can tell that’s one of the favourite tricks of the whey research industry anyway. That’s my understanding - the advantage of whey is that it is fast absorbing. But this is also a disadvantage as the body can only process so much at once(?) which means for a lot of people they may as well just eat food.

Full disclosure on my “you don’t need that much protein” claim - Protein advantage has been shown in crash dieters though - here’s a(nother Stuart Phillips whey) study comparing 2.4 vs 1.2g/kg/d - but this was under a 40% energy deficit. I don’t think I’ve seen the convincing evidence that it makes much difference normally.
https://academic.oup.com/ajcn/article/103/3/738/4564609

Nibs - not that I would know (though a machine did call me strong once!) but yeah 1.62 sounds about right. Though rather precise! On your old school “soft” form vs your Olympic lifting “quality” are you sure this isn’t just getting older and being more ripped? 10kgs heavier at least some of it would have been padding, no?

[jwi]

haha, ment hypertrophy of course. I blame this on having broken my specs and being half blind.

[DAVETHOMAS90]

haha, ment hypertrophy of course. I blame this on having broken my specs and being half blind.

Seriously though, I was thinking I'd possibly misinterpreted your post -
hypotrophy being such a significant issue when trying to improve power to weight in the short term.

My asthma is really bad at the moment.. 

[gme]

My brain had given up before the end of the 1st paragraph.
Does it mean I have to do repeaters or max hangs? 

[bendavison]

Doesn't matter as long as you try effing hard and mix it up occasionally.

[jwi]

From what I've read there is essentially no evidence supporting this, and seems to be regarded as a common misconception by many.

See here:
https://andersnedergaard.dk/en/kropblog/sarcoplasmic-hypertrophy/
http://baye.com/myth-of-sarcoplasmic-versus-myofibrillar-hypertrophy/
http://www.rdlfitness.com/sarcoplasmic-vs-myofibrillar-hypertrophy/

There's also this which might offer insight if you're willing to take the time to read it (I'm not):
https://www.strongerbyscience.com/sarcoplasmic-vs-myofibrillar-hypertrophy/

Thanks for the links! I am aware that almost all literature just measure hypertrophy and possibly pennation angle and can only draw conclusions about absolute size. As I have very little interest in hypertrophy an sich I am not at all up to date on the hypothesis, but it might be high time to lear. Do you know of any recent review on the topic in a peer reviewed journal?

[petejh]

Relevant to the topic and interesting.. High levels of antioxidants possibly hinder muscle repair / muscle growth

https://examine.com/nutrition/antioxidants-muscle-building/?ck_subscriber_id=100258320