Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
As training intensity decreased below 50% 1RM, the type I fibers eventually outgrew the
IIs, but the rate of growth in this range was still nowhere near what was achieved at
higher intensities, regardless of fiber type. After reading a study like this, not much would
change in our training recommendations, but there are limits to the type of analysis
(regression) performed by Fry (2).
The biggest limitation is that there just weren't that many low-intensity training studies
out there to compare (2, 3), and a paucity of any that directly compared high-intensity
against low intensity training while accounting for growth of the different fiber types.
Add to that recent evidence on the growth rates of muscle fibers in response to differing
training intensities (1) and you'll soon see that our type I fibers are capable of more than
we give them credit for.
between high and low intensity conditions tend to favor high-intensity training for both
fiber-type specific and overall muscle growth (10,11). Those that don't match the work
performed between conditions find equivalent results across training intensities.
Ultimately, the idea that we've short-changed the growth potential of type I fibers (and
the ability of low-intensity training to stimulate hypertrophy) depends on the argument
that, a) hypertrophy requires a certain minimum of time-under-tension that varies based
on training intensity; and, b) this time-under-tension is greater for type I than II fibers.
Burd et al. (12), while not testing any fiber-type specific effects, compared the acute
protein synthetic response to four sets at three training conditions 90% 1RM to failure;
30% 1RM so that total work was equivalent to the 90% 1RM condition; and 30% 1RM to
failure.
The protein synthetic response differed slightly in time-course, but was generally similar
between the failure conditions, regardless of intensity. However, muscle protein synthesis
in the 30% 1RM work-matched condition which had substantially less total time-undertension than the 30% 1RM to failure was approximately half that of the other two
conditions.
Bottom line: While the protein synthetic response to a single training session may not be
predictive of the adaptations, the fact that two studies have shown comparable
hypertrophy when low-intensity training is taken to failure lends further support to this
idea (1,6).
weights they crave, while providing your type I fibers the extended time-under-tension
they deserve.